The "War on Drugs" is dinosaur technology

Huffington POst ^ | 03/22/2015 | Johann Hari

[Yollopoliuhqui]

Nearly fifteen years ago, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with 1 percent of the population addicted to heroin. They had tried a drug war, and the problem just kept getting worse. So they decided to do something radically different. They resolved to decriminalize all drugs...

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You assume that this will stay restricted to drug dealers.

You seem confused. I advocate shooting drug dealers. Somehow "drug dealers" gets turned into "normal people" in your imagination.

[JimRed]

That’s murder.

Not murder; suicide by the drug users. They know the stuff has the potential to kill them, yet they continue to use it.

[gogeo]

drug use's only victim is the willing user...

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having the debate.

[ConservingFreedom]

drug use's only victim is the willing user, with any rights violations being those motivated by the War on Drugs. [underlined text omitted by gogeo]

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having the debate.

Who other than the user is victimized by drug use - as opposed to rights violations motivated by the War on Drugs, such as theft done to pay drug-war-inflated drug prices?

[gogeo]

I'll give you that in the War on Drugs, the cure has been proven to be worse than the disease.

To say that drug use affects no one but the actual user, however, is foolish. It's like saying that abortion is a "personal choice."

The rest of us are forced to choose the least odious of the alternatives.

[ConservingFreedom]

Murder violates the rights of the unwilling victim; drug use's only victim is the willing user, with any rights violations being those motivated by the War on Drugs.

I'll give you that in the War on Drugs, the cure has been proven to be worse than the disease.

On that we agree.

To say that drug use affects no one but the actual user

Not what I said - I said it violates nobody else's rights, which is the only proper object of government force.

[gogeo]

Oh, play your word games. Defend the right to commit suicide, but unless one plans to combust spontaneously, someone has to clean up the residue.

Residue comes in all forms. If Ozzy Osbourne weren't rich, for example, my tax dollars would be providing care. My tax dollars go to clean up meth labs, and pays for the care of crack babies. If I have to pay for cleanup, it's not a victimless 'crime.' If I have to pay for any part of it, then it's my business.

As I've said before, the War on Drugs has proven to be a failure. On the flip side, there's no problem we face that gets better with increased drug use. So it's no win, and I get to follow behind the party metaphorically speaking with a scoop shovel.

It doesn't matter what I think anyway because we're headed there. Fifty years from now it will be viewed as a foolish experiment. But, that's not your problem, right?

"Don't harsh my mellow, dude!!!"

[ConservingFreedom]

My tax dollars go to clean up meth labs,

Only because meth is illegal and thus unregulatable - notice how your tax dollars don't go to clean up moonshine stills.

and pays for the care of crack babies. If I have to pay for cleanup, it's not a victimless 'crime.'

If you and I have to pay for cleanup, it's the program and government imposing that requirement that's violating our rights. You and I pay for the cleanup of alcohol abuse, heavy tobacco use, and overeating ... are those acts therefore violations of our rights?