Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

End the Drug War
Townhall.com ^ | June 16, 2010 | John Stossel

Posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u

I'm confused. When I walk around busy midtown Manhattan, I often smell marijuana. Despite the crowds, some people smoke weed in public. Usually the police leave them alone, and yet other times they act like a military force engaged in urban combat. This February, cops stormed a Columbia, Mo., home, killed the family dog and terrorized a 7-year-old boy -- for what? A tiny quantity of marijuana.

Two years ago, in Prince George's County, Md., cops raided Cheye Calvo's home -- all because a box of marijuana was randomly shipped to his wife as part of a smuggling operation. Only later did the police learn that Calvo was innocent -- and the mayor of that town.

"When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake," Calvo said. "But the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don't hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor."

Radley Balko of Reason magazine says more than a hundred police SWAT raids are conducted every day. Does the use of illicit drugs really justify the militarization of the police, the violent disregard for our civil liberties and the overpopulation of our prisons? It seems hard to believe.

I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm -- wreck lives and hurt people. But that's true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn't work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

Everything can be abused, but that doesn't mean government can stop it, or should try to stop it. Government goes astray when it tries to protect us from ourselves.

Many people fear that if drugs were legal, there would be much more use and abuse. That's possible, but there is little evidence to support that assumption. In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years. Yet the Dutch are actually less likely to smoke than Americans. Thirty-eight percent of American adolescents have smoked pot, while only 20 percent of Dutch teens have. One Dutch official told me that "we've succeeded in making pot boring."

By contrast, what good has the drug war done? It's been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. Since then, government has spent billions and officials keep announcing their "successes." They are always holding press conferences showing off big drug busts. So it's not like authorities aren't trying.

We've locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America's human-rights record because our prisons are "packed with inmates."

Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do!

Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don't smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime.

The drug trade moved to Mexico partly because our government funded narcotics police in Colombia and sprayed the growing fields with herbicides. We announced it was a success! We cut way back on the Colombian drug trade.

But so what? All we did was squeeze the balloon. The drug trade moved across the border to Peru, and now it's moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.

That's what I call progress. It the kind of progress we don't need.

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote: "(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness ... (w)hy not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays ... ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious ... than that done by narcotic drugs."

Right on, Ludwig!

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: drugs; jbt; lping; nannystate; policestate; stossel; wod; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last
Stossel's show on Fox Business Network is on Thursdays at 8 pm EDT, repeating at midnight with additional showings Saturday and Sunday.

Those whose cable systems deprive them of the pleasure of watching some hot business-babes--and Stossel, of course, and Imus in the Morning, and now also The Judge--on FBN need not to be concerned that they're missing something the rest of us take for granted. All the previous Stossel shows on FBN are available for viewing after a couple of weeks at hulu.com in wide-screen format (although not hi-def, good enough for a computer screen), as authorized by FBN. All the shows previously posted on youtube have been taken down.

1 posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Libertarian ping requested.


2 posted on 06/16/2010 9:59:50 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

How about we end it by everyone quitting using recreational drugs?


3 posted on 06/16/2010 10:03:16 AM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

Amen!

I was in a thread here the other day about some woman’s treatment of her children. She was a druggy.

People had comments like “Tell me drugs don’t hurt innocent people!?”

If you accpet that argument, then you must be for gun control too. Right?

I mean, in either case it’s the “thing” rather than the “person” responsible.


4 posted on 06/16/2010 10:03:52 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

how does he feel about child prostitution?

lol


5 posted on 06/16/2010 10:04:32 AM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

They won’t do it. Its somebody elses fault. LOL


6 posted on 06/16/2010 10:04:48 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“how does he feel about child prostitution?”

I presume that he favors a legal age for drugs, just like for alchohol.

And if the isse were prostitution, I imagine the same approach would prevail. Make it legal at 18, 21, whatever society decides.


7 posted on 06/16/2010 10:06:24 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: logician2u; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...
We've locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America's human-rights record because our prisons are "packed with inmates." ... Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do!



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
8 posted on 06/16/2010 10:08:00 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
How about we end it by everyone quitting using recreational drugs?

Look man, if I wanna ingest PCP and put your head through your windscreen while screaming about zombies, that's my ****ing right, man!!!

9 posted on 06/16/2010 10:09:33 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

The drug issue has destroyed the Libertarian Party. (Not that there was much left anyway.)


10 posted on 06/16/2010 10:10:00 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
If you accpet that argument, then you must be for gun control too. Right?

I mean, in either case it’s the “thing” rather than the “person” responsible.

The primary difference being that owning a gun doesn't alter your behaviour or brain chemistry.

11 posted on 06/16/2010 10:11:00 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

You first.
No booze.
No cigarettes.
No caffeine.

Personally, I’m not for telling anybody what to ingest.


12 posted on 06/16/2010 10:12:41 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

I don’t use drugs, but not because they’re illegal and if I wanted to use them, the fact that they’re illegal wouldn’t stop me............and, if they were made legal tomorrow, I’d still not use them.

If they were made legal, I suspect there might be some increase in use, but that may be a temporary statistical spike. I suspect there is a certain percentage of folks who will use drugs regardless of legality.

I’d guess that drugs in the workplace would still be taboo. I’d like to see people arrested not for drug use, but the stupid things they do when high.


13 posted on 06/16/2010 10:13:24 AM PDT by umgud (Obama is a failed experiment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

These War on Drugs threads are depressing, because they demonstrate just how entrenched the ideas of Big Government and the nanny state are even among so-called conservatives. It is shocking, quite frankly, how many “conservatives” are happy to set Constitutional limits aside when it comes to things they don’t approve of.


14 posted on 06/16/2010 10:13:37 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
And if the isse were prostitution, I imagine the same approach would prevail.

You are so right, as most of the others who try to turn liberty into license are so wrong.

Stossel already did a segment on prostitution, which is worth a whole show on network TV. Of course, they'