Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[publius]

Fine. Let's stop crack.

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

We can't stop crack, we can either have a black market or a legal one.

Heroin is probably the most dangerous of those, but the dangers are really not very different from the dangers of a drug like oxycontin. This guy seems to lead a pretty normal life, despite his addiction to heroin, just as Rush Limbaugh led a pretty normal life during his addiction to oxycontin.

We might just be better off with a legal market than the current black market, but it's probably a better idea to learn those lessons by trying to create a legal cannabis market.

 

[Glock Glockler]

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

Do you think we should jail alcoholics? If someone was out of control wouldnt detox/rehab make more sense than the criminal justice system? Drug misuse/abuse is a medical/social issue, not a criminal one.

 

[Crosshair]

Fine. Let's stop crack.

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

You do realise that LSD is NOT in the same class of drugs as PCP and Heroin. In fact LSD is about as dangerous as pot is so long as you don't do something VERY stupid with it.

/The joys of high school, though kind of glad those day's are behind me.

 

[Old Dog]

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?

Absolutely, yes. I suspect also that you would find that there may be people in law enforcement who'd agree with that concept as well.

 

[mercedesrules]

Fine. Let's stop crack.

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

Yes.

What you are basically saying is, "How dare anyone question that some guys know exactly which drugs are proper for all men?"

Drugs are not a special type of product that needs totalitarian treatment in the law. Drugs are merely a type of private property and I don't cede to any man the right to decide for me which drugs I want or need. Any man that tries to take my property is announcing to me and others that he no longer claims the right to property for himself.

 

[Graystar]

Whoa, talk about stereotypes! So jut because someone uses drugs they automatically don't want to work?

There are always extreme exceptions to anything. You can find people that commit crimes to get money for marijuana and you find cocaine users that aren’t addicted. It’s not a question of what’s possible...it’s a question of what is typical and of what the damage is to society based on that typical result. Society has decided that the typical results from alcohol and cigarettes (which amounts to a lot of dead and injured people per year) are worth putting up with for the benefit.

Like everyone else in NYC I live in an area that’s not to far where the bars are. Aside from the occasional mess where someone threw up, the bar area is no different than my area in terms of crime or quality of life. But that is not the case in other parts of the city where there is a drug problem. When you look at city stats, crime, drug use, and unemployment rates go hand-in-hand. Where there are high levels of drug use there are high crime and unemployment levels.

 

[Art Eatman]

mr, one serious problem with drugs like speed, crack, "angel dust", etc., is that they do lead directly to hostile and/or harmful behavior. That is, it is common for a user to be a serious problem.

Most other drugs are problems either because of the black-market cost leading to crimes to get money, or because of a user's impairment in the sense of alcohol. "Don't drive stoned", as a for-instance.

I dunno. I just can't be a "one size fits all" guy when it comes to the whole deal with drugs. For all that I think we've gone overboard in the way we're dealing with the WOD, I can't get enthused about full-bore legalization of everything.

I feel the same way about prescription drugs, for that matter. Far more controls than are needed, but, yes, some controls are needed.

Art

 

[longrifleman]

Where there are high levels of drug use there are high crime and unemployment levels.

The old chicken or egg argument. Do people use drugs because they want to escape their current reality or do the drugs create the reality? I'm thinkin it is some of both, but mosty it is a desire to escape. Alcohol and tobacco use is typically higher is those areas also. Blaming the drugs for those problems ultimately hides the root causes. Trying to deal with why most people use drugs brings up a whole can of worms most folks don't want to open.

I'm beginning to think that we could reach a consensus to start the end of the WOSD with marijuana, and move to others as we see what effects that has. Now, if we could get the people who actually have the power to make changes to be as reasonable as we are we can fix the whole world.

 

[mercedesrules]

mr, one serious problem with drugs like speed, crack, "angel dust", etc., is that they do lead directly to hostile and/or harmful behavior.

Not in everyone.

That is, it is common for a user to be a serious problem.

Then he should be responsible for his actions - on drugs or not - much like a reckless or negligent shooter. Banning the drugs is prior restraint.

I dunno. I just can't be a "one size fits all" guy when it comes to the whole deal with drugs. For all that I think we've gone overboard in the way we're dealing with the WOD, I can't get enthused about full-bore legalization of everything.

Devil's advocate: "I dunno. I just can't be a 'one-size-fits-all' type of guy when it comes to the whole deal with firearms. For all that I think we've gone overboard in the way we're dealing with gun control, I can't get enthused about full-bore legalization of all firearms.

I feel the same way about prescription drugs, for that matter. Far more controls than are needed, but, yes, some controls are needed.

Control by...some guys whose expertise is in winning elections, I presume?

Art, people say drug controls are needed because humans are flawed. Then they put drug control in the hands of...humans. Open your eyes and see that when you give flawed humans control (power) over others, it corrupts them and they use that power for self-interest - just like any human would.

