Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[The Real Hawkeye]

DMF said: NFA passed in 1934. The BATF was created in 1972. 38 years apart. I don't see a direct connection.

Prohibition was repealed less than one year before the passage of NFA. You don't see a connection there? What were all those agents going to do if they couldn't tell people what they could drink? They had to find something else.

Yeah, the BATF was instituted in '72, but those "new" BATF Agents were formerly agents of the FBI (and other agencies) who were already doing BATF type work under the "authority" of NFA since '34. Your statement is misleading.

 

[Old Dog]

I guess I still don't get it. Many of you seem to believe that legalization will drive drug prices down. Do you really believe recreational pharmaceuticals would then be cheaper than prescription pharmaceuticals? Do you truly believe that if drug prices were lower, and drugs were more readily available, the addiction rates would not increase?

Legalize drugs, make 'em cheaper ... watch the rate of people on welfare, unemployment and other forms of public assistance skyrocket. Watch the rates of illegitimate births, STDs, overdoses, domestic violence, children requiring foster care, workplace absenteeism, emergency room visits, hospital costs, etc., etc., all skyrocket. The demand on public services would offset any savings established by discontinuing the "war on drugs." All tax rates would almost certainly go up ...

The only solution is to drive the costs down enough that there's no need to commit crimes to support a habit.

And you think there aren't people who commit crimes to obtain alcohol or cigarettes? What do you think the most commonly shoplifted articles from grocery and convenience stores are? How about domestic violence -- most of which stems from consumption of alcohol? Ever talk to a member of your local PD?

Look at what's going on in our culture right now. Huge numbers of single-parent families where no one is guiding, supervising, molding or monitoring our youth. Public schools that are basically just glorified day-care providers where no real learning is taking place. Crap on television, in the movies, put forth in the popular music. Politicians who take but don't don't improve our systems. Our kids are growing up with no guiding vision and their only motivation is to chase the dollar and the lifestyle they see portrayed through popular media.

And y'all think our society is strong enough to tolerate widespread availability of cheap drugs? I just can't agree.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Old Dog, you don't seem to understand the dynamics involved here. The way kids get hooked to start with on most recreational drugs is because someone is financially motivated to encourage the addiction and to provide a supply for them. Take the huge profits out, and the whole underground industry dries up.

 

[Sindawe]

Do not forget the whole "forbidden fruit" aspect of illegal drugs and becoming addicted or dependent apon them.

 

[Old Dog]

TRH -- Oh no, I understand the dynamics all too well.

And while your statement may be somewhat applicable in certain settings, it definitely doesn't apply across the board. I would suggest that there's a lot of research out there that digs into the heart of why people choose to begin using drugs.

The "huge profit," if drugs are legalized, will simply revert to the commercial sector. My gosh, just take a look at the ads for the drugs for ED (Cialis, Levitra, etc.) -- these drugs are not cheap, either. You don't think that moving the market aboveground won't create some form of marketing designed to attract more users?

 

[Sindawe]

My gosh, just take a look at the ads for the drugs for ED (Cialis, Levitra, etc.) -- these drugs are not cheap, either.

Those drugs are not cheap because they are protected by patent law, so that the developer can recoup the cost of development and make a profit for future research. The majority of our illegal drugs are either natural plant products (MJ, shrooms, peyote), or long known derivatives of such like morphine and cocaine.

Of course they would be marketing efforts, just like there is for America's favorite legal drugs. Ethyl alcohol, nicotine and caffiene. The funds spent on useless enforcment activities could be diverted to public education programs like we have to smoking tobacco, and we can elimiate the erosion of our liberties from the WoSD.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The "huge profit," if drugs are legalized, will simply revert to the commercial sector. My gosh, just take a look at the ads for the drugs for ED (Cialis, Levitra, etc.) -- these drugs are not cheap, either. You don't think that moving the market aboveground won't create some form of marketing designed to attract more users?

Again, Old Dog, you don't get it. Those prescription drugs are expensive because their patents are still valid. The patent for heroin, etc., ran out a long time ago. They are as cheap to make as kitchen cleaning fluids. Hell, you can grow pot in your window sill.

 

[publius]

NFA passed in 1934. The ATF was created in 1972. 38 years apart. I don't see a direct connection.

Odd that the bureau's own history page makes mention of the NFA...

