End the War on Drugs Now

American Thinker ^ | March 26, 2011 | Zbigniew Mazurak

[neverdem]

Despite federal and state expenditures of billions of dollars per year, severe punishments, and frequent unconstitutional raids on private homes, the War On Drugs is a failure.  Since this futile war began, the number of drug users in the US has grown rather than shrink, and the rate of drug usage has grown along with the profits of drug cartels.  America's Southern border has become very dangerous as a result of the War, and Mexico is a failing state because wealthy, well-armed drug cartels can afford to fight a regular war in that country and bribe (or assassinate) its officials.

By any objective measure, the War On Drugs is a disastrous failure. It's time to end this madness now.

The War began in 1970, when President Nixon declared it and the Congress passed various legislation outlawing drugs (even relatively harmless ones such as marijuana).  The Congress didn't even bother to change the Constitution (as it did when it banned alcohol beverages), and simply ignored the strict limits the Constitution imposed on it.

Since then, federal and state authorities have been arresting and prosecuting just about anyone they caught possessing, growing, using, or selling drugs.  It doesn't matter to them that to date, no one has died because of ingesting marijuana, while thousands of people die every die around the world as a result of overuse of alcohol and smoking tobacco.  Moreover, alcoholics and tobacco smokers harm not only themselves, but also everyone else in their orbit.

Even by the 1980s, there were signs that the punitive policies were failing. Nonetheless, Washington politicians didn't end the War - they doubled on it.

They ignored the lessons of the Prohibition Era, when alcohol prohibition drove distillers underground, but did not eliminate alcohol from the private market.  Even worse, the alcohol market was monopolized by gangs, including the Mafia, making Al Capone a very wealthy man.  These gangs were terrorizing adults on streets everyday, and drive-by shootings were common. The same dismal results occurred everywhere where prohibition of alcohol (or drugs) has been tried, including Russia under Gorbachyov.  Al Capone opposed the 21^st Amendment (which ended the Prohibition), because it opened the door to the legalization of alcohol, thus creating numerous legal, law-abiding competitors for him.  Capone went to jail in 1932, before Prohibition ended, but its end radically decreased his Mafia's annual income.

What are the results of the War on Drugs?

A million innocent Americans are sitting in  prisons right now solely because they've been caught storing, buying or using drugs.  A million people who haven't harmed anyone else. Americans prisons are overcrowded as a result.

Taxpayers dollars and limited police resources are being squandered on arresting people who may have harmed themselves but haven't harmed anyone else, rather than be used chasing truly dangerous criminals.

America's Southern border is dangerous and de facto governed by drug cartels, which are also present in hundreds of American cities, even NYC, Chicago, Tacoma, and Anchorage.

Drug gangs have high annual incomes, and therefore can afford to buy lethal weapons, bribe officials, and build villas for their leaders.  This income is not taxed.

Meanwhile, Americans who want to buy drugs for recreational (or even medical) purposes are forced to buy them from these gangs rather than pharmacies.  These drug cartels also supply weapons to other criminal organizations, and could sell them to terrorists.

During the last two decades, a few states, such as California, have legalized medical marijuana and proposed to legalize recreational weed.  Government officials and cops, eager to protect their bloated bureaucracies and budgets as well as their police prerogatives, opposed these initiatives.  Sometimes these policies were approved by voters, sometimes not. But whenever they came up for a vote, government officials said they would disregard the result (i.e. the people's verdict) and enforce federal drug laws anyway.

Such was the case with the 2010 Proposition #19 in California.  Its citizens submitted a proposal to legalize marijuana (at least for medicinal purposes) in a referendum, Washington politicians arrogantly promised to disregard the results before such referendums occurred, and discredited establishment politicians, led by George Shultz (a man who shouldn't even dare to speak publicly) and Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, spoke out against such proposals.  They, like all other liberals, believe that the government should decide for private citizens what's best for them, like a nanny state; that adults are too stupid to decide for them. Proposition #19 failed.  Luckily, Arizona voters passed a similar measure, Proposition #203.

