Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[Sindawe]

Here is another cost of the WoSD:

Venezuelan President Threatens U.S. With an Oil Embargo

August 15, 2005 8:05 p.m. EST

Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Contributor

Caracas, Venezuela (AHN) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatens to cut off oil exports to the United States, after tensions between the two countries mount.

During a recent speech in Caracas, President Chavez denounced the "aggressive" actions of the U.S. government against the South American country, threatening that Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States, could go elsewhere."

Tensions between the two countries have risen after Venezuela stopped assisting the U.S. in their War against Drugs.

In response, the U.S. canceled the military visas of Venezuelan military personnel, working with U.S. anti-drug agencies. Venezuela then deported U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officials.

Currently, Venezuela controls the largest oil reserves in South America, making it the world's fifth largest oil producer.

Current estimates say Venezuela exports almost 1.3 million barrels a day to the United States.

Source:http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2248301410

Venezuela is #4 is supplier of oil. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

DMF Said: 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.

That's not significant. The point is that there were federal agents doing BATF type work before there was a BATF.

Why do you keep dropping the B off of BATF, by the way? Are they no longer a Bureau?

As for hating, I hate any organization which works to deny Americans their rightful liberties. As for the individuals involved with the organization, I'm sure that most believe they are doing something good for the country. That confidence, however, is not very reassuring. Lots of people with good intentions brought about some of the worst tyrannies in history.

 

[DMF]

Hawkeye, they always have and probably always will abbreviate simply as ATF, not BATF, or BATFE. Kind of like ICE doesn't use the B their abbreviation. I did notice you completely ignored the rest of the history lesson.

Sindawe, there is no such entity as the Drug Enforcement Agency, in the US Government.

 

[Sindawe]

DMF: You are correct. It is the U.S Drug Enforcement Administration. I was quoting the article as a whole. Not making editorial corrections.

 

[ksnecktieman]

This war can be won...... It has to be won in our schools with our children. It can not be won if there is massive profit in drugs. If there is massive profit in drugs we will have dealers on our street corners giving samples to our ten and twelve year olds that do not have the experience to say no.
Have the federal government produce it, or contract out the production of it, and sell it at cost, or a very minor profit. The drugs on the street now at 100$ will be selling for 10$ or less. No one will blow up a house and kill themselves trying to cook meth unless they can make money. No one will farm marijuana all year to sell for less than they can get for wheat, or corn. The government can break even, or even make a small profit, and save the billions we are using to try to stop the manufacture and importation of drugs. No one will have a profit motive to get johnny or suzy hooked on their product. No one will have to shoot it out with other dealers to protect their selling area. With the cost of a daily fix reduced from 100$ to 10$, the ones that support their habit with crime will not have to steal so much, or so often.
As far as the medical costs related to drugs,,, we are already paying them,,, so that is not an increase.

My opinion remains,,,, Legalize them all, sell them cheap, or even provide them to anyone that is addicted..... REPEAT AFTER ME, EVERYONE,,, "It is for the children." We have to fight this war where we can win it, and with the weapons we have. Our streets are where it HAS to be won. And our weapon is the "almighty dollar".

 

[Sindawe]

ksnecktieman: So, should we also nationalize the beer, wine and distilled spirits industry? How about the tobacco industry? Nationalize that as well? And in light of the growing problem of childhood obesity, lets nationalize all food production. And if we do the same with the pharmaceutical industry, think of all the money we can save for those who have to certain medications to live.

 

[ksnecktieman]

No, sindawe,,,, I do not advocate nationalizing anything,,, if the drug producers want to produce and sell drugs at a 100% profit, I am all in favor of it. If they will not, then I think we need to subsidize it, and put drugs on the street at a price any hamburger flipper at mcdonalds can afford. I do not think it is needed,,, offer the major drug producers the option, and shield them from liability,,, drugs will kill,,, the same as firearms, if misused. The key here is that anyone can produce them, no patent protection, no government regulation (except for purity, and excessive profits). We are making it legal for every citizen to produce drugs, and sell them. If I can buy ten bucks worth of sudafed, and ten bucks worth of ammonia, and a few other chemicals, and produce meth for a cash outlay of 50 bucks, and a few hours labor,,, my product should not be worth 500$, as it is now,,,... IF IT WAS legal, do you think Merck, or Bayer, or any major drug manufacturer would not make it, and sell it cheaper than I could in a home lab?

When someone asks the question why do we, or why do we not? Ninety percent of the time the answer is money. Remove the profit from drugs, and they will go away.


The beer, wine and distilled spirits is a war that we already lost, the same type of war, a different target...... AND does this apple taste as good as your orange?

 

[dustind]

Funny prohibition didn't end the mobs big money trade in illegal booze in the decades following.

Wasn't booze still banned by a few states after prohibition? Many states had counties that banned it as well. Plus the regulations and taxes worked to make booze profitable by organized crime.

 

[DMF]

Plus the regulations and taxes worked to make booze profitable by organized crime.

Well maybe you missed this portion of the post you quoted:

"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."

