Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[publius]

But you’ve missed *my* point...that the violence was caused by criminal organizations that already existed.

Not so much that I missed it as that I don't believe it. Why were the criminal organizations NOT so violent before alcohol prohibition? Why did they revert to less violence after prohibition ended? The answer seems obvious to me: the existence of a lucractive, easily exploited black market makes existing criminal organizations more powerful and more violent.

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.

I'm just going to take a wild guess that you've never had family members who suffered from alcoholism. I have. None I've known killed any cops, but they did all kinds of antisocial and uncharacteristic things, and they were addicted.

 

[ksnecktieman]

We have a problem. As I see this problem we have a bunch of useless addicts that commit crimes to pay for their drugs. THE most popular of the crimes they commit is producing and selling drugs to maintain their habit. The risks are high, and the profit potential is even higher. The high risk of capture and imprisonment cause the high cost of drugs, and the high profit potential. The addict/dealer can stand on a street corner by our grade schools and give away a few samples, and create him self a market for his product. By doing so he creates a permanent market for his product, addicts a new generation, and ensures that he can sell enough to fund his addiction.

If we devalue his product he will not have a reason to provide samples to our children. I say, legalize it, and let the government manufacture it, or license it to be made and sold cheaply. I did not say attach a 300 percent sin tax on it. I did not say to support the price through regulation. If necessary, subsidize it, and GIVE it to anyone addicted. That would probably be cheaper than this unwinnable war in dollars, and in lives, and the next generation would not be exposed to it for monetary reasons.

The alternative is to leave things as they are, and continue loosing this expensive war in the next generations also.

 

[oldfart]

Found this on Freerepublic. The bold-face is my attempt to make a point.

Teens: More drugs in schools
Albany Democrat-Herald (NY) ^ | August 18, 2005


WASHINGTON (AP) — More teens are saying there are drugs in their schools, and those who have access to them are more likely to try them, said a Columbia University survey released today.

Twenty-eight percent of middle-school-student respondents reported that drugs are used, kept or sold at their schools, a 47 percent jump since 2002, according to the 10th annual teen survey by Columbia's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.

The number of high schoolers saying drugs are at their schools rose 41 percent in the last three years, to 62 percent, the survey said.

Twelve- to 17-year-olds who report that there are drugs in their schools are three times likelier to try marijuana and twice as likely to drink alcohol than teens who say their schools are drug free, the survey showed.

"Availability is the mother of use,'' said Joseph Califano Jr., the center's president. "We really are putting an enormous number of 12- to 17-year-olds at great risk.''

Most of the teens surveyed — 58 percent — said the legality of cigarettes has no effect on their decision to smoke or abstain, and 48 percent said the fact that marijuana is illegal doesn't affect whether they use or don't use the drug.

Meanwhile, the survey found teens who viewed drugs as morally wrong were significantly less likely to try them, as were those who felt their parents would be "extremely upset'' to discover drug use.

The report found that teens who confided in their parents were at much lower risk of drug abuse than teens who turn first to another adult.

"If this survey does anything, it really shouts to parents: You cannot outsource your responsibility to law enforcement or the schools,'' Califano said. "I think when parents feel as strongly about drugs in the schools as they do about asbestos in the schools, we'll start getting the drugs out of the schools.''
The survey also found that teens who say they watch three or more R-rated movies in a typical month — about 43 percent — are seven times likelier to smoke cigarettes and six times likelier to try alcohol than teens who do not watch R-rated movies.

The correlation between R-rated movie watching and the risk of substance-abuse remains even after controlling for age, the report said. This was the first time the annual survey asked about R-rated movies.

"There's no question the correlation is very strong and it obviously wants further study,'' Califano said.

The survey was conducted by phone and involved 1,000 randomly selected teens aged 12 to 17 years old and 829 parents. Twenty-six percent of the teens said someone nearby could hear their answers. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the teens and plus or minus 3.4 percentage point for the parents.

So what good are all the laws and enforcement doing?

