Posted on 01/08/2013 10:59:00 AM PST by Kaslin
Forty-odd (exceedingly odd, I might add) years ago, who would have envisioned a national war against drugs? Nobody took drugs -- nobody you knew, nobody but jazz musicians and funny foreign folk. Then, after a while, it came to seem that everybody did. Drugs became a new front in the war on an old social culture that was taking hard licks aplenty in those days.
I still don't understand why people take drugs. Can't they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon? On the other hand, as Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy argue, in a lucid piece for the Wall Street Journal's Review section, prison populations have quintupled since 1980, in large degree thanks to laws meant to decrease drug usage by prohibiting it; 50,000 Mexicans may have died since 2006 in their country's war against traffickers, and addiction has probably increased.
Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics, and Murphy, a University of Chicago colleague, argue for putting decriminalization of drugs on the table for national consideration. The federal war on drugs, which commenced in 1971, was supposed to discourage use by punishing the sale and consumption of drugs. It hasn't worked quite that way.
"[T]he harder governments push the fight," the two argue, "the higher drug prices become to compensate the greater risks. That leads to larger profits for traffickers who avoid being punished." It can likewise lead "dealers to respond with higher levels of violence and corruption." In the meantime, Becker and Murphy point out, various states have decriminalized marijuana use or softened enforcement of existing prohibitions. Barely two months ago, voters in Colorado and Washington made their own jurisdictions hospitable to the friendly consumption of a joint.
The two economists say full decriminalization of drugs would, among other things, "lower drug prices, reduce the role of criminals in producing and selling drugs, improve many inner-city neighborhoods, [and] encourage more minority students in the U.S. to finish high school." To the Journal's question, "Have we lost the war on drugs?" 89.8 percent of readers replied, "Yes."
One isn't deeply surprised to hear it. National tides seem presently to be running in favor of abortion and gay marriage -- two more elements of the culture wars that began, contemporaneously, with the battle for the right to puff pot. Swimming against powerful tides is no politician's idea of a participatory sport. Conceivably, armed with practical (i.e., $$$$$$) reasons for decriminalizing drugs, advocates of such a policy course will prevail. We can then sit around wondering what all the fuss was about.
What it was about -- you had to have been there to remember now -- was the defense of cultural inhibitions. Sounds awful, doesn't it?
As the counterculture saw things, inhibitions -- voluntary, self-imposed restraints -- dammed up self-expression, self-realization. They dammed up a lot more than that, in truth: much of it in serious need of restraint and prevention.
The old pre-1960s culture assigned a higher role to the head than to the heart. Veneration of instincts risked the overthrow of social guardrails that inhibited bad, harmful and anti-social impulses. The drug culture that began in the '60s elevated to general popularity various practices, modes, devices, and so forth that moved instinct -- bad or good, who cared? -- to the top of the scale of values. There was a recklessness about the enterprise -- do whatever turns you on, man! -- incompatible with sober thought: which was fine with an era that had had it, frankly, with sober thought.
Drugs are very much a part of our time and culture, which is why the war on drugs looks more and more like a losing proposition. The point compellingly advanced by Becker and Murphy may win out over the next decade. If so, the drug gangs may disappear, the prisons disgorge tens of thousands. Will things in general be as good as they might have been had the culture walked a different path 40 years ago -- the path of civilized "inhibition"? Ah. We get down here to brass tacks.
After a long life of consideration, I do not believe weed should be legal.
Sorry that the concept offends you. I how you people are with weed. It is your life. Sorry, I just can’t agree with it.
Huh? Is “duh” supposed to be drug speak, or something? I thought a simple question deserved a simple answer, and whoever asks such a question should be shamed a bit, unless it was rhetorical.
It doesn’t offend me. Well, the War on Drugs does, but not that you in particular support it. You seem to miss the point of my post, which was to point out that you are maybe as stuck to your opinion as I am mine, though somehow only I’m a jihadist. It has nothing to do with how considered is your opinion, for how would you know how considered is mine?
If weed is my life, which is funny because I’ve never smoked it (though I have used drugs illegally before; not habitually), does that make unwarranted searches and seizures, assassination of innocent dogs, and spending the gross domestic products of several small to medium countries on failing to save people from bad habits yours?
I do not, in any way, believe you have not used weed. That is a terrible failing of libertarian social leftist druggies. They act like they fight for something, but no quite.. Really wrecks their arguments in the end.
Considering the war on drugs, how do you suppose a war on guns will turn out?
When someone accused me of not caring about the alleged dreadful consequences of wanting to roll back the welfare state, or of protecting the right to keep and bear arms, or of letting our allies stand on their own two feet, or whatever, I used to argue the case that my policy positions were actually better for people in the long run.
