Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[Justin]

CAS- Simple economic theory. As interdiction efforts were ratcheted up, the cost of making and importing some drugs were driven up. As such, those who wanted a regularly available, inexpensive high had a harder time getting a decent supply.

The so-called meth "epidemic" is nothing more than the result of someone walking into Wal-Mart, looking around and asking himself "What stuff can I use here to get high?"

 

[Old Dog]

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).

Gee, I hadn't even addressed treatment ... Of course welfare and the nanny state are problems that need to be eliminated! However, both are the current reality in our society. You all want to preach legalization? Show us a plan that might be workable.

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).

Oh really? We'll pay more for it ...

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!

What?!!

 

[Zundfolge]

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).

1. How is this possible since drugs are illegal? I thought if something was illegal it was impossible to get your hands on.
2. We're talking about legalizing drugs, not legalizing child abuse and neglect, which will exist whether the drugs are legal or not (and be illegal whether the drugs are legal or not).

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...

Crack cocaine and meth where created because cocaine is expensive ... cocaine is expensive because the risks involved with its growth, manufacture, distribution and sale are much greater then say Coca-Cola. Crack is a good way to stretch your inventory farther and Meth doesn't require the cooperation of armed crazy Colombians. If the cocaine market wasn't artificialy inflated by the fact that its illegal then nobody would have gone looking for these two "solutions" to their distribution problems.

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?

The mafia was made much larger by prohibition ... it wouldn't have grown to the size it got without it ... and while it wasn't completely killed by the end of prohibition, they did have serious layoffs and downsizing because of it (until they branched off into the illigal drug trade).

Oh really? We'll pay more for it ...

Explain how we'll pay more with less of our population in jail (being supported by the state instead of out there working and paying taxes) and with less of Law Enforcement's resources being used to fight the WOD?

 

[Sindawe]

I was speaking to the eventual overall cost to the society when the number of drug users skyrockets.

And you are basing this on what? Tea leaves? Procognition? Are YOU gonna run out and start shooting meth the instant it becomes legal? (if it ever does for recreational use)

You all want to preach legalization? Show us a plan that might be workable

We have one already. It same plan as we use for EtOH, and to a lesser extent tobacco. Restrict legal sale to adults only, prosecute those who sell to minors. If the user frells up their life, well life is harsh sometimes, and stupidity is supposed to hurt. If the user injures another, we already have laws dealing with that.

 

[Yowza]

Why on earth would a pharmaceutical company create crystal meth or crack cocaine? Meth is a problem because people can make it with widely available ingredients. If those so inclined could buy a safer drug with similar effects, why would they bother making it at considerable risk and expense to themselves. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

Rick

 

[Zundfolge]

I was speaking to the eventual overall cost to the society when the number of drug users skyrockets.

Again that's a myth that's not supported by any facts.


After prohibition, alcoholism rates did NOT skyrocket ... alcohol use jumped slightly as everyone got all excited that they could drink, but then the use (and abuse) rates dropped back down to what they where BEFORE prohibition.

You all want to preach legalization? Show us a plan that might be workable

A plan? Its not rocket science ... it doesn't require a "plan" ... just repeal the stupid laws against the use, manufacture, possession and sale of the damn drugs, reclassify the drugs as being pretty much the same as alcohol and you're done!

 

[Justin]

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.

Um, what's your point? That the free market should be regulated so that people don't spend their money on stuff that isn't an absolute necessity?

Or are you arguing that Budweiser, Coors, etc. shouldn't spend multiple millions of dollars on ads to try and sway me to purchase their product, all while employing an army of talented designers, videographers, ad writers, special effects artists, 3d animators, and smokin' hot babes?

I appreciate that they entertain me with probably the greatest ads ever created, but that has never caused me to purchase their swill over the fantastic assortment of libations brewed by a dizzying array of local microbrews that don't even have a tenth of promotional budget of the big guys.

Show us a plan that might be workable.

You have been reading this thread, right?