 

[Art Eatman]

oldfart, it was hard enough for a single parent to raise a "good kid" back 40 and more years ago. Today's difficulties are a quantum jump above the past.

The active forces against quality parenting (Lordy, I hate that word!) are too much for most folks. I think in part of the content and presentation of TV and movies. Also, factor in the general lack of moral leadership from so many of the role models that aren't part of a kid's family...

Art

 

[Byron Quick]

Olddog,

It sounds as if your position might support the return of Prohibition. Run your equation on it.

I'm not saying that there will be no costs to drug legalization. I'm saying that many of the costs will decline and others will be unnecessary. One thing that could be thrown clear out of the equation is the budget of the DEA and vice squads clear across the nation Others would disappear with legalization. Such as children living in meth labs. Big pharmaceutical companies would destroy home meth labs economically.

Tell me, any liquor companies gotten into firefights, lately? Is organized crime still being financed by liquor sales? It's not? Wonder why? Organized crime is being financed by drug sales? Wonder why?

You can find many of your arguments and predictions used back at the time of the rancorous debate over the repeal of Prohibition. The predictions did not come true. Saying that does not claim or predict that there is no problem or costs with alcohol consumption or alcoholism. There is. However, look at what was spent to enforce Prohibition. Adjust for inflation to today's dollar. Contemplate the amount. Then contemplate the loss of rights endured due to various strategems used by the government to keep the law enforcement apparatus developed for Prohibition.

To judge from the experience of Prohibition...drug legalization would not regain any rights lost or infringed during the War on Some Drugs. Even if government legalizes drugs; it will keep the infringement of rights.

 

[mercedesrules]

it was hard enough for a single parent to raise a "good kid" back 40 and more years ago. Today's difficulties are a quantum jump above the past.

The active forces against quality parenting (Lordy, I hate that word!) are too much for most folks. I think in part of the content and presentation of TV and movies. Also, factor in the general lack of moral leadership from so many of the role models that aren't part of a kid's family...

40 or more years ago kids respected the law because the laws made more sense and the friendly police addressed actual crime: murder, assault, theft, robbery, burglary, arson, etc.

Now that the police are militarized and enforce mostly vice infractions, kids readily see that many of the police have turned cold, over-developed, over-armed, corrupt and dangerous. Not only are they not a "role model", they are "them" - the persons whose mission on earth seems to be to spoil kids' fun.

Also, to have virtue one must have choice. If every action is either mandatory or prohibited, where is free will and virtue - indeed, humanity, itself?

The state hates families and is the main "active force" for the current difficulty in raising a "good kid".

 

[Graystar]

Not so much that I missed it as that I don't believe it. Why were the criminal organizations NOT so violent before alcohol prohibition?

I never said they weren’t. Of course, with a new black market there would be gang wars to determine dominance. But again, the violence here was against other criminals...organized crime attacking organized crime.

I'm just going to take a wild guess that you've never had family members who suffered from alcoholism.

Well you guessed wrong. My step father drank himself to death (sclerosis of the liver.) And his alcoholism caused him to lose a good job. Still, he never turned to criminal activities.

I’m not saying that alcoholism never drives people to commit crime to support their habit. I’m saying that the rate of occurrence is so low that society is willing to put up with it. Just like we’re willing to put up with 40,000 dead from car accidents in order to keep driving our cars.

That’s not the case with addicting drugs. I seriously doubt that anyone here want his home broken into every other day by drug addicts. But that’s what happening in drug infested neighborhoods. It’s not the dealers committing the crimes...it’s the users.

 

[publius]

That’s not the case with addicting drugs. I seriously doubt that anyone here want his home broken into every other day by drug addicts.

What about the other half of the drug war? People aren't stealing to support cannabis addictions, at least not that I've heard about. Yet we arrest over 2,000 people every day in this country for cannabis (As of 2003, it's probably more now). That costs money. Processing them costs money. Prosecuting them costs money. Imprisoning them, or even supervising them on probation costs money. I don't want my wallet broken into every day by tax (and asset forfeiture) hungry politicians and cops fighting a futile war against a relatively benign drug.