 

[Sindawe]

I do not advocate nationalizing anything,,, if the drug producers want to produce and sell drugs at a 100% profit, I am all in favor of it. If they will not, then I think we need to subsidize it, and put drugs on the street at a price any hamburger flipper at mcdonalds can afford.

If there is no profit, why should society at large subsidize it? If there is a profit motive, and those who manufacture/market the product have access to redress in the courts, away goes the majority of the crime and "collateral damage" associated with the drug trades. But I do have to ask, what are " excessive profits"? If all can produce under guidelines/liabilty of purity, why not let the market set the price?

IF IT WAS legal, do you think Merck, or Bayer, or any major drug manufacturer would not make it, and sell it cheaper than I could in a home lab?

Of course, except for those who like to tinker and experiment, as I've been known to do with extracts of barley and dilutions of honey.

When someone asks the question why do we, or why do we not? Ninety percent of the time the answer is money. Remove the profit from drugs, and they will go away.

Not entirely I think. Humans as a group have a desire and drive to altered states of awareness. For some its is based in external chemicals(drugs), for others it is internal(as a group, numinousity, or those who are adrenaline junkies ). Then there are those such as myself who would love to experiment with some of the natural plant drug sources. Years back I saw of photo of a Cannabis species sport in which the leaves where half green, half white (lacking in chlorophyll) that would would make a striking and lovely annual shrubbery.

 

[publius]

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.

I've been drinking and smoking for 20 plus years now, and I've never seen any black market booze or black market smokes anywhere. Not even once.

Something tells me that if they were ONLY available in the black market, I'd have come across them, as I have come across quite a bit of contraband.

Why, with all the taxes and regulation, has the black market still not managed to compete for my dollar?

Because black markets suck. If I found black market hooch, I'd wonder what was in it. I know what's in Bacardi. If I found black market hooch, I'd wonder if the dealer was about to shoot me or rip me off. I've never wondered that when walking into a liquor store. Even with their lower costs and lack of taxes and regulation, black markets have no shot at real competition with the folks who are REALLY "turning huge profits" in those industries: the legal, regulated businesses. Has any illegal still done as well as Jack Daniels Distillery? Turning huge profits indeed.

 

[publius]

Hawkeye, they always have and probably always will abbreviate simply as ATF, not BATF, or BATFE. Kind of like ICE doesn't use the B their abbreviation. I did notice you completely ignored the rest of the history lesson.

Sindawe, there is no such entity as the Drug Enforcement Agency, in the US Government.

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?

 

[Byron Quick]

I've been drinking and smoking for 20 plus years now, and I've never seen any black market booze or black market smokes anywhere. Not even once.

Have you ever looked? I live a dry county in Georgia. No liquor. Beer and wine only. I've cousins who were raised on the sale of Jack Daniels and their dad didn't have a license. (Gentleman in question is dead now)

Check into the racket of smuggling cigarettes from a low tax state to a high tax state. I haven't looked at it since the huge increase in prices following the tobacco settlement...don't know if it's still as lucrative as it once was. But they've caught container loads of smuggled cigarettes in the past.

Many years ago, my mother and I were having a similar discussion on marijuana. I told her that she could search me thoroughly and then put me out at the front door of any church in town on a Sunday. I'd give her some marijuana when I came out.

If there is a demand for it then there will be a supply for it. Simple as that.

 

[longrifleman]

and taxation will all drive the pricing of the product

Methinks a govt employee is a bit addicted to taxes!

I've noticed that the only places in the country with any serious amount of black market in otherwise legal products are places where the "sin" taxes are ridiculosy high. I have a simple solution to that problem.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I did notice you completely ignored the rest of the history lesson.

I said that it had little if any significance in regard to my point, which was that Federal Agents, under one name or another, have been doing BATF type work since the passage of the NFA. Whether it was under the Department of the Treasury or the FBI is not relevant to that point. I believe, however, that in my original post (to which you are referring) on this I did say "FBI (and/or other Federal Agencies)," or something to that effect.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

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?

As for me, naturally, you are preaching to the choir.

 

[miko]

Where did I say there had to be a choice made?

“Choice” was not a good word to use – we are certainly not faced with any, as our masters have long relieved us from that burdensome responsibility. I am questioning your apparent preference of ban on production/sale/consumption of narcotics to increase in taxes.

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?

Not “law” - legislation. And yes – I do really worry about. First, it does not just say what I can do – it enforces what it says. Second, the whole problem of drugs being pushed on our children has been solely created by the legislation. The Drug War is really Drug Price Support program.

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…

Good old straw man tactics… When you attribute total idiocy to your imaginary opponents, sure you argument makes sense.
Of course nobody claims that legalizing drugs would solve “crime problems”, whatever you mean by that. It would drastically reduce some crime and social ills (prostitution, infection, etc.), organized crime and corruption.
When a person can support his cocaine habit by working at McDonalds, he/she would have no motivation to rob old ladies, break into houses, sell their bodies on the street or push same drug to school-children.

