Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[CAS700850]

Yeah, Old Dog, I wondered about that, too. But since I took two quarters of Econ, hated every minute of it, and ran away, not looking back, I figured I'd missed something along the way.

And, Old Dog, I don't think you were reading something into other people's posts. I think that there are some posters who find any intrusion on liberty too costly, even compared with the costs you refer to. These people are of the belief in the quote (my best attempt) "those who give up liberty for security have neither."

That is what makes it such an emotional issue...

 

[Gordon Fink]

[T]he fact remains that drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, family issues such as children displaced as a result of addiction, incarceration, dangerous home situations such as living in meth labs, domestic violence, etc. all burden our social services system, the incredibly overwhelmed health care system, and will continue to overwhelm law enforcement even after legalization.…

Drug-treatment costs will exist with or without decriminalization. In fact, funds currently spent on fruitless interdiction efforts would probably be more effectively utilized for treatment programs.

Children will continue to be displaced by addiction whether drugs are legal or illegal. With decriminalization, though, fewer would be displaced by the incarceration of parents on petty possession charges.

Dangerous methamphetamine labs are a direct result of drug-control laws. These labs would all but disappear after decriminalization.

Domestic violence is a problem that has existed throughout human history and is merely co-symptomatic with drug/alcohol abuse. Its frequency will decrease only when its victims stop tolerating it.

Drugs can indeed have powerful effects. This is why their use defies prohibition so overwhelmingly. Accordingly, if drugs are decriminalized or even legalized, their rate of abuse will not change significantly. For the most part, those who would abuse drugs are already doing so.

~G. Fink

 

[CAS700850]

Gordon,

I only want to make one point. You say that legalization/decriminalization will eliminate dangerous meth labs. Wouldn't the end of prohibition also have eliminated backyard stills? Yet, from time to time, we see one of those cases crop up...



Guess some people prefer drinking from a mason jar. And, probably, some will still want the homemade meth.

 

[Gordon Fink]

We see stills mostly in “dry” counties, but there will always be a few hobbyists. That’s why I said meth labs would all but disappear.

~G. Fink

 

[Old Dog]

Accordingly, if drugs are decriminalized or even legalized, their rate of abuse will not change significantly. For the most part, those who would abuse drugs are already doing so.

While we see this statement often, it simply does not bear serious scrutiny. There is available data that shows legalization would increase the use of currently prohibited drugs, and could even lead to a massive increase in substance abuse and addiction rates.

Drug-treatment costs will exist with or without decriminalization. In fact, funds currently spent on fruitless interdiction efforts would probably be more effectively utilized for treatment programs.

Yes, absolutely.

Children will continue to be displaced by addiction whether drugs are legal or illegal. With decriminalization, though, fewer would be displaced by the incarceration of parents on petty possession charges.

Not if addiction rates increase, and we'd also see a corresponding rise in the number of welfare families among those who'd have been incarcerated previously.

Dangerous methamphetamine labs are a direct result of drug-control laws. These labs would all but disappear after decriminalization.

Not necessarily. If legal drugs are priced too high, through excise taxes, for example, illegal traffickers will be able to undercut it. Additionally, one must presume that there will still be a market for this drug among young people, who would go to a black market when unable to procure the drug legally.

Though the price of freedom is as high as ever, its [perceived] value seems to be at an all time low.

HB, you are absolutely correct. What I've been talking about however, are the hidden costs, unintended consequences and sheer magnitude of the impact on society as a whole should drugs become legalized. Have I stated anywhere that I thought the war on drugs is really worth it? No. IF the WOD must be fought at the cost of our precious rights, obviously, no. Are we there yet? No, but the trends are indeed disturbing.

 

[oldfart]

I only want to make one point. You say that legalization/decriminalization will eliminate dangerous meth labs. Wouldn't the end of prohibition also have eliminated backyard stills? Yet, from time to time, we see one of those cases crop up...