 

[Zundfolge]

Bottom line is that those who support the WOD are elitists who are offended at the idea that us proles DARE to live our lives without their intervention because by God (or by Gaia depending on whether they are left or right) YOU are too stupid to make decisions for yourselves and need the firm hand of Father Government (or Mother Government for the leftists) to guide you to the shining police state on the hill.

 

[mercedesrules]

Is the war on drugs really worth it?

To whom?

To me, no. I am forced to pay for a service I don't want.

To drug dealers, yes. It is a job security and price subsidy windfall for them.

To police forces, yes. They get to seize money and property, buy lots of soldier gadgets and increase their pay and numbers.

To soldiers, yes. They get to have something exciting to do in between real wars.

To the federal govenrment, yes. They get increased power and decreased limitations.

To taxpayers, no. They get decreased police service at increased cost - just like with any other monopoly.

To drug users, no. They get inferior products at increased prices.

 

[Old Dog]

And you are basing this on what? Tea leaves? Procognition?

Uh yeah, tea leaves, that's right. But c'mon, now ... Don't make the mistake of equating drug use with alcohol use. The significant differences between the substances, the effects, the typical doses required to achieve the desired results, the mode of delivery, the amounts need for overdose are quite varying. It's the transition period that would be most difficult, and you have to consider the fact that there's rampant drug abuse already among those who would not be of legal age to use upon legalization.

A plan? Its not rocket science ... it doesn't require a "plan" ... just repeal the stupid laws against the use, manufacture, possession and sale of the damn drugs, reclassify the drugs as being pretty much the same as alcohol and you're done!

You think it would be that easy? You want to use the model of retail alcohol sales for legal drug distribution? Then quit stating that drug prices would go down, for one thing.

but then the use (and abuse) rates dropped back down to what they where BEFORE prohibition.

And yes, since Prohibition ended, while the alcoholism rates have fluctuated and not always displayed major growth, the alcohol abuse rate in this country has dramatically increased, as has the rate of alcohol use by teenagers.

What's up, by the way, with all the little insulting comments?

You have been reading this thread, right?

Are YOU gonna run out and start shooting meth the instant it becomes legal?

And to whom was this one directed? I haven't seen a lot of support for the WOD in this thread, not even from me ...

YOU are too stupid to make decisions for yourselves and need the firm hand of Father Government (or Mother Government for the leftists) to guide you to the shining police state on the hill.

 

[Sindawe]

Clue for ya Old Dog. Alcohol IS a drug. Of course there are differences in modes of action, means of delivery and LD-50 values for each chemical compound. Just as there are different modes of action, means of delivery and LD-50s for medicines. Which are also drugs. I don't doubt that there would be issues as people learn which chemicals they can handle, and at what doses. The blackhearted among us would refer to that as "culling the herd".

And yes, since Prohibition ended, while the alcoholism rates have fluctuated and not always displayed major growth, the alcohol abuse rate in this country has dramatically increased, as has the rate of alcohol use by teenagers.

Citation for those numbers?

My question was not phrased as an insult, my apologies if you took it that way. But the question is still there. You have asserted that drug use will skyrocket if the chemicals are legalized. What do you base this on?

 

[gezzer]

NO :banghead:

 

[Old Dog]

Clue for ya Old Dog. Alcohol IS a drug.

Gee, thanks.
And I still think you're missing my whole point. The point I've been trying to make is regarding the overall cost to the society, not the individual impact. You want to call it "culling the herd," fine, but if you want to ignore the pragmatic reality as far as the impact of legalization on all of the rest of the citizenry -- those of us who pay taxes and must support the government -- perhaps you need some clues. Our current system of thinly-disguised socialism is going away no time soon, so face the facts that, if drugs are in any way, shape or form legalized, YOU will be supporting the addictions of others, in much the same way you presently support treatment programs, the criminal justice system and welfare in this country now.

Citation for those numbers?

