The Harms of Drugs versus the Harms of the War on Drugs

I would like to tell you about my recent experience with the WoD.

A couple weeks ago, one of my former friends was mad at me for talking to some girl he like, or something stupid like that. So he goes up to one of the local Sheriff's Deputies and tells them that I'm dealing meth out of my house.

The next day two Deputies take me in and sit me in the interrogation room and tell me that they know I'm dealing meth and want me to give a urine sample and let them search my house to prove that I'm not using. I laughed and told him that I have a right to privacy and don't need to submit to anything. The Deputy looked me right in the eyes and said, and these are his actual words, "You have no rights, f**k your rights. We have a duty to protect this children of this county."

What is this country coming to? Now I have to move to a different county just because I'm terrified the cops will pull me in for no reason again.

BTW, to avoid spending the next 72 hours in jail, I submitted a urine sample and let them search my house. I was clean of meth and none was found at my residence. But I am strongly considering a lawsuit of some kind because this just doesn't seem right.

Thank you for this post.

Pay no attention to the knuckle-draggers.

You stay right here. There are many out here in FR who don't do drugs but hate the WOsD

I'm one of those people. I don't do drugs. (unless you consider caffeine and nicotine a drug in which case you are free to call me a hypocrite) Sure, I smoked pot back in college 20 years ago. The crap never agreed with me, it just made me paranoid.

But as my idol and adopted grandfather Milton Friedman said when he was criticized by the Wall Street Journal 30 years ago for being one of the few "intellectuals" who signed on against the WOD; "If Government can tell you what to put into your body, they can also tell you what you can write in your paper."

When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.

When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.

When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.

When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.

When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.

When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.

When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.

When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.

When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.

When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.

When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.

That IS the point ... the control freaks will not stop at ANY point until someone stops them. This republic was founded by people who would be disgusted by the drug warriors ... in fact many of the foremost founders indulged in the "evil weed". Bottomline the drug warriors are anti-freedom ... These are the same idiots that brought us the first prohibition and are from the same ilk that brings us seat belt and helmet laws ... and if they have their way ... mandatory calistetics watched by a camera built into your TV set.

I'm sure you realize that this (WOD) is more of an intellectual argument as opposed to a practical matter.

Think of it this way: There are many instances where federal/state Representatives vote for a bill knowing full well that the President/Governor will veto it or the US/State Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.

Unless you are actually on drugs, nobody believes that meth, heroin, or cocaine will ever be legal. Some US city might eventually make pot legal.

It's a subtle argument that proponents of limited government need to confront and talk about openly. If only in theory and for the advancement of political science.

You will disagree and take it literally. Should pot be legal? IMHO, yeah why not? We advertise alcohol on TV ad nauseam. So Gubmint has decided that drugs are legal and we're just haggling over which ones are OK and which ones aren't.

But I don't think that you believe that heroin, coke or meth should be made legal. The line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE. Right?

"As much as 70% of illicit drugs enter the US from our southern border. Americans spent in excess of an estimated $69 billion last year in illegal drugs. Closing the southern border to unregulated entries could provide as much as a $40 billion annual reduction in supply."

Even if it was possible to completely seal our southern border, and that isn't possible, we'd just see an awful lot more drug production in this country and Canada. Building a fence along our border with Mexico and manning it with thousands of troops and carefully searching every single truck or passenger vehicle that drives through our border checkpoints would no doubt make it harder to get drugs across the border. The demand wouldn't go away though, and potential profits would rise with prices, so people would still figure out ways to get the drugs in. We'd see more bribery of border guards, more tunnels, more use of aircraft (both manned and remote control), more submarines, etc. We'd see drugs bypassing Mexico and coming in from other countries in shipping containers or over the Canadian border. We'd end up having to build a fence there too and manning it with thousands of troops, and we'd have to do a lot better job patrolling the seas and sky to stop all the dope coming in on boats and submarines and aircraft. The smugglers will always find the path of least resistance.

We could probably make it a lot more costly to get drugs into this country though. But one thing you'd see with that is a lot more domestic production. We're already seeing, for instance, a lot more pot growing in our national forests by organized crime. If smuggling becomes a lot more expensive, the Mexicans would probably just give up on smuggling marijuana because it's too bulky and it doesn't bring in nearly as much money for a given weight or volume as do drugs like cocaine and heroin. The Colombians gave up on smuggling marijuana into this country years ago for the most part in favor of cocaine. Smugglers would have to focus on the hard stuff that is much more dense and easier to conceal and therefore easier to smuggle. It's also worth a lot more money. I little bit of that stuff is far more expensive than the same weight or volume of Mexican marijuana. Demand for marijuana would remain so they'd just grow more in our national forests, and focus more on quality over quantity because it's harder to get away with growing huge fields of pot here than it is in Mexico so the way they keep their profits up is to grow a more potent product that will command a higher price. Likewise, we'll see a lot more of the really super potent indoor stuff. Instead of all these thousands of tons of cheap relatively low potency Mexican marijuana on our streets, we'll see a lot of far more potent domestically grown marijuana. It will cost more than Mexican, but of course it will take a lot less of it to get you high, so people probably won't end up spending much more to maintain their habits.

If there are shortages of drugs like cocaine and heroin what will happen is that addicts will just take other similar drugs. Heroin addicts who can't find heroin will buy Oxycontin. Cocaine addicts who can't find cocaine will use amphetamines or methamphetamine. If there are any shortages of drugs like heroin or cocaine not normally produced here (a big "if"), we'll likely see more domestic production of "replacement drugs" to satisfy demand for these drugs. In the end, the demand will be met and Americans might actually spend more on drugs than they do now. And since Mexican organized crime dominates the lion's share of our illegal drug markets, a lot of that money will still end up in Mexico, and much of that doesn't end up here will end up in other countries that take up the slack for the Mexicans.

I'm not really opposed to building a fence along the Mexican border, but it won't solve the drug problem in this country. People that want to take drugs will still be able to find their drugs and together they'll still spend billions and billions and billions of dollars a year.

I proofread that post after I had already posted it. I made a few types and one in particular was bad enough that the sentence really didn't make sense.

"And since Mexican organized crime dominates the lion's share of our illegal drug markets, a lot of that money will still end up in Mexico, *and much of that doesn't end up here will end up in other countries..."

The point I was trying to make there is that because Mexicans tend to dominate our drug markets, at least on the wholesale end, a lot of the money Americans spend on drugs will still end up in Mexico. Some of the profits might shift to other countries because people from other countries that can develop new smuggling routes will take advantage of that. In the end, a lot of drug money will still end up leaving this country and going into the coffers of foreign organized crime.

"types" = "typos"

Okay, it's really bad when you have a typo on the word "typo." I think it's time to get off the computer.

You act is if the southern border is 'closed' that the supply will still not come thru the southern border (unless they magically put a freaking huge fence that's fully staffed and a thousand or so miles long), or thru the hundreds of shipping ports of even, gasp, the northern border.

When there's a demand, people will figure out how to supply it, especially when there's a ton of cash to be made in this demand.

“Drug-taking is extremely unhealthy for the persons engaging in it, but not for anybody who abstains from it.”

That statement is absolute garbage. Look around you, I’m sure it’s not hard to see the, well, stupidity of that statement.

Just because we're outnumbered here is no reason to surrender

Not sure that we're outnumbered. See FR poll:

Constitution: Do you think the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause to include regulation and prohibition of drugs and firearms is a proper use of that clause?

Member Opinion

No 85.8% 1,733
Undecided/Pass 9.1% 184
Yes 5.1% 103

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=124;results=1