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.

Both history and technology refutes you. The cost of narcotics sold in pharmacies will be less than the cost of their packaging – so cheap they are to produce.
Before the ban in the beginning of 20th century, opium, cocaine and other substances were sold in pharmacies for pennies without prescription and tens of thousands of people used them while leading normal productive lives.
Besides, the prohibition always causes the use of more potent substances to increase compared to mild ones – so called “Rhett Butler” effect known to any economist.
Smuggling whisky or heroine is much more economical than smuggling beer, wine and marijuana – more bulk, more risk, less profit.

miko

 

[miko]

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?

Actually it was. Of course the meaning of the words “regulate commerce” in those times was “make commerce regular, remove obstacles”, not “totally control and/or ban and create obstacles to production, distribution and sale”.

That’s quite common occurrence in languages. For example “control” used to mean “direct” and now often means “exterminate” (pest control?!).
“free” used to mean “not a subject to coercion by other human” while now it means “vacant” (bathroom stall) or “incurring no cost”.

miko

 

[publius]

Have you ever looked?

No, I can't say I have. And I'm aware that some smuggling, etc goes on in an effort to thwart taxation. But the black market for alcohol and tobacco is dwarfed by the legal market. Even with ridiculously high taxes, many people stick with the legal market.

The existence of the legal market has made the size of the black market, and the problems it causes, negligible. Yeah, it's still there. Somewhere. Maybe one day I'll see evidence of it in my own life, not just read about it in a book.

 

[publius]

Actually it was.

Not by the modern meaning of "federal regulatory state."

 

[spartacus2002]

For the main argument here, anyone who thinks simply decriminalizing/legalizing drugs will solve crime problems please think again.

This illustrates the confusion between drug USE, drug ABUSE, and drug trade violence. These are 3 totally separate issues. The drug-trade violence is a government-created animal, just like Al Capone, because criminals will fill the void. Given that they cannot rely on the courts to settle business disputes, they utilize violence.

Drug use and drug abuse are not the same thing at all. Not all alcohol-drinkers become alcoholics. Do I think meth has any good uses? No. However, to use that as a justification for banning marijuana is ridiculous. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that legalizing marijuana will lead to a reduction in trafficking/use of harder drugs -- if all drugs are illegal, traffickers will push the drugs that are smallest to transport and pack the most wallop for the size.

 

[Keaner]

You guys are all missing the #1 reason why we should NEVER legalize and tax drugs.

The BATFE would be entirely too unmemorizable!
Honestly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Amphetamines, Narcotics, Methamphetamines, Opiates, Halucinogens, and Depressives?
(And thats only off the top of my head! Give some .gov guy with too much time something, and Ill bet it'll be worse than the BATFEANMOHD!)




What can I say, if people want to kill themselves by drinking/smoking/injecting whatever they want, or by not wearing a seatbelt, or helmet, god bless em. Have a ball.

It is VERY hypocritical to advocate having drugs illegal, when drugs like Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and asprin are legal.

 

[Old Dog]

The drug-trade violence is a government-created animal, just like Al Capone, because criminals will fill the void. Given that they cannot rely on the courts to settle business disputes, they utilize violence.

While there still exists drug trade violence (in the U.S.), it's now primarily smaller scale in nature (one dealer taking out another) and not nearly as frequent as, for example, the days of the coke wars in South Florida with the Cubans, Columbians, Haiitians and Jamaicans engaged in high-profile public shootouts or the crack wars in other various urban areas later on ... But, get past the concept of drug-trade violence for a moment and understand that the real crime problem is caused by those people using drugs

If you look at countries that have experimented with legalization or decriminalization, I think you'll find that in the areas drug use was concentrated, crime actually rose. Most street cops will probably tell you that they're not as concerned about dealing with the dealers as they are with their everyday dealings with those who are using ... which is where most of your criminal activity comes from -- shoplifting, burglaries, prostitution, armed robberies, muggings, mail theft, identity theft, vandalism, assault, even rape and welfare fraud. No matter how inexpensive drugs are, regular users and addicts will still need a way to pay for them.

Bottom line: legalization is not a panacea for eliminating drug-related crime.

Drug use and drug abuse are not the same thing at all. Not all alcohol-drinkers become alcoholics. Do I think meth has any good uses? No. However, to use that as a justification for banning marijuana is ridiculous. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that legalizing marijuana will lead to a reduction in trafficking/use of harder drugs -- if all drugs are illegal, traffickers will push the drugs that are smallest to transport and pack the most wallop for the size.

Now, I can agree with your first couple of sentences here, and your further statements may also be supportable, based on recent research and experiences in other countries.

 

[longeyes]

Yes, it's worth it. Weren't the Opium Wars in the 19th century "worth it?" Definitely worth it. For some people. A lot of great American fortunes sprang from drugs and got laundered through newly founded, to-be-great American banks. The more things change the more they remain the same.

 

[publius]

Do I think meth has any good uses? No.

Don't we give some kind of methamphetamines to our pilots when they have to fly long missions?