Yeah, even I remember a few of those. My dad kept his working until he couldn't make it pay anymore. I'm sure there will be a few die-hard meth-chemists too, but certainly no where near the number we have now.
If we could just give up on the marijuana issue I really believe most people would settle for that and the meth dealers would eventually die out for lack of profit. Those that didn't give it up could and should be sent away for a long time. After all, there's be plenty of room in the prisons for them with the mj users out on the streets again.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, to really be effective, you'd have to cover the spectrum: You'd need a legal mellow, a legal upper, and a legal halucinagen. I think pot could handle the first, Modafinil or something like it ("Don't have to sleep" in a pill. ) the second, and... I've never been interested enough in halucinating to have an opinion about the third!

 

[Gordon Fink]

There is available data that shows legalization would increase the use of currently prohibited drugs, and could even lead to a massive increase in substance abuse and addiction rates.

And data to the contrary has also been cited. Other evidence suggests that many users wouldn’t continue on to the “hard” drugs.

[W]e’d also see a corresponding rise in the number of welfare families among those who’d have been incarcerated previously.

Though I also oppose the dole, I have no doubt that it is less expensive than incarceration.

If legal drugs are priced too high, through excise taxes, for example, illegal traffickers will be able to undercut it.

In this case, taxes would obviously be too high, but trafficking would still be less when compared to total prohibition. Is not a little problem better than a big problem?

Additionally, one must presume that there will still be a market for this drug among young people, who would go to a black market when unable to procure the drug legally.

Perhaps, but it is also well known that minors can currently procure illegal drugs more easily than legal alcohol, so usage rates might well be reduced.

Old Dog, if you don’t think the “war on drugs” is worth the effort, why do you keep arguing in its favor?

~G. Fink

 

[miko]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that the war on drugs is the cause of drug related crime or child neglect? I can understand the argument with respect to drug related crime (though I cannot agree with some of it), but I cannot fathom how the war on drugs is the cause of child neglect and the need for the foster care system.

No. Sorry I was not clear. I meant that any government intervention cause the opposite effect – and interventions intended to help children (labor laws, mandatory schooling, etc.) end up hurting them.

That aside, the drug war has a very specific effect on children. A lot of parents are jailed for possession. A lot of parents cannot get jobs due to prior drug-related convictions. A lot of parents turn to the life of crime of prostitution because low-wage job cannot support their expensive habit, that would not affect them otherwise.

Imagine Prozac and Effexor becoming outlawed – what havoc would it play with the lives and families of millions of people that are currently taking it?

So, sir, you are wrong. While the government does destroy families on occassion, it also helps many other families.

Half the children living in broken homes is not “many” for you? Policies causing the population to fail to reproduce at replacement is not big deal?

miko

 

[Old Dog]

Old Dog, if you don’t think the “war on drugs” is worth the effort, why do you keep arguing in its favor?

I'm not. But for some reason, most folks here seem to think that the only alternative to carrying on the "war on drugs" (as we know it now) is legalization of drugs.

 

[Sindawe]

I'm not. But for some reason, most folks here seem to think that the only alternative to carrying on the "war on drugs" (as we know it now) is legalization of drugs.

OK, your suggestings for not carrying on the WoSD as we know it?

Maybe stop enforcing the laws involved with such?

Simple confiscation of contraband when found, but no other penalties?

 

[Gordon Fink]

[F]or some reason, most folks here seem to think that the only alternative to carrying on the “war on drugs” (as we know it now) is legalization of drugs.

Any number of suggestions have been offered in addition to decriminalization or legalization of drugs. Just one example would be the diversion of some interdiction funds toward treatment programs and traditional law enforcement.

What alternatives would you suggest? Bombing the coca fields? Capital punishment for “dealers”? Even more propaganda?

~G. Fink

 

[mercedesrules]

You say that legalization/decriminalization will eliminate dangerous meth labs. Wouldn't the end of prohibition also have eliminated backyard stills? Yet, from time to time, we see one of those cases crop up...