I realize you probably don't want to see any government studies (although, guess who sponsors most of the studies on this kind of stuff?), and this one isn't as specific or have as much as others out there:

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/press/2004/NESARCNews.htm

 

[oldfart]

I'm impressed. Seven pages and very little venom. See, we can do it if we have to.

Old Dog, even if there were a huge upswing of addicts attributed to the legalization of drugs, and even if there were a correspondingly huge increase of deaths due to ovedsoses.... So what? The world is full of weak people who will become dependent on something or someone. A good proportion of them will die because of their weakness... regardless of whether or not drugs are legal!

What makes diamonds valuable? Or gold? Scarcity. If you had to toss the diamonds out of the garden so you could plant tomatoes (or pot), you probably wouldn't be buying them for jewelry. So what is the single most pervasive, least valuable (in terms of scarcity) thing on this planet? What single thing do we throw away in huge quantities?

Human life.

So a bunch of weak humans cook their brains and kill themselves. Sounds to me like Darwin in action. Sounds to me like a vacancy in the parking garage has opened up. We here in the west have beaten ourselves over the head for years with the idea that "life is sacred," and "a life is a terrible thing to waste." But a quick look around at some of those you've seen wasted will probably uncover a bunch that probably should never have been born. Sure, there is always colatteral dammage, where someone gets killed that isn't a hop-head, but the WOD is doing that too.

I don't know what's going to happen, but legalization isn't going to happen until every vestige of the present government is gone, and I don't think that will be a good thing either. It will happen, of course, but not in our lifetimes.

Before someone jumps up and throws the old "what if it were your kid that got killed" argument at me: It's already happened. Four of mine were killed quite legally in a program sponsored by the warm and fuzzy U.S. government. And as for experiences with druggies and gang-bangers... I've been there too. There aren't many benefits from getting old but experience is one of them. Sometimes in isn't a benefit either.

 

[captain obvious]

And yes, since Prohibition ended, while the alcoholism rates have fluctuated and not always displayed major growth, the alcohol abuse rate in this country has dramatically increased, as has the rate of alcohol use by teenagers.

:banghead:
Holy smokes! Someone dig up Carry Nation, and let's ban that horrible stuff!
Who else sees that we obviously need to return to prohibition?


No one? Damn, me neither.

 

[longrifleman]

The point I've been trying to make is regarding the overall cost to the society, not the individual impact.

Here is a good place to define the real cost of end the War on (some) Drugs.

Most of the social costs that you rightly point out we would pay under some form of legalization we already pay. The true cost of legalization is the costs of any increase in usage compared to the costs of fighting the war as it's currently structured. Not the total social costs.

I'm sure that the costs of arresting, trying and imprisoning thousands is quite a bit higher than the increased treatment costs would be. As for the increased number of people hurting themselves, I would trade those stupid people for the return of the Bill of Rights in a heartbeat. Am I your typical heartless libertarian? You betcha.

 

[Justin]

What's up, by the way, with all the little insulting comments?

I didn't insult you. I asked a question. One which, under the circumstances, strikes me as completely legitimate.

Perhaps the question to ask is this:

Under what circumstances would you consider ending the drug war?

 

[Sindawe]

I realize you probably don't want to see any government studies (although, guess who sponsors most of the studies on this kind of stuff?), and this one isn't as specific or have as much as others out there:

I don't trust data published by agencies that have a vested interest making a possible problem look really really bad, no.

Addressing the numbers in the link you provided (thank you), alcohol abuse and/or dependence rose from 7.4% in 1991/1992 to 8.5% in 2001/2002, a rise of 1.1%.* Interesting that for a similar period (1990-2000), the overall population of the U.S. rose from 248.7 million in 1990, to 281.4 million in 2000. An increase of 13.1%. It would appear that while the shear numbers of EtOH abuse/depence rose, the overall like situation declined. That does not look like a dramatic increase to my eyes. Granted my formal training is NOT in statistics. Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004997.html

On Edit: I was looking at the change in percentages, should have calulated the numbers instead. Based on the figures in the link supplied by Old Dog, EtOH dependence and/or abuse rose by 3.8 million, in increase of ~27.5% over the decade. That IS a dramatic increase. Old Dog is correct in this instance.