 

[DMF]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=152534

 

[publius]

Hey, DMF's back! Hi DMF, I guess you missed it, but I had asked you a question back on page 7 regarding the ATF and DEA. Here it is:

Now that we've got them all named and categorized properly, what do you think of the actual Constitutional (?) source of their power?

Some call me hindered by dogma, but I don't believe the commerce clause was put there to create a federal regulatory state. How about you?

I read parts of the horrors of meth thread. Do you think that you drug warriors could fight that bit of the drug war more effectively if almost half the available resources did not go to the war on cannabis?

 

[Sindawe]

America's War on Some Drugs

Working daily to squash native enterprise and enrich Mexican gangsters.

Oklahoma finds Mexican meth filling lab-brewed void

Associated Press

TULSA, Okla. - Just when Oklahoma finally found a way to put its home-grown methamphetamine labs out of business, drug agents began finding more meth from Mexican cartels on the street.

Oklahoma's meth lab seizures have fallen 90 percent since April 2004, when it became the first state to ban over-the-counter sales of everyday cold and allergy medications that can be converted into methamphetamine in makeshift labs.

But at the same time, seizures of smokeable Mexican meth known as "crystal ice" rose nearly fivefold, from 384 cases in the 15 months before the law to 1,875 since.

Mexican cartel cell groups that traditionally focused on trafficking cocaine, heroin and marijuana have added methamphetamine to their supply, said Lonnie Wright, director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control.

Continues at: http://heraldnet.com/stories/05/08/18/100wir_okla001.cfm

 

[CAS700850]

A long ways back, White Horseradish asked "What good has come from the WoD?" And, here's an answer:

1. Improved semi-auto handguns. It wasn't until the WoD took off that revolvers began disappearing from teh holsters of LEOs around the country. Citing that they were outgunned by drugs dealers and gang members, LEO's began clamoring for improved semi-auto handguns. Which spilled over to the civilian market, thank you very much.

2. Improved drug treatment. At least here in Ohio, a substantial portion of the fines and forfeitues from drug cases goes to drug treatment programs. With the court ordering people into rehab, there's an ample supply. And, from what I've seen through cases I've seen in court, treatment seems to be working better for those who want the help.

Sorry, that's about all I can do...

 

[Gordon Fink]

I seriously doubt that anyone here want his home broken into every other day by drug addicts. But that’s what happening in drug infested neighborhoods. It’s not the dealers committing the crimes … it’s the users.

Because the price of drugs is artificially high due to prohibition! :banghead:

~G. Fink

 

[Old Dog]

Wow, took the weekend off and this thread still has legs. To respond to just one post --

It sounds as if your position might support the return of Prohibition. Run your equation on it.

No, I don't at all support the return of prohibition (alcohol). I am merely attempting to point out that, if our experience with alcohol is of any value, one should anticipate many of the same consequences with an end to prohibition of (presently illicit) drugs.

Our society at present is quite morally corrupt and so thoroughly dysfunctional in so many aspects, that aside from the quite real economic costs of legalization (which I've already tried to point out, to little avail, apparently), I'm not sure how anyone can truly believe taking away prohibitions on some presently controlled drugs will not result in severe consequences to our already economically devastated, overpopulated and crime-ridden uban areas, as well as many of our depressed rural regions.

Tell me, any liquor companies gotten into firefights, lately? Is organized crime still being financed by liquor sales? It's not? Wonder why? Organized crime is being financed by drug sales? Wonder why?

This is so very not applicable to the argument on the war on drugs. The societal costs of alcohol abuse and addiction have nothing to do with "liquor companies getting into firefights," as you well know.

 

[longrifleman]

The societal costs of alcohol abuse and addiction have nothing to do with "liquor companies getting into firefights," as you well know

If you define the societal costs only as the individual costs I might agree with you. When we add the violence of gangs and other traffickers fighting for turf and market share, the comparison to legal drug dealers not fighting in the streets is accurate.