What if the War on Drugs is ended and drugs are legalized?

The US prison population would immediately shrink by a million people, thus stripping dictators around the world of the argument that the US incarceration rate is.  Prison expenditures would decrease significantly.  There would now be enough cells to lock up all truly dangerous criminals, rather than people who may be harming themselves but aren't doing harm to anyone else.

Annual federal expenditures would shrink by at least $44 billion and, if drugs are taxed, annual federal revenue would grow by $33 billion.  States' coffers could be similarly filled with revenue and state expenses would shrink.

Drug gangs would lose their source of income and would cease being able to buy weapons, bribe officials with big money, and assassinate people.  They would stop being able to terrorize people on the streets, travelers on America's borders, or the country of Mexico.

Police resources would be allocated to real priorities (i.e. fighting dangerous criminals), and courts' dockets would be significantly reduced.

Truly ill people who need medical marijuana (which can be medically beneficial) would be able to buy (or grow) it legally, with doctors' prescriptions, and youngsters who want to use it for recreational purposes could do so too; they wouldn't need to fear overzealous cops and punishment that would make these decent people into criminals.

Finally, the size, scope, budget and prerogatives of the federal government would be significantly decreased.  That is also the real reason why politicians and bureaucrats oppose drug legalization.  They don't want to see the federal government and its prerogatives reduced.  They are addicted to it, and addiction to governing is more dangerous than addiction to drugs.  They couldn't care less whether the American people live healthy lifestyles or not (and to be honest, it's none of their business).  They just want to micromanage Americans and their lifestyles.

It's time to end the War on Drugs.  It's not a conservative policy, its results are dismal, its costly, and it has made America's drug problem worse, not better.

[neverdem]

Claims about the danger of second hand tobacco smoke are rather dubious, IMHO. I can accept the reports of an increased risk of upper respiratory infections, but not much else.

One of the kickers about the War On Some Drugs, it was black politicos that advocated much greater penalties for crack than regular cocaine. Now, they're whining that the differences in sentencing, saying it's racist!

[hoosierham]

The WOD has been a terrible mistake ,but the police and petty tyrants are addicted to the power and money.Don’t expect it to end.

[Wildbill22]

I have to agree. The War On Drugs is a total failure, and it is probably unconstitutional as well if we really look at it. It is the same old ‘road to hell paved with good intentions’.

[count-your-change]

If drugs were largely legal in the U.S. how would Mexico and Canada be forced to bring their drug laws into alignment with the U.S. laws?

[jospehm20]

Yep.

[ScottinVA]

So.... let anyone access whatever they want, regardless of situation?

[Maurice Tift]

   So.... let anyone access whatever they want, regardless of situation?

  It would be like living in a free country.

[TigersEye]

I mentioned to some friends of mine that the bad economy had caused most of the illegal aliens to leave town in the last two years. They replied; "No, the real reason they left is because CO has Medical Marijuana now and they can't sell their Mexican pot anymore. That's how most of them were making money."

It made sense. Anyone can get pot now in smokeable or edible forms and the quality is far better. If you get your MM card you can grow your own. I kind of wondered because a lot of the Mexicans worked in restaurants and motels, apart from construction, and they haven't laid anyone off.

So there was one problem solved for this town.

[Berlin_Freeper]

How much of a loser can a person be when alcohol is not enough for them?

[Boogieman]

I’m in agreement, the policy is a failure, and the cure is worse than the disease. Refreshing to see this on American Thinker!

Personally, I think this is an issue that more GOP candidates, especially those in battleground states, might want to think about. There’s a majority of Americans who are looking at these issues a lot more realistically than the government or either party does, and we might be able to pick up some votes on this.

I know a lot of Conservatives disagree and think this would be weakening our stance on social issues, but if the policy can’t work in reality, we are doing no favor to Conservative principles by pursuing it so doggedly. Isn’t it the left who pursue policies based on their desires and not based on pragmatism?