"Moonshining" was/is to evade taxation - "revenuers".

That's why when drugs are re-legalized they shouldn't be taxed either. If they were to be, critics would still point to private producers and whine, "See, we told you there would still be backyard meth labs."

All drugs should be sold over-the-counter and not taxed - a completely free market.

Side note: "Drug lords" are vilified but NASCAR drivers (former moonshiners) are worshipped.

 

[publius]

Graystar: When booze was prohibited the only crimes to come of it were running it and drinking it.

Perhaps you missed the post in which I quoted the ATF's own history page as saying that gangland violence caused by alcohol prohibition led to the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act. I actually agree with them on that.

Old Dog: If one wants to deny that drug abuse drives some of America’s most costly social problems (domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitus C, homelessness), fine.

Yes, I want to deny that cannabis abuse drives those things, or did you get tired of talking about that half of the drug war already? Because I was still kind of hoping you had more than talk when it came to studies about cannabis use in the Netherlands. You said that their levels are not half of ours, but more equal to ours, which would imply that instead of being harmful, cannabis prohibition is merely worthless. I doubt it. I still believe the stats I posted, which show it to be harmful.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Old Dog,

Ok, if you're not in favor of the WoD but you don't think legalization is good then what do you recommend? We had far more problems under prohibition than we had after we repealed it, which was essentially legalization. Alcohol abuse was a problem before prohibition, still one during it, and it remains one to this day, so what is the best way to approach it?

People will always have problems with booze so long as it's available, legal or not, and we woul be foolish to view them in a terminating manner (victory as a result of "war"), so how can we mitigate the damage that will certainly result?

I don't think throwing alcoholics in jail is productive for them or society, the same hol true with drug addicts.

 

[Old Dog]

OK, your suggestings for not carrying on the WoSD as we know it?

Good question. And many more questions need to be answered, or at least put in order of priority before we can logically alter how we're waging the war on drugs. Because, as displayed wonderfully by this very thread, it's virtually impossible to achieve consensus as to how to best deal with drug issues. First of all, any movement toward legalization of drugs cannot possibly start without a complete overhaul of the welfare and public assistance programs in this country. This would take years, and be something guaranteed to exacerbate already gridlocked legislation in ineffective state and national legislative bodies.
- Is it hypocritical to even begin dealing with drug issues without changing how we educate our youngsters about alcohol, and perhaps looking to change how we deal with alcohol abuse? It is common knowledge that alcohol (100,000 annual deaths) and tobacco (360,000 annual deaths) far exceed the illegal drugs as sources of death, disease, and dysfunction in the U.S... Prohibition of these is impossible, as we've already learned.
- What's our top priority? Drug use by children?
- What do we do about marijuana? As it may well be a benign enough substance to consider at the least decriminalization, should be simply concentrate first on the harder drugs?
- Is the best plan high taxes and high prices on legal drugs in order to limit availability and use, or does that foster competition by a black market (already well in place)?
- What about public use of drugs versus private use of drugs at home?
- What measures distinguish between drug consumption and drug impairment? When does it become a law enforcement issue (i.e., impaired driving, public intoxication)? Should we treat it the same as alcohol?
- Do we even worry about occasional use, i.e., the weekend or social potsmoker or cokesnorter?

Any number of suggestions have been offered in addition to decriminalization or legalization of drugs. Just one example would be the diversion of some interdiction funds toward treatment programs and traditional law enforcement

Yes, and I mentioned that in post #148:

Obviously, funds should be diverted from some of the current, more esoteric law enforcement efforts (that have shown no benefits or long-term results) into education, treatment and diversion programs.

What it boils down to is, can the government continue to prohibit use of certain illicit substances and, at the same time, respect the value of individual liberty and responsibility? Most of you say no.