To me one of the greatest incentives to ending at least most of the War on (some) Drugs is getting the dealers out of the black market and into the clutches of the lawyers.

 

[White Horseradish]

A long ways back, White Horseradish asked "What good has come from the WoD?" And, here's an answer:

1. Improved semi-auto handguns. It wasn't until the WoD took off that revolvers began disappearing from teh holsters of LEOs around the country. Citing that they were outgunned by drugs dealers and gang members, LEO's began clamoring for improved semi-auto handguns. Which spilled over to the civilian market, thank you very much.

2. Improved drug treatment. At least here in Ohio, a substantial portion of the fines and forfeitues from drug cases goes to drug treatment programs. With the court ordering people into rehab, there's an ample supply. And, from what I've seen through cases I've seen in court, treatment seems to be working better for those who want the help.

Sorry, that's about all I can do...

Pretty small return on the investment...

 

[CAS700850]

Well, that's all I could do in general terms. Personally, it got me an internship withthe U.S. Attorney's office with their drug task force, which in turn got my resume at the top of the list applying for this job out of law school. Now, it helps keep the job.

Now, don't think that's going to make anyone besides me real happy, but, it sure makes me appreciate it a bit more...

 

[Gordon Fink]

Our society at present is quite morally corrupt and so thoroughly dysfunctional in so many aspects.…

Isn’t this what the old dogs of every generation have said? Anyway, I would argue that much of this “moral corruption” in our era is caused by a society that tells its members that not only aren’t they responsible for their own actions but that they can’t be. That is exactly what prohibition does. We are telling ourselves that we lack the responsibility to make wise decisions on the use of drugs.

Of course, it won’t end there.…

~G. Fink

 

[publius]

that aside from the quite real economic costs of legalization (which I've already tried to point out, to little avail, apparently),

Perhaps it would help if the costs to which you refer were actually applicable to the half of the drug war which I think is the biggest, most harmful, waste of money, namely the war on cannabis.

What would be the "real economic costs" of cannabis legalization, in your view? The beginning of the savings would be not arresting hundreds of thousands of people every year, along with some tax revenue from the newly legal product. Which costs should we measure when talking about that half of the drug war?

If you don't think the cannabis half of the drug war is applicable to the other half, then how about answering my question to DMF, who is not really big on answering my questions? Would it be easier to fight the war on meth and heroin if the cops and bureaucrats and lawyers and prison wardens who are currently waging the cannabis war were suddenly free to do other things?

 

[Graystar]

Because the price of drugs is artificially high due to prohibition!

It doesn't matter how low the price is when you've got no money 'cause you can't hold a job and don't really care to get one.

 

[Glock Glockler]

It doesn't matter how low the price is when you've got no money 'cause you can't hold a job and don't really care to get one

Whoa, talk about stereotypes! So jut because someone uses drugs they automatically don't want to work? You' better tell that to several mortgage/stock brokers I know that do coke and put in 16 hours days because I don't think they realize that they're actually unemployed wastrels.

You should also tell that to some unambitous morons I know who have had their mothers wipe their butts all their lives and don't want to work, yet they don't do any drugs, only Magic the Gathering and Fantasy Football.

Guess what? If someone doesnt want to work I have no problem with them starving to death, why is this a difficult concept to get across?

 

[Group9]

Publicus

I read parts of the horrors of meth thread. Do you think that you drug warriors could fight that bit of the drug war more effectively if almost half the available resources did not go to the war on cannabis?

I don't know where you come up with that figure that half of available resources are used on marijuana, but that is a joke. It sounds like one of those facts someone has pulled out of his ass or pulled off some pro-legalization web site.

Marijuana is about as close as it can come to being legalized. And, unless there were some kind legislation passed to insulate any kind of seller or manufacturer from legal liability from harm, what reputable [the operative word here being reputable] company would make it and sell it even if it were legal?