Another thing that I think makes this a true Conservative issue is the personal responsiblity angle. If we believe that citizens in general are trustworthy enough to own deadly weapons, then what sense does it make to treat people like children when it comes to drugs?

[Boogieman]

“How much of a loser can a person be when alcohol is not enough for them?”

Maybe some people don’t want to get cirrhosis, hepatitis, alcohol poisoning, or the dreaded testicular atrophy, among other alcohol-related diseases.

Personally, I’d say the guy gunning for testicular atrophy might be a loser, but that’s just me :)

[neverdem]

So.... let anyone access whatever they want, regardless of situation?

I'd let natural stuff be legal, but taxed, and 18 years old would apply. 21 could be the cutoff, the same as alcohol. The DEA doesn't have to exist. There's no reason for extra Constitutional exceptions for them or other petty tyrants.

[Boogieman]

“If drugs were largely legal in the U.S. how would Mexico and Canada be forced to bring their drug laws into alignment with the U.S. laws?”

Well, the drug laws are already much more permissive generally in Canada. They’re more like some European states in that regard. As for Mexico, is that a joke? They are teetering on the edge of becoming a narco-state right now, primarily because of our drug laws and open border policy. I doubt they would be too distressed if we took the main source of income away from the cartels.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Don't drink too much alcohol and make yourself ill?

People advancing the drug culture are obviously slaves to a life style of drug consumption. Probably comparable to alcoholics. There is definitely something wrong there.

A line has been drawn. Why can't alcohol be enough?

This is about what kind of society you want your children to grow up in.

[TigersEye]

One where they make their own choices and deal with the consequences.

[Wildbill22]

“’So.... let anyone access whatever they want, regardless of situation?’

It would be like living in a free country.”

Beautiful answer. LOL. Part of the experience of freedom is to only answer to yourself for your choices, where they don’t directly hurt another anyway.

It does have to do with what kind of society we want. The choice isn’t about living with even more drug addicts, because I believe those who do drugs will do them regardless, and some are even attracted to the forbidden.

The choice is about freedom and personal responsibility, and neither of those things a government can regulate.

[PLMerite]

“It would be like living in a free country.”

It would be like living in a free country if the taxpayers weren’t forced to pick up the tab for “education,” “treatment,” “rehabilitation,” “welfare,” etc.

If you can do the drugs, you can fulfill your responsibilities.

Also, let employers drug test employees and terminate failures.

Try to rob me to support your habits at your mortal peril.

[Wildbill22]

DEA and even the FDA. Heck we can’t afford them anyway and it might make our medical industry more efficient and cheaper. We have to get away from the idea of the “nanny state” which tries to protect us from our stupidity by taking away our freedoms.
Seatbelt laws, helmet laws on bicycles even, and yes even drug laws, even prescription drugs. They are all roadsigns on the road to hell paved with good intentions.

[TigersEye]

The choice isn’t about living with even more drug addicts, because I believe those who do drugs will do them regardless, and some are even attracted to the forbidden.

As the Soviet Union proved so well the more you try to control your citizens the more they fall into sloth, crime, drunkenness, drugs and apathy.

Now, can anyone think of a more recent example of a country where society is trending downwards while laws and regulations are proliferating to ridiculous nannystate levels?

[alexander_busek]

How much of a loser can a person be when alcohol is not enough for them?

Are you saying that alcohol should be "enough" to satisfy the sum total of a person's needs? What about the need for clothing, shelter, nourishment, companionship, etc.?

Oh! You actually meant "enough to meet their need for intoxication," right? Well, I'd leave that to the individual to decide for himself. "One man's meat is another man's poison," as they say. Or would you rather that the Nanny State decide what's best for you?

And as for being a "loser" - since when is that a crime, or even merely a condition requiring government intercession? And there are millions of alcoholics who don't touch other drugs who are likewise losers - as well as millions of tea-totallers who are also losers.

Regards,