National dismay over the weaponry wielded so conspicuously by organized crime during Prohibition led to passage in 1934 of the National Firearms Act, followed in four years by the Federal Firearms Act.

Of course, that was back when the power to tax was widely used as the basis for federal regulatory authority. Nowadays, the commerce clause serves that function in the futile wars on guns and drugs.

 

[Zundfolge]

Again, Old Dog, you don't get it. Those prescription drugs are expensive because their patents are still valid.

Thats part of it, but the bigger reason that prescription drugs are expensive is because they require a prescription.

There are many over the counter drugs that used to be "prescription only" and they cost significantly less then they did when you had to get a script from a doctor to buy them. Prilosec is one example.

The "huge profit," if drugs are legalized, will simply revert to the commercial sector.

True ... but even if the price of drugs didn't change one cent, Wallgreens employees don't spray Rite Aid employees with bullets over "turf wars"...Wallgreens employees wouldn't hang out behind your kid's school to sell him pot (just like liquor store owners don't hang out behind your kid's school trying to sell him Jim Beam)...If a stupid drug user got a hold of some bad pot there would be a recall (and maybe some sort of law suit) instead of the druggie just getting sick and maybe if he's real motivated he (or his friends) wouldn't gun down the Wallgreens clerk who sold it to him.


Eliminate the black market in drugs and you eliminate 90% of the negative impact that drugs have on our society ... it will take a LOT less resources to deal with the remaining 10% negative impact with police and rehab councilors.

 

[Old Dog]

Again, Old Dog, you don't get it. Those prescription drugs are expensive because their patents are still valid. The patent for heroin, etc., ran out a long time ago. They are as cheap to make as kitchen cleaning fluids. Hell, you can grow pot in your window sill.

Drugs are not inexpensive, be they over the counter or generics based on formulas for which the patents have expired. And if there's a significant demand, there's no way the costs will stay down. Particularly if the product must be regulated -- which it has to be -- and taxed. And using alcohol as an example? While there are types that are relatively affordable, most are actually comparatively expensive -- particularly for those on welfare, those without stable incomes or those who are addicted and do not/can not work.

I still have yet to see anyone describe a model for legalization that would work in this country.

Eliminate the black market in drugs and you eliminate 90% of the negative impact that drugs have on our society

No, you simply shift the impact of drug use to other areas. I say again, you'll simply increase in other areas the demand for public services.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I still have yet to see anyone describe a model for legalization that would work in this country.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that in Mexico, for example, you can just walk into a drug store and purchase just about whatever drugs you would like at very low cost. No prescription is needed.

 

[longrifleman]

No, you simply shift the impact of drug use to other areas. I say again, you'll simply increase in other areas the demand for public services.

The solution to this potential problem is drug testing for all welfare type services. Test positive:no money. This should include alcohol and nicotine as well as currently illegal stuff.

This is just as likely to happen as legalizing drugs is. I would like to see this implemented for welfare stuff now.

I've been behind people in the grocery store check-out line who bought some small item with food stamps and took the change to buy beer. The cashiers rang it up as a separate transaction without being told what to do. I kinda think it is a common practice. /end welfare rant

 

[Justin]

You don't think that moving the market aboveground won't create some form of marketing designed to attract more users?

You must have a mighty dim view of your fellow humans if you think that all it takes is a slick advert campaign to get someone to purchase a product without forethought.

I have no desire to dabble in recreational drugs, regardless of whether they're being hawked by the shady guy down on the street corner or Pamela Anderson during the Superbowl.

 

[Old Dog]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that in Mexico, for example, you can just walk into a drug store and purchase just about whatever drugs you would like at very low cost. No prescription is needed.

No, presuming that the previously illicit substances would be regulated and sold in a manner resembling the retail alcohol industry, using Mexico's no-prescription necessary pharmacy program is not even close to being a model for legalizing drugs.

Drugs with the sole purpose of making one hallucinate, high, euphoric, stimulated, et al don't compare to drugs used as analgesics, anti-inflammatories, beta blockers, vaccines, antihistamines, antihypertensives, antiasthmatics or antibiotics.

By the way, this must be the first time in THR history a post has used something that happens in Mexico as an example for us to possibly emulate ...

You must have a mighty dim view of your fellow humans if you think that all it takes is a slick advert campaign to get someone to purchase a product without forethought.