I lived in a city for six years (Baltimore in the late 90's) where for all practical purposes, drug use and sales were legalized (you had a mayor who was at the time, a cocaine addict and who ran on the platform that he would not emphasize drug enforcement). It was not the nirvana that users think it would be, although it did attract them in droves. At one point, it was estimated that between ten and twenty percent of the population of the city was addicted to heroin, and Baltimore lead in emergency room admissions for heroin, cocaine, and marijuana overdoses (the Dawn study).

It was an amazing social experiment to watch and be part of. But, of course, it was quickly forgotten once the straight citizens who were paying the bills decided that they had had enough. They are still trying to recover and I doubt they ever will.

But, I also realize that most addicts and users could care less about this kind of thing, and I doubt any of them here care much either.

 

[Sindawe]

Marijuana is about as close as it can come to being legalized.

Tell that to Donald Scott, Oh, wait, you can't. He's dead.

Well, maybe Peter McWilliams will agree...opps, he's dead too.

Maybe an 11 year old boy will listen. Nope, he's dead as well.

At one point, it was estimated that between ten and twenty percent of the population of the city was addicted to heroin, and Baltimore lead in emergency room admissions for heroin, cocaine, and marijuana overdoses (the Dawn study).

Link to the study? All I find are related to diabetes.

But, I also realize that most addicts and users could care less about this kind of thing, and I doubt any of them here care much either.

Sometimes I have to think that it truely is a shame that dueling is banned in our culture....

 

[publius]

I don't know where you come up with that figure that half of available resources are used on marijuana, but that is a joke. It sounds like one of those facts someone has pulled out of his ass or pulled off some pro-legalization web site.

Sourced again. Where is your source which tells you the figures are a joke?

In 2003, 45 percent of the 1,678,192 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 755,186. Of those, 662,886 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is an increase from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.

Now, it is true that the "pro-legalization web site" got their numbers from a rather untrustworthy source, but what can I do about that?

Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2003 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2004), p.269, Table 4.1 & p. 270, Table 29; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2002 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2003), p. 234, Table 4.1 & and p. 234, Table 29; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2001 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2002), p. 232, Table 4.1 & and p. 233, Table 29; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 2000 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), pp. 215-216, Tables 29 and 4.1; Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1999 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000), pp. 211-212; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1998 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1999), pp. 209-210; Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1997 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), p. 221, Table 4.1 & p. 222, Table 29; Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1996 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 213, Table 4.1 & p. 214, Table 29; FBI, UCR for the US 1995 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996), pp. 207-208; FBI, UCR for the US 1990 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991), pp. 173-174; FBI, UCR for the US 1980 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981), pp. 189-191.

Marijuana is about as close as it can come to being legalized.

Is that so? Because I would think that if it came just a little bit closer, patients could get it with a doctor's permission, providing that their state authorities said it was OK. I would also think that if it came just a little closer, we would not wind up with a case about that very issue before the Supreme Court. Any maybe, just maybe, the collateral damage to the Constitution would not (once again) spill over from the drug war to the gungrabbing war.

 

[Matt G]

As posted, I would have to answer "No, but it's worth having laws controlling hard drugs."

It's just silly how many people are locked up for marijuana. We could spend our money better. Make it a ticketable offense for using in public, but don't put potheads in jail unless they're committing other crimes.

It's worthwhile putting methheads and meth cooks in jail; these guys are genuinely addicted, and as a side effect of the drug (from loss of sleep) can get very scary. Also, needles are common with 'em. Not good. Best thing for them sometimes is to dry out in jail.

Crack, like all cocaine, creates some terrible paranoia and is absolutely addictive. It indisputably creates criminal behavior. Fine. Let's stop crack.

Does anyone question that we should absolutely ban PCP, heroin, and LSD from street use?

Basically, let's enforce laws against hard drugs and drop the ridiculous expenditures in enforcing the antiquated laws against marijuana. The savings from the one could produce efficacy in the enforcement of the other. Then, let's do more to enforce the most common drug danger: DUI/DWI.