Now... aaaah, screw it. No, I don't care about the people who won't get welfare checks any more. No, I don't care about the people who get shot. No, I don't care about foreigners having to pay more taxes for defense. And, no, I don't care if some idiots want to abuse drugs and Uncle Nanny Sam doesn't stop them.
So you agree with the politicians who think that only the police and the military should have access to gunpowder?
Say that to my face. I dare you.
Illegal drugs and guns aren’t even in the same discussion. Moron.
Oh please If you don’t know, or won’t admit, the big gap in motivation then that says it all.
We lost the “War on (some) Drugs” when the 21st Amendment was ratified. That was proof that prohibitions do not work.
I suspect your self-admitted lack of experience with alcohol is reponsible for your mistaken beliefs.
There are PLENTY of people who drink to get messed up. They often drink themselves TO DEATH. Alcoholism is rampant, but we focus on other drugs because it’s convenient.
Almost any drug is capable of killing by overdose, but I’m unaware of any Marijuana overdoses. If it’s happened, I’d be curious to hear of it. Many marijuana users are extremely casual, not overdoing it (ala “Reefer Madness”).
Alcohol is no different and should no different treatment.
Limited government is a CONSERVATIVE agenda. I know of no Constitutional provision concerning what I put in my body.
Put it down and walk away. Now you're arguing with yourself -- clear evidence of incapacitation.
I have yet to meet a drug war supporter who lets the Constitution stand in the way of their agenda. At least the prohibitionists of the early 20th century had enough honor to pass an amendment.
Your concerns all seem to be premised on the idea that the government's role is to prevent people from making wrong decisions. Forget the prescriptions.
The price of drugs will fall tremendously but will level off at the price needed for intrepreneurs to supply them. There won't be enough profit to support drug gangs.
If you look at the faces of those arrested for meth addiction, I think you will conclude that the present system is not only not working, but is eroding the rest of our rights.
When is the last time you heard of a shoot-out over alcohol? In my case, not since the Untouchables TV series depicting Prohibition and the resulting gangsterism.
What is your answer to the question put to you in post #280 - 'Who do you think should be making them, according to your understanding of the Constitution?'
I was one of them until about 20 years ago.
I look back and cannot for the life of me even attempt to justify my support for that lost cause.
“I suspect your self-admitted lack of experience with alcohol is reponsible for your mistaken beliefs.
There are PLENTY of people who drink to get messed up. They often drink themselves TO DEATH. Alcoholism is rampant, but we focus on other drugs because it’s convenient.”
My dear SJSample, you don’t know me. I’ve had experience with alcohol. I am just not defending my sacred drug of choice. I don’t care for it.
Of course any drug, including alcohol and Dayquil, can kill you by overdose.
Of course many people drink themselves to death.
But to Libertarians, if I say alcohol should be legal, they think I’m saying drunkenness should be legal. I’m not.
If you really think that people drop just the tiniest bit of acid and remain lucid, or whiff the tiniest bit of crack and stay grounded, or snort just a grain or two of Coke and can remain rational, YOU are the one who has a lack of experience!
These ideas may be technically possible. But they don’t happen. People use drugs to get HIGH.
People use alcohol and still stay fine and lucid, sometimes in slightly better condition; and SOME use it to get high. My mom has wine with dinner every night. She’s in her seventies. I’ve never seen her drunk in my life.
Therein lies the difference.
There is no drug that people use, besides alcohol, that they don’t use for the express purpose of getting stoned. I am not going to pretend there is.
“
“There are laws against public drunkenness”
As is just. But what’s your point?
“
My point is, one can drink alcohol, one or two or three drinks depending, and not be drunk.
But if you use Coke, or Pot, or Meth, or Bath Salts, or LSD - you get high.
I suppose it is technically possible to use such a little amount of any of the drugs above that you stay rational. But have you ever known anyone to do that? I have not.
Whereas the vast majority of those I know who drink, do not get drunk. I speak of my family and circle of friends.
I know there are lots of people who get drunk. I am not stupid.
But most people who had a drink today, did not get drunk.
You can’t say that about recreational drugs. Most people who used them today got wasted. Who takes so little of a drug that they stay with it? Nobody. If anybody did not get high off a recreational drug they chose today, it was a very unusual situation.
“As the link explains, “cleared” is basically FBI-ese for solved; my point is that the war on murder is going orders of magnitude better than the war on drugs. “
OK, so most murders are solved with convictions. Most drug sales charges are not.
Does that mean sales of recreational drugs should be legal? I don’t see why that fact would make it so. It may mean that we need to prosecute better; or we are arresting too many people; or we plea bargain away a lot of charges. But I don’t think, standing alone, that it’s a good reason to stop prosecuting drug dealing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.