Ok, if you're not in favor of the WoD but you don't think legalization is good then what do you recommend? We had far more problems under prohibition than we had after we repealed it, which was essentially legalization. Alcohol abuse was a problem before prohibition, still one during it, and it remains one to this day, so what is the best way to approach it?

I'd bet my next several paychecks that no member of this forum is in favor of additional restrictions on sale and use of alcoholic beverages in this country. But, as I asked: is it hypocritical to even begin dealing with drug issues without changing how we educate our youngsters about alcohol, and perhaps looking to change how we deal with alcohol abuse? There are essayists out there who claim that our society spends more, on an annual basis, regulating alcohol sales and dealing with the overall effects of alcohol abuse and addiction, than we do fighting the war on drugs.

Yes, I want to deny that cannabis abuse drives those things, or did you get tired of talking about that half of the drug war already?

Publius, let's get past your fixation on the cannabis aspect of the drug scene.

Because I was still kind of hoping you had more than talk when it came to studies about cannabis use in the Netherlands. You said that their levels are not half of ours, but more equal to ours, which would imply that instead of being harmful, cannabis prohibition is merely worthless. I doubt it. I still believe the stats I posted, which show it to be harmful.

First, have you seen Robert MacCoun's article on "American Distortion of Dutch Drug Statistics?" (I'm sure you have.) He points out that (1) comparisons are easy to make in support of either side, even using his own data from his 1997 research paper and (2) comparisons are really pretty useless to try and prove a case either way (due to the way the data can be interpreted). But you really need to refer to MacCoun's 2001 article
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123 which is "Evaluating Current Cannabis Regimes" (British Journal of Psychiatry, RCP, 2001, 178:123-128; he and Peter Reuter draw some interesting conclusions. Finally, most independent researchers point out that it's virtually impossible to compare one nation's legalized market, hence easily measurable usage rates, with another nation's underground, illegal market, thus impossible to accurately determine usage rates.

 

[javafiend]

Publius, in your point-by-point dissection of my posts, I think you've somehow missed the main thrust of my thesis, which is simply that, with legalization of drugs, we would be trading in one set of massive bureaucracies and huge costs for another.

That's merely your conjecture. Let's look at the real world. Examine our own history and you will see that the most effective drug law we ever passed was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1905. Simply requiring that the ingredients be listed on the label correlates with derivatives of hemp, coca and opium.

Let's look at how other countries have enacted decriminalization. Has decriminalization led to a nation of zombies, explosive crime rates, or "massive bureacracies and huge costs" in in Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands? I've been to the Netherlands and Switzerland, and let me tell you that the streets are far safer than here in Houston. It's completely obvious the moment you step off the train.

You will no doubt notice, if you check the recent studies, that there are those who've found that rate of marijuana use among Dutch youth is close to what it is in the U.S.

And your evidence for this is...?

Sure can't argue that, but this thread is on the War on Drugs, not the War on Alcohol ...

Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it is not working with the other drugs.

You don’t see alcoholics committing violent crimes to get money to buy booze.

That's because a dose of alcohol or tobacco in the free market is so much less than a dose of coca or opium in the current blackmarket. See this article on black market economics.

If you analyse the economics of drug prohibition, you will see how drug prohibition functions more or less as a sort of price-support system for drug traffickers.

If tobacco were banned, you'd see the creation of a black market in cigarettes, and a tremendous rise in price. Legitimate businessmen would leave the market, but organized crime would enter to supply the demand and reap the incredible profits. You'd see tobacco cartels and street gangs organized around growing, transporting and selling it. You'd see turf wars. You'd see addicts commit property crimes in order to obtain money for a fix. Female addicts (and some male addicts) would engage in prostitution to get money to buy tobacco. Systematic corruption of law enforcement would be widespread and immeasureable. And you'd see all the tobacco warriors point to the ensuing chaos created by *their* own policy as proof that the war on the demon tobacco is justified. "See all this tobacco-related crime! We told you tobacco was evil!" And the F-troop would rejoice at the prospects of a greater budget, more power, etc. Mutatis mutandis, it would likewise be a massive and immoral failure a la the current drug war.