YOU will be supporting the addictions of others

The issue of public support (aka welfare) has been addressed by others. Test posative = no $$$. Personally, I have no issue with a portion of the taxes I pay being used to assist those who DO have a problem and want help. Far better that than being used to erode our liberties.

 

[Old Dog]

Holy smokes! Someone dig up Carry Nation, and let's ban that horrible stuff!

Captain Obvious? Apparently you also are more concerned with making clever remarks than attempting to see someone's point ... For the last time, I'm merely trying to point out that, with legalization of drugs, we would possibly be trading in one set of overwhelming expenses for another, and at the same time, simply creating new bureaucracies ...

I'm sure that the costs of arresting, trying and imprisoning thousands is quite a bit higher than the increased treatment costs would be.

Not so sure about that, and I'm not talking about simply increased treatment costs vs. the present costs of legal ramifications of drug use. It goes way beyond that. Picture the huge numbers of inmates currently incarcerated for drug-related offenses now out on the streets, many of whom will still be living in a drug culture, legal or otherwise, and mostly supported by some form of public assistance.

Old Dog, even if there were a huge upswing of addicts attributed to the legalization of drugs, and even if there were a correspondingly huge increase of deaths due to ovedsoses.... So what? The world is full of weak people who will become dependent on something or someone. A good proportion of them will die because of their weakness... regardless of whether or not drugs are legal!

Yes, but I do NOT want to support their habits and their lifestyles, as I'm sure you do not either ...

 

[Art Eatman]

Kids, young people in general--are always--repeat, always--drawn to whatever is exciting or somehow a "no-no". There is always the lure of the unknown and the thrill of the illicit.

Witness young boys and guns. If you take the mystique away, and teach the kid that guns are no big deal, you're well on your way to gun-proofing your kid.

If there is some change in how we deal with drugs such that drugs aren't so exciting and "big deal", there's less interest. A probably-good start would be a PR campaign along the lines of "Drugs are stoooooopid!" Let teenagers use some variant of that line in TV ads, for instance--or in TV programming. Heck, give a tax break to producers who put that into the plot/dialogue. Why not? Look how much tax money we're now piddling away on stuff that doesn't work...

If it were not criminal to grow marijuana at home for your own use, I could see a TV spot with a guy in a cop uniform saying something like, "What you do at home is YOUR business; what you do in public is MY business." That focuses on behavior in public, which is where the majority of the drug problem is. Don't drive stoned.

And I still believe that if marijuana were legal, the use of crack cocaine would decline. People would rather get high on something that doesn't necessitate running from the cops. And marijuana is a tranquilizer, which thus has benefit in contrast to crack.

No matter what we do, there will always be a certain number of Bad People. And Bad Things. Better to reduce the incentive program we now have for this BPBT deal...

Art

 

[Sindawe]

I'm impressed. Seven pages and very little venom. See, we can do it if we have to.

True, our historical venom spitters are no longer with us, having gotten themselves banned.

 

[miko]

Our current system of thinly-disguised socialism is going away no time soon...

You may be surprised...

Our current system of thinly-disguised socialism is going away no time soon, so face the facts that, if drugs are in any way, shape or form legalized, YOU will be supporting the addictions of others, in much the same way you presently support treatment programs, the criminal justice system and welfare in this country now.

Setting aside your failure to count the current cost of drug-related crime, incarceration of millions of non-agressing individuals, health effects of drugs of questionable purity and dosage, law-enforcement dedicated to drug war, setting all that aside for the moment, along with distinctions between tax-payers and tax-eaters....

If the choice is between the government taxing you some more versus the governent directly dictating what you can and cannot do with your body and your property and how you can interact with consenting adults, you would prefer more direct chattel slavery to imaginary increase in fiscal burden?
Hmm...

miko

 

[Old Dog]

Perhaps the question to ask is this:
Under what circumstances would you consider ending the drug war?