Huh. And we really, really can't live without many of the devices or consumables we buy now?

Witness the beer market, for example. Given the billions of dollars spent in the ad industry every day, I don't think my view of my fellow humans matters.

 

[Z_Infidel]

I think that the "war on drugs" is a failed effort and should be dropped. Drugs should be legalized, but that move should happen along with other reforms -- like getting rid of the welfare system and no longer spending money on drug rehab. I'm of the camp that thinks addiction is a choice (in most cases) and not a disease, therefore no public money should be spent on digging people out of the holes they dig for themselves with drug abuse. Furthermore, people who commit crimes -- especially violent ones -- while under the influence of drugs should be prosecuted and treated as criminals. People must be held accountable for their actions, including drug use and its effects.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

By the way, this must be the first time in THR history a post has used something that happens in Mexico as an example for us to possibly emulate ...

Ok, Old Dog, instead let's use the United States as an example. How about we adopt the system used by the United States before the Federal Government usurped authority to regulate drugs?

 

[Old Dog]

Ok, Old Dog, instead let's use the United States as an example. How about we adopt the system used by the United States before the Federal Government usurped authority to regulate drugs?

Such as, say, circa 1880, when we had more than 400,000 opium addicts in this country (more than twice as many addicts, per capita, as we have now)? Does anyone remember why the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed? A little historical research will show you that there was a huge problem with opium, morphine and cocaine addiction (again, on a per capita basis) -- by some accounts, 1 in 200 citizens -- that led to laws such as this, and the Harrison Act.

No, the so-called "war on drugs" isn't working well, and it certainly appears to be leading to further erosion of some of our most precious Constitutional rights. I'm not arguing that.

What I do find absurd, though, is the notion that legalization would cure so many of the problems we have now, along with these fanciful ideas that don't even begin to consider that possible consequences of legalization might have far more savage effects on our country, our youth and our economy than the status quo.

 

[Art Eatman]

Old Dog, I've said before (In two or three of the multitudinous threads on this subject) that I'm more for CHANGE in HOW we're being anti-drug than I am for full legalization.

However, did you read my arguments, above? Is there any merit to my views as to behavior?

More importantly, which is better: Legalization with whatever problems might arise or increase, or the continuing erosion of the Bill of Rights as has been the case over the last forty years? That is, should we, by and large, ignore this erosion as we concern ourselves about what MIGHT happen with legalization?

Art

 

[Sindawe]

Such as, say, circa 1880, when we had more than 400,000 opium addicts in this country (more than twice as many addicts, per capita, as we have now)?

I trust you have citations for those numbers, right? Never mind, I found your source. Brought to you by the letters D, E, & A http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

Does anyone remember why the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed?

Does the name Upton Sinclair ring a bell? The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 DID NOT create the current prohibition we have today. What it DID do was...

1) It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested.

2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription.

3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming."

Source: http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/english/haymarket/jasona/alvepurefood.html

This is FAR better than the mess we have now, where physicians are being prosecuted and jailed for treating their patients pain, chemicals that have utiltiy on some spheres of treatment are totally banned, can't even research on em.

What I do find absurd, though, is the notion that legalization would cure so many of the problems we have now, along with these fanciful ideas that don't even begin to consider that possible consequences of legalization might have far more savage effects on our country, our youth and our economy than the status quo.

So in your view, the effects of smoking too much weed (couch lock), dropping too much acid or ODing on an opate are worse than:

1: Being 12 y/o and shot in the back and killed due to ND from a "Drug Warrior".

2. Increasing militirzation of local peace officers into black mask wearing SWAT teams.

3. Erosion of protections against unreasonable searches.

4. Seizure of money and property w/o conviction, since the money and property are tainted, and money and property have no rights.

Old Dog, what the frell have you been smoking, and why are you not sharing it with the rest of us?

 

[wingnutx]

No, keeping people off of drugs in not in any way worth eroding the constitution.

 

[CAS700850]

And welcome back to L&P on THR! I've been on vacation for the last 10 days, and it's like I never even left. On one hand, we have "the WOD has done nothing but erode our constitutional rights, so it should be abandonned." On the other hand, we have "all drugs should be illegal, including alcohol, nicotine, etc." Same as every other time this topic has been raised around here, with little change along the way.