Yes, I did. So why is it a Schedule 1 drug, and why does it occupy almost half of our drug war resources?

Excellent point. Smoke too much hemp and you will go to sleep. Drink too much booze and you will die. But which one is legal? And by the way, where's the sense in banning something that grows wild? What are you saying? That God made a mistake?

America's decades-long "war on drugs" essentially benefits only two classes of people: professional anti-drug advocates and drug lords.

Further reading: Smoke and Mirrors : The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure by Dan Baum, reporter at The Wall Street Journal.

Drug Crazy : How We Got into This Mess and How We Can Get Out by Mike Gray.

Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs by Judge James P. Gray.

 

[Crosshair]

Gordon Fink

Perhaps, but it is also well known that minors can currently procure illegal drugs more easily than legal alcohol, so usage rates might well be reduced.

I can agree with you there. In my High School one could get anything. The school pot head sold burned CD's for $5 a pop. The guy who was alway's in detention sold alcohol DURING detention, $10 got you a 7-Up or Mountain Dew bottle of watered down booze and a pack of tic tacks. The pot dealer was the guy who was alway's sleeping in the library, he had some Magic Mushrooms a few times though I never tried them. Never looked for the hard stuff, though there was soposed to be a guy that sold Coke and Angel Dust in the locker rooms.

 

[White Horseradish]

Funny. Pages and pages of posts, yet nobody has come up with an answer to a simple question I asked.

What good has come from the WoD?

 

[publius]

What do we do about marijuana? As it may well be a benign enough substance to consider at the least decriminalization, should be simply concentrate first on the harder drugs?

Gee, if learning to fly, should I try a single engine plane with fixed landing gear, or go straight for the 4 engine jet?

You asked earlier for a plan which would work. My plan would be: treat cannabis like alcohol. People can homebrew beer. Let them homegrow cannabis. If they want to open a brewery and sell to the public, make them get a license, operate from an approved location, carry insurance, not sell to minors, etc. If they want to sell cannabis to the public, similar rules apply.

I think by trying this idea out on a safer and more widely accepted substance, and one for which even you don't seem willing to argue in support of your points about abusive relationships, addiction, etc., we could learn valuable lessons about whether law enforcement costs go up or down, whether welfare dependency, abuse, addiction, or any of the other indicators go up or down, whether asset forfeiture proceeds go up or down, etc.

By the way, regarding your assertion that drugs drive all kinds of evils in society, I called you on it, and you simply said:

Publius, let's get past your fixation on the cannabis aspect of the drug scene.

Well, it's not the cannabis aspect of the drug scene I can't get past. It's the cannabis HALF of the drug WAR I can't get past. We spend almost half our prohibition resources on ONE drug, and it's the one that it clearly makes the most sense to legalize. I'll get past it when the drug warriors do. I don't want to talk about the other half of the drug war until then.

 

[Gordon Fink]

What good has come from the WoD?

I think beerslurpy answered your question back on the first page.

From a statist’s perspective, it keeps a lot of “undesirables” in prison and lends “good” reasons for dismantling that inconvenient Bill of Rights.

~G. Fink

 

[rhubarb]

Is the WoA really worth it?

Five charged in connection with shooting
August 19,2005
Cari Hammerstrom
The Monitor

McALLEN — Five men were charged Thursday in connection with the Monday shooting that left at least one person injured and many residents shocked in a quiet North McAllen neighborhood after loads of alcoholic beverages were pulled from one of the homes.

Alcohol officers removed approximately 1,200 bottles of beer and liquor from the residence at 6513 N. 17th St., which police believe was used as a stash house. The bottles of booze filled two heavy-duty truck beds.

Search warrants executed Tuesday at a residence just outside of Alamo led investigators to the five suspects charged Thursday.