Clearly, as I stated at least twice previously, the drug war is not working; I also stated that I am aware of the significant danger to our Constitutional rights, and our rights that have already suffered with the WOD being run as it is ...

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.

Anything that could be construed by a reasonable person (not in government or federal law enforcement) as an abrogation of the Bill of Rights or any article of the Constitution should not be used as a tool to fight the drug war. "Sneak'n'peek" warrants, surveillance efforts toward all citizens, militarized PD units invading houses to snag one baggie of bud, etc., etc. ... We've already gone there in this thread and others.

Distinguishing between hard drugs (heroin, methamphetamine, etc.) and soft (cannabis) and perhaps testing the Netherlands model (legalization of mj) while still enforcing legal sanctions for traffickers of hard drugs might be a start.

And I still believe that if marijuana were legal, the use of crack cocaine would decline.

You know, this could certainly be true. However, looking at the period during which Alaska had allowed possession of marijuana (what was it, about 15 years, starting in the '70s?), I believe several studies by medical and education studies showed that the rate of cannabis use by teenage males was over twice as high as in the rest of the country -- and we're talking about kids who weren't of legal age to use. Just something to ponder. I'm sure most of us would rather have a kid who was a pothead rather than a tweaker, but ... (watch everyone jumps out of the woodwork to expound on all of their hugely successful pot-smoking friends) ... but I don't want a pothead kid, either.

If the choice is between the government taxing you some more versus the governent directly dictating what you can and cannot do with your body and your property and how you can interact with consenting adults, you would prefer more direct chattel slavery to imaginary increase in fiscal burden?

Where did I say there had to be a choice made? Most of us on this forum, I'd think, don't give a rat's behind about the government dictating what we can and can't do with our bodies and other consenting adults ... If you believe in a principle (with respect to how you maintain your own body and what you do with it), do you really worry about what the law might say?

 

[DMF]

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.

Gee Hawkeye for someone who hates the feds in general, and ATF specifically, could you at least get some of the history correct. ATF came out of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the IRS-CID, not the FBI. Also, due to various court decisions the NFA didn't really have any teeth until the GCA corrected some flaws in the language of the statute. Congress decided IRS-CID, was not giving the GCA crimes enough attention after the GCA was passed, and created ATF in 1972, because IRS-CID still had the ATU spending the vast majority of it's time busting illegal stills. Stills were still really big crime/money until the price of sugar and a few other factors caused the illegal booze business to taper of in the 80s. Funny prohibition didn't end the mobs big money trade in illegal booze in the decades following.

So the claims the end of prohibition, and the passage of the NFA in 1934, led directly to the ATF is bogus. The GCA and Congress' wish to see the GCA enforced in the late 60s and early 70s are what led to the ATF.

If you're going to hate, and rant about that hate, please learn the facts.

------------------

For the main argument here, anyone who thinks simply decriminalizing/legalizing drugs will solve crime problems please think again. Criminals who are committing crimes of violence in conjunction with the drug trade, will not suddenly become the neighborhood hesher who watches cartoons and eats twinkies after hitting the bong, if drugs are legalized. Just like the end of prohibition, they will find other crimes to commit. Why? Because they have no desire to make money legitimately, but rather want a quick buck.

In addition prices will not plummet with legalization. For the same reason illegal stills were turning huge profits into the 80s, and untaxed booze and cigarettes are still big crime today, drugs will continue to be a problem. Safety regulation for the industry, and taxation will all drive the pricing of the product. In the end there will still be a "black market" trade in drugs, because it will still be much cheaper to produce/procure XTC, coke, meth, etc, illegally.

Further, even if legalization caused a slight decrease in prices, your addicts will still be committing crimes to pay for their habits. They won't be capable of holding real jobs, as the typical addict can only stay motivated to work long enough to pay for the next fix. That attitude is not compatible with a legit job, but very compatible with a life of crime.

 

[publius]

Here's a Question Seldom Answered:

Scalia or Thomas?