 

[roo_ster]

Original question:
No.

But addicting drugs *do* cause honest hard-working citizens to do things they wouldn’t have done otherwise.

Addicting drugs have never caused this "honest hard-working citizen" to do anything illegal. I don't take them. Period. Not because they are illegal, but because I was raised right & my values don't allow for such behavior. Legalize them & I would still be a sober, goes-to-work-everyday kinda guy.

In one sense you are right, however. The criminalization of marijuana caused my grandpa & grandma to break the law. See, he was getting chemotherapy to treat colon cancer & the drugs he was prescribed did not help. (It seems that prescribing orally-administered anti-nausea drugs is one of those "solar-powered flashlight" kinda deals.* )

He had to break the law to get some marijuana to get some relief. A guy who fought in WW2, received a PH, and supported his family until struck down by cancer. He had his wife go to a neighbor they suspected smoked marijuana and in a pathetic attempt to buy illegal vegetable matter. The neighbor was neighborly enough to help my street-unwise grandma buy some marijuana.

Its a helluva thing.

* They couldn't give my grandma a box of needles, injectable anti-nausea drugs and injectable narcotic painkillers for his cancer because she "might sell them to a pusher or an addict for money."

 

[mercedesrules]

There are always extreme exceptions to anything. You can find people that commit crimes to get money for marijuana and you find cocaine users that aren’t addicted. It’s not a question of what’s possible...it’s a question of what is typical and of what the damage is to society based on that typical result. Society has decided that the typical results from alcohol and cigarettes (which amounts to a lot of dead and injured people per year) are worth putting up with for the benefit.

This is proof that giving "society" the democratic power to decide important things for individuals is retarded.

Like everyone else in NYC I live in an area that’s not to far where the bars are. Aside from the occasional mess where someone threw up, the bar area is no different than my area in terms of crime or quality of life. But that is not the case in other parts of the city where there is a drug problem. When you look at city stats, crime, drug use, and unemployment rates go hand-in-hand. Where there are high levels of drug use there are high crime and unemployment levels.

Let's outlaw alcohol and see what happens.

 

[mercedesrules]

(jfruser) I don't take them.

Funny, all this time I was pronouncing your handle, "jfr-user", and wondering what drug "jfr" stood for.

 

[publius]

I'm beginning to think that we could reach a consensus to start the end of the WOSD with marijuana, and move to others as we see what effects that has. Now, if we could get the people who actually have the power to make changes to be as reasonable as we are we can fix the whole world.

Well, Nixon's commission reached that conclusion a few decades ago, and look how far we've come!

 

[Tokugawa]

Hmmm. lets see, the war on drugs has--
#1 Created a huge paramilitary police force throughout the US.
#2 Created an unimaginably large funding source for narco-terrorists.
#3 filled our prisons with low level other wise harmless felons
#4 Created an artificially high pricing level causing a rash of crimes by addicts desperate to get money for dope.- (and benefiting #1,2,and 3 above.)
#5 Done absolutely nothing to STOP DRUG USE. In fact, stopping drug use is the LAST, the VERY LAST, thing that either the Government or the organised crime people want, it would eliminate the cash flow.


Now before the leo's freak out, I do not believe there is some Gov. conspiracy to promote drug use, or any individual saying oh, yeah lets hook kids on dope. What I do believe is that on some level the Gov. organisation has a life and an intent of it's own, and actions clearly indicate that "solving"the drug problem and eliminating drug use are not synonomous.

 

[publius]

What I do believe is that on some level the Gov. organisation has a life and an intent of it's own

I don't believe that. I see mostly unintended consequences of poorly conceived laws and programs.

The abuse of civil asset forfeiture statutes is a good example. The idea was to get those rich drug dealers, and turn their own assets against them. They didn't really mean to create an environment in which the incentives were going to produce policing for profit, but that is what happened.

 

[Art Eatman]

Publius, government programs develop constituencies who will lobby for their continued existence, whether or not they're effective.

One of the best examples is the old 55mph national speed limit. It was instituted solely as a symbolic gesture to conserve gasoline.

When there was reason to restore the prior speed limits, the vested interests lobbied against that: Insurance companies, Justices of the Peace, and municipal governments. They made a ton of money from the lower limit.

Same for the WOD. Employees of the system, those who construct and administer privately-run prisons, those involved in any way in the social-work efforts, those who train drug dogs, lawyers and drug-lords. They have a vested interest in continuance, in that they make money from the existing system.

(It was common in dry areas with no sale of alcohol for bootleggers to contribute campaign money to politicians who would continue to vote "Dry." Gotta maintain that market.)

