"Lesh jus' legalize drugs (hic) it worked with booze."
Posted on 02/23/2006 7:56:18 AM PST by JTN
Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.
To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.
In broaching this subject, I offer the usual disclaimer. One beer before dinner is sufficient to my mind-bending needs. I've never sampled any of the no-no stuff and have no desire to do so. So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Ping
--excellent post--
Last few sentences are the most important IMO, I added the * for emphasis:
"To be precise, the question should be do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?"
"A large percentage of Americans will probably say no, mainly because they are law-abiding people who maintain high moral and ethical standards and don't want to surrender to a small minority that flouts the laws, whether in the ghettos of Washington D.C. or Beverly Hills salons. The concern about damaging society's fabric is legitimate. **** But another question needs to be asked: Is that fabric being damaged now? ****"
Sadly, this is a subject which can almost certainly never be discussed objectively.
Too bad the guy in your pic isn't drinking booze - he's drinking beer. ;)
bump for later - this should be good!
Why not just legalise the two main drugs that are payrolling most of the drug cartels? It should provide an immediate impact on the smugglers.
Great article. The thought of freedom and adults making choices for themselves should attract the warriors and get them foaming at the mouth. I'm sure they'll want us to sell away more of our liberties to prevent somebody somewhere from getting high.
I'm sure it can be. It is possible, I suppose. But, in the 435,878,909,342,873,876 WOD threads I have read through here, it certainly hasn't.
MrLeroy is in the keywords. Who thinks I'm MrLeroy?
Make popcorn.
But the author does not define "failure" or "lost" or "isn't working". Just buzzwords that we're supposed to read and say, "Yeah, he's right! It's a failure! We've lost! It isn't working!".
What a crock.
Now, if he means that the WOD has not stopped drug use 100%, sure. The WOD is a failure. As are our efforts against against everything else from cancer to illiteracy.
So that means we should quit? Well, he answers that himself when he says that a large percentage of Americans will probably say no to the question of, "Do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?"
Personally, I'd have left out the word "probably".
A) The votes aren't there.
B) The reason the votes aren't there is that the public doesn't want them
C) The cartels would simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs.
NO. It's a boiler maker. There is a shot of whisky in it.
His definition may be the one used by such figures as Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich. There have been numerous references from the prohibitionists to "winning" the war on drugs, and to a "drug-free America".
Of course these goals are impossible, but much of the support for prohibition comes from belief in these "buzzwords" and that winning the war on drugs is achievable. These public figures need to be asked why they are promising something they cannot deliver.
loserdopertarian (someone has to say it - OK they don't but they will anyway)
Because elected officials are too chicken-s--t to bring the issue to the floor.
B) The reason the votes aren't there is that the public doesn't want them
How do you know if the public opposes it if the issue isn't brought up in the first place?
C) The cartels would simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs.
What dopehead is going to waste their money and risk their life buying illegal drugs when they can save and get the real stuff for far less cheaper at a pharmacy or drugstore?
In your opinion, when would the War on Drugs be won? Isn't that the real question?
Has it been put on a national ballot?
Even if the cartels did focus on different drugs, they would incur large costs...ie new sources, new distributors, new routes, new methods, new customers, etc. I don't believe the same customers would be using heroin, that currently use marijuana or cocaine, and I doubt the people that currently supply marijuana and cocaine, have the ability to supply heroin and amphetamines.
I can make a much stronger case for the statement that we are winning that he can for "losing", and I'm not the deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal.
Like that is possible here!
Next joke, please?
Yeah. They like their job and want to keep it.
"How do you know if the public opposes it if the issue isn't brought up in the first place?"
Polls.
"What dopehead is going to waste their money and risk their life buying illegal drugs when they can save and get the real stuff for far less cheaper at a pharmacy or drugstore?"
Didn't read my response, did you? I said that if drugs A and B are made legal, the cartels will focus on drugs C, D, E, F, and G. They'll also continue to sell drugs A and B to kids. And they'll export drugs A and B to other countries where those drugs remain illegal.
What they will NOT do is get a real job.
Thanks.
We all feel better now.
I don't think you can support your hypothesis.
If there is little or not demand for C,D,E,F, etc, then the cartels can focus all they want, they won't recover.
Decriminalize/legalize pot. Take away the profits there. What reason is there to believe that users would migrate to something they don't use now and is already in existence? None, imo.