They are Luis Fernando Reyes, 17; Nery Gonzalez Jr., 17; Victor Gomez, 20; Juan Rodriguez Martinez Jr., 30; and Mario Alberto Mendoza Chacon, 27.

Each man was charged with one count of engaging in organized criminal activity, a first-degree felony, and with one count of burglary of habitation with intent to commit a felony, also a first-degree felony. Each of the charges could be punishable by five years to life in prison, in combination with a fine of up to $10,000. The men’s bonds were set at $1 million each.

Martinez was additionally charged with the misdemeanors of tampering with government records and failure to identify. These two charges carry a $6,000 bond.

At approximately 4:20 p.m. Monday, police believe the five suspects were part of a group that forcibly entered the house by taking a sledgehammer to the front door. Inside, gunfire may have been exchanged. Juan Carlos Real, who was staying at the house — at least on the day of the shooting — was wounded.

Police say one of the burglary suspects, Ramon Mendez, may have been wounded as well. He escaped on foot, police say. Police are still looking for Mendez, who was not charged Thursday, and the investigation is still ongoing, said Sgt. Joel Morales, spokesman for the McAllen Police Department.

http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProce...lates/Details.cfm&StoryID=8707&Section=Valley

I don't know about y'all, but I'm sick and tired of these booze smugglers running wild in our streets. We need to put our foot down and declare a War on Alcohol.

There are those that suggest that by legalizing it, we would avoid all the associated crime and police jackbootery, but that's just the opposite of what's right. We need to come down hard on these criminals who traffic in the evil sauce.

This is a satirical post. I intentionally amended the article to make the point that this kind of crime is not associated with those who deal in alcohol. That is because it is legal. If marijuana were legal, there would not be armed gangs having shootouts over pot in otherwise quiet neighborhoods. I feel that a disclaimer is necessary when making a satirical post. Some people just don't get it.

As an aside, go to the article and look at those sad sacks. Think about what will happen when your THRer who is well trained and practices regularly responds with his concealed weapon to an attack by one of these fellows.

 

[White Horseradish]

I was rereading some of the stuff here and something occurred to me.

While we see this statement often, it simply does not bear serious scrutiny. There is available data that shows legalization would increase the use of currently prohibited drugs, and could even lead to a massive increase in substance abuse and addiction rates.

Finally, using drug use statistics of any country where drug use is open and legal, thus easily monitored and quantified by researchers, and comparing the statistics to drug use in a country where use is primarily underground, is simply not a valid statistical comparison.

How can you say that use will increase if you can't get data on what it is now?

 

[publius]

First, have you seen Robert MacCoun's article on "American Distortion of Dutch Drug Statistics?" (I'm sure you have.)

No, I haven't.

But you really need to refer to MacCoun's 2001 article
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123 which is "Evaluating Current Cannabis Regimes" (British Journal of Psychiatry, RCP, 2001, 178:123-128; he and Peter Reuter draw some interesting conclusions.

Yes, they do. Thanks for the reference.
I partially agree with their conclusions.

* The elimination or steep reduction in penalties for cannabis possession does not appear to influence cannabis prevalence.
* Legal or quasi-legal commercial sales of cannabis may produce significant increases in cannabis prevalence.

 

[Graystar]

Perhaps you missed the post in which I quoted the ATF's own history page as saying that gangland violence caused by alcohol prohibition led to the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act. I actually agree with them on that.

This is common knowledge among forum members. But you’ve missed *my* point...that the violence was caused by criminal organizations that already existed. Your typical honest hard-working citizen did go get an automatic weapon and start killing cops simply because he couldn’t get a drink.

But addicting drugs *do* cause honest hard-working citizens to do things they wouldn’t have done otherwise. This is the primary difference between alcohol and drugs like heroin and meth. Even if these drugs were legal, the crime associated with drug use would still exist and would expand.