Art

 

[publius]

Art,

I'm well aware that prohibition, like any government program, has a constituency which advocates for the continuation/expansion of the program. I was reacting more to the "ghost in the machine" reference in Tokugawa's post. I don't think "the system" can develop intent, and if it could, I don't think the intent would be to have an endless drug war. Sure, if drug use goes up dramatically, the DEA's budget is likely to also go up dramatically. I don't think that means the agency, or any individual agent, wants to see more drug use.

There's no huge, evil conspiracy, just a big, dumb mistake.

 

[Old Dog]

Wow, Publius, I actually find myself in agreement with you ...

 

[mercedesrules]

On this particular point, Art is right, Publius, a little naïve.

Every single sentient government worker knows his livelihood depends on not solving the supposed problem his agency is tasked to solve and, furthermore, to dream up or create new problems to scare people with and pretend to solve.

The only other explanation would be that government agents are universally idiotic, though well-intentioned, but get elected anyway. Obviously false; many are quite bright and surely see the consequences of their actions.

Publius, the naïve part is in not having realized by now that the main purpose of the state, shared by all government workers, is to increase state income, power and control. Anything that does that will be attempted; anything that doesn't will not.

 

[Old Dog]

Every single sentient government worker knows his livelihood depends on not solving the supposed problem his agency is tasked to solve and, furthermore, to dream up or create new problems to scare people with and pretend to solve.

Ah, one of the reasons L&P is often so entertaining -- unintentional hilarity.

 

[publius]

Just not buying it, mr. I've met some of these drug warriors out in the world. I've met the cops. I've met the politicians who write the rules. Most important, I've met the people who voted for those politicians.

Where I see a flawed and counterproductive socialist boondoggle, they see a necessary and valiant effort to preserve the order of society by making undesirable behaviors difficult and punishable. They think they are having positive effects, and they think quitting the war would bring disaster.

America is not a nation of control freaks, at least not that I've seen. We haven't bred a government, composed of Americans, which wants nothing more than increased control all the time. The voters who keep voting for the drug war are our neighbors, and I don't know about you, but mine aren't a bunch of nazis.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Is the WOSD worth it?

It depends on what,"gradient" you like to measure the,"Success", of the WOSD ....

If you like the constant abuse, abrogation, and general destruction of the Founding Principles of the Nation,our RIGHTS, then of course this so-called war is just the Cat's meow...

If you think that we, as a nation, arrived at the present through civil war, the Equal Rights movements of the '60's , untold #'s of national scandels/foul-ups (Nixon,Clinton, JFK), as well as constant external evil wishing our untimely demise, only to have ,"The Death Strike", come from a SECOND FAILED ATTEMPT AT CODIFYING/LEGISLATING MORALITY, then HELL NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mercedesrules]

Just not buying it, mr. I've met some of these drug warriors out in the world. I've met the cops. I've met the politicians who write the rules. Most important, I've met the people who voted for those politicians.

Where I see a flawed and counterproductive socialist boondoggle, they see a necessary and valiant effort to preserve the order of society by making undesirable behaviors difficult and punishable. They think they are having positive effects, and they think quitting the war would bring disaster.

Well, then, I'll have to concede that you have met some of the well-intentioned, but idiotic, ones.

America is not a nation of control freaks, at least not that I've seen. We haven't bred a government, composed of Americans, which wants nothing more than increased control all the time. The voters who keep voting for the drug war...

People don't vote for or against the drug war. Virtually all politicians are for it; voters have no real choice in the matter (not that their vote counts for much, anyway).

...are our neighbors, and I don't know about you, but mine aren't a bunch of nazis.

Most of mine are.

They are for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, warfare, welfare, public schools, the income tax, etc.

 

[Group9]

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

Now, come on. You know you would sh*t yourself if you ever thought you were going to have to come out and have a gunfight with someone.

 

[Grey54956]

Most low level government functionaries, LEOs, etc. believe in what they are doing, but that is because they have bought into the vision marketed to them by the higher levels of government. People on top are power brokers. They are in it for control and prestige. Their vision is designed and marketed like any product and the people buy in to it.

But here's the problem: you cannot force people to be better; that has to come from within.

Think about this - people are more rigorously controlled than ever before, and yet when the power and control structure (government) in society is disrupted (like in New Orleans), general lawlessness (rioting and looting) immediately breaks out.

As you increase external control on the population, the base civility of the population decreases.

The WOD is no exception, the more control the government tries to put on the problem, the worse the criminal element will become. As this happens, the criminal element will become more and more deeply embedded within our society. Remember 15 years ago when all the big drug activity was smuggling from south of the border and flashly drug lords. Now its meth labs scattered all across both urban and rural America. The smugglers are still active, but their operations are far more complex than ever before. There are more varieties of drugs than before. People are using them at a younger age. It's getting worse because we are driving the problem deeper into the shadows where it can fester and grow.