Yeah, entrenched politicians are too afraid to take a real stand on a critical issue because it's too "controversial" and may cause them to lose their seats thanks to the hypocrites in the MSM and Republicrat party.
Polls.
Gimme a break. The same polls that predict the death of Bush's presidency every week are suddenly credible when it comes to drugs? LOLOL
Didn't read my response, did you? I said that if drugs A and B are made legal, the cartels will focus on drugs C, D, E, F, and G. They'll also continue to sell drugs A and B to kids. And they'll export drugs A and B to other countries where those drugs remain illegal.
Apparently you didn't read my response. What dopehead is going to risk getting shot, or getting robbed, or buying BS quality of drugs from the street dealer when they can easily buy the legal stuff with no hassles? If people aren't buying drugs C, D, E, etc., would the cartels be in business?
(Sam Cooke, Wonderful World lyrics) - "Don't know much about history. Don't know much about biology economic policy."
When drug use stabilizes at some level for some period of time despite increased government spending, enforcement, and penalties, then I would say the War on Drugs has accomplished all it can. That doesn't mean we "won" or "lost" or even that the WOD is over.
I think we were at that point in the early 90's, prior to state decriminalization and medical marijuana legalization.
We need to recognize that there will always be some level of illegal drug use, just as there is with any other crime. That realistic attitude, however, does not make for a good campaign slogan.
Phew! I was worried about that, and I'm glad to hear it won't happen.
So you're saying, in essence, it's a war from which we'll never stand down. Is this correct? That there's no true way to claim a victory?
Does it need to be a national ballot, or will local polls be acceptable to make my point?
It would be better if you had quoted the whole paragraph.
Local polls may make your point, depending on where you live, and who you poll, but they do not represent what a national vote would.
What's the point? What have we accomplished?
Of the $60B in illegal drugs consumed in this country, only $10B is marijuana. The cartels will simply focus on easy to smuggle (and highly profitable) cocaine, heroin and meth. Then what?
10 years from now you'll be posting, "Decriminalize/legalize cocaine. Take away the profits there. What reason is there to believe that users would migrate to something they don't use now and is already in existence?"
No. Because their constituents don't want it and would vote them out of office.
"What dopehead is going to risk getting shot, or getting robbed, or buying BS quality of drugs from the street dealer when they can easily buy the legal stuff with no hassles?"
They do it today, don't they? They could buy legal alcohol, but they don't.
You're saying that if marijuana is legal, people won't buy heroin.
Is it that important to you that we "claim victory and stand down"? Must we do that? I don't understand your thinking on this.
Is it even feasible to claim victory and stand down? Doing that may cause use to increase.
Simple: I have a real problem with my government declaring a war against some nebulous enemy with no clear way to measure success, thereby creating a never ending war, or a never-ending crisis, that can be used to justify increased taxation, increased spending, increased powers, etc. If there's no way to articulate "victory" in the War on Drugs, how can we ever win it?Further, I have a real problem with our government using the rhetoric of war in dealing with this nation's drug problem. By coloring this effort as a war for thirty years, we've allowed it to take on the size, shape, and flavor of an actual war, with war-like tactics and war-like propaganda on both sides, with war-like draconian measures as well. Hell, we've got paramilitary and actual military units fighting the "enemy" in this war---we're using bullets to combat what is essentially a social problem.
Yeah, dopers wouldn't still want LSD, ecstasy, xanex, etc. if they could get pot, heroin, and meth.
Different tokes for different folks. There would still be billions of dollars in drug trade and turf wars.
Moving the DEA under the ATF (which currently regulates tobacco and alcohol) would keep the same paramilitary goons in business.
We've got people importing prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico to get a better price. There would still be an underground economy to get "the best" merchandise for the lowest price.
All beer is not the same. All cigars are not the same. I would guess by the marijuana competitions that all pot is not the same.
Radio Address to the Nation on Federal Drug Policy
October 2nd, 1982
The President. My fellow Americans, those of you who tuned in a few weeks ago may remember that the topic of my broadcast was crime. Well, this week I'd like to narrow that subject down to drugs, an especially vicious virus of crime.
In the last few days, I've had two reports on drugs in America. First, Nancy returned from a trip to Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas-one of the many trips she's made, talking to young people and their parents about the drug epidemic. Well, I thought it might be fitting if she told you herself of what she's learned about the drug problem. So, Nancy.
Mrs. Reagan. Thank you.
To everyone at home, I have to tell you that few things in my life have frightened me as much as the drug epidemic among our children. I wish I could tell you all the accounts I've heard—stories of families where lying replaces trust, hate replaces love; stories of children stealing from their mothers' purses; stories of parents not knowing about drugs, and then not believing that the children were on them, and finally not understanding that help was available. I've heard time and again of children with excellent grades, athletic promise, outgoing personalities, but who, because of drugs, became shells of their former selves.
I won't burden you with all the terrifying statistics, but there's one that's especially troubling. While the health of most Americans has been improving, young people between 15 and 24 have a higher death rate than 20 years ago. And alcohol and drugs are one reason for this.
But there are also some very positive signs on the prevention and treatment fronts, especially with the parents movement. People finally are facing up to drug abuse. They're banding together, and they're making real progress. And I just want to say a heartfelt "thank you" to all those people out there who are working so hard to get drug abuse under control. The President. Thank you, Nancy.
Now, regarding the other report I mentioned. In the next few days we'll announce the administration's new strategy for the prevention of drug abuse and drug trafficking. This is a bold, confident plan, and I'm elated. For too long the people in Washington took the attitude that the drug problem was so large nothing could be done about it. Well, we don't accept this sit-on-your-hands kind of thinking. We've decided to do more than pay lip service to the problem, and we started where narcotics crime was the worst: south Florida.
This garden spot had turned into a battlefield for competing drugpushers who were terrorizing Florida's citizens. I established a task force under Vice President Bush's leadership to help the citizens of south Florida fight back. As part of a coordinated plan, we beefed up the number of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement people. We used military radar and intelligence to detect drug traffickers, which, until we changed the law, could not be done. We increased efforts overseas to cut drugs off before they left other countries' borders.
Well, the results of our task force have been dramatic. The Vice President tells me drug-related arrests are up over 40 percent, the amount of marijuana seized is up about 80 percent, and the amount of cocaine seized has more than doubled. The important thing is we're hurting the traffickers. It's true that when we close off one place they can move somewhere else. But one thing is different now: We're going to be waiting for them. To paraphrase Joe Louis, they can run but they can't hide.
The strategy I just received will help us duplicate the south Florida experience for the entire United States. We're undertaking a narcotics policy that might be termed "hot pursuit." We're not just going to let them go somewhere else; we're going to be on their tail.
Now, you probably wonder why I'm so optimistic. Well, for the first time, the actions of the different Government agencies and departments dealing with narcotics are being coordinated. There are 9 departments and 33 agencies of Government that have some responsibility in the drug area, but until now, the activities of these agencies were not being coordinated. Each was fighting its own separate battle against drugs. Now, for the very first time, the Federal Government is waging a planned, concerted campaign.
Previous administrations had drug strategies, but they didn't have the structure to carry them out. We now have that structure.
In addition to the enforcement element, our strategy will also focus on international cooperation, education, and prevention-which Nancy's very interested in—detoxification and treatment and research.
The mood toward drugs is changing in this country, and the momentum is with us. We're making no excuses for drugs—hard, soft, or otherwise. Drugs are bad, and we're going after them. As I've said before, we've taken down the surrender flag and run up the battle flag. And we're going to win the war on drugs.
Till next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.
Is it even feasible to claim victory and stand down? Doing that may cause use to increase.
No need to claim victory and stand down, it's a war in name only.
Ping
The War On Drugs hasn't been a failure. It's kept many pepole employed for years. It's also let to much greater government control over things like allergy medicines. What's not to like?
Ping for later.
When cocaine was legal we didn't have runaway crime or cartels.
And the government wasn't corrupted by the money or death threats by the cartels.
I'd say legalize cocaine now, not ten years from now.
They think their constituents don't want it. We elect officials to lead. If the people disagree with the issue, they'll write the Congresscritter or Senator and tell them so. But you don't know what people want unless the said issue is brought to the floor for a vote, now do you?
They do it today, don't they? They could buy legal alcohol, but they don't.
Yes, they are doing it today and drugs are ILLEGAL. Would you rather have dopeheads buying drugs legally from a pharmacy or drugstore such as Walgreens or buy them off the streets, which wastes more tax dollars on law enforcement and local programs?
You're saying that if marijuana is legal, people won't buy heroin.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Legalize marijuana and users would disregard the other drugs because the incentive to buy the other drugs would disappear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.