What I can tell you is this. I've been personally involved in the WOD from two perspectives. Six years prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases, where we spent far too much time (though entirely worth while) removing kids from homes where drug addicts neglected the needs of the children in favor of the drug of choice (usually crack or meth). The last four years, I've been prosecuting felony drug cases. And, with that in mind, I don't think the war on drugs should be adandonned as a concept. We just need to change the way we're doing it. If I knew a better way, I'd share it here...Sorry, no such luck.

 

[Yowza]

is the notion that legalization would cure so many of the problems we have now

So how many black market drug dealers and smugglers would still be in operation if drugs were legal? How much money would organized crime instantly be out if drugs were legal? How many people would be employed by the legal industries that would move in to fill the demand? Think about how big the tobacco and alchohol companies are. Are they ruining our country? Aren't there a whole slew of people out there that enjoy a beer after work? Or a cigar now and then?

these fanciful ideas that don't even begin to consider that possible consequences of legalization might have far more savage effects on our country, our youth and our economy than the status quo.

So, exactly how sure are you of your position?

usually crack or meth

If there had never been a war on drugs, no one in this country would have ever done either one of these drugs. These poster children for the WOD were CREATED by the WOD!

Rick

 

[Zundfolge]

No, you simply shift the impact of drug use to other areas.

No, you don't "shift" any impact.

Most of the damage done to our society by the drug scene is NOT in the usage of the drugs, but instead in the criminal enterprise that has grown around the importing, manufacture, distribution and sale of illegal drugs.

If you eliminate the criminal element from the drug distribution network you eliminate the violence and other crimes surrounding drugs and are left only with the negative impact that drug use has on the users which you have either way ... whether drugs are legal or not.

I say again, you'll simply increase in other areas the demand for public services.

No you don't. If people want "help" to get over their "addictions" then let them pay for it dammit. Welfare and the nanny state are problems that need to be eliminated as well (and legalizing drugs would get rid of part of the nanny state right there).

You require me to believe two myths in order to support your position.
1) the vast majority of drug users are hopeless addicts who's drug use renders them useless and unable to contribute to society.
2) "its against the law" is what keeps large numbers of people in our society from using drugs., so if you legalize then thousands (if not millions) of Americans who wouldn't touch the stuff would become addicts (which didn't happen with alcohol after prohibition)


Legalize drugs and two of your fears will NOT happen ... 1) we won't become a nation of addicts (any more then we already are) and 2) you won't have to pay for it (which you're already doing).


On a related note, if the left ever gets their way and we get strict gun control ... if you think the black market in drugs is violent then you ain't seen nothin' yet!

 

[Old Dog]

Art, yes, I've read your posts and yours are more reasoned than most. I do not agree, though, that violence associated with drugs would totally diminish, as much crime and violence is committed by persons on drugs, not just those interested in protecting their own drug trade.

As far as the argument of erosions of our rights vs. the possible consequences of legalization, I would never in any way advocate prevention of legalization at the expense of any abrogation of our rights. I'd like to believe that I'm as concerned about protecting our Constitutional rights as any member of this forum. I'll say again, there are so many things about the way the WOD is being run that greatly disturb me, but my main issue is that I don't believe legalization is the answer.

Sindawe -- where to begin?
Yes, I know how the Pure Food and Drug Act came about ... and much of the original hysteria goes back to consumer products with opiates or cocaine in them. The DEA is using my numbers? I'm shocked.

So in your view, the effects of smoking too much weed (couch lock), dropping too much acid or ODing on an opate are worse than:

1: Being 12 y/o and shot in the back and killed due to ND from a "Drug Warrior".

(etc.)
Did I ever say this? Did you read my previous posts? I was not talking about the effects of drugs on the individual users, I was speaking to the eventual overall cost to the society when the number of drug users skyrockets.

So how many black market drug dealers and smugglers would still be in operation if drugs were legal? How much money would organized crime instantly be out if drugs were legal?

I was waiting for someone to say that criminals would stop being criminals once one of their enterprises became legal. Yes, the end of Prohibition put all of organized crime out of business, didn't it? And sure, there's absolutely no black market on any product that is currently legally sold by retail, is there?

 

[CAS700850]

I'm sorry, could you explain to me how the WOD resulted in the creation of crack cocaine and methamphetamine? I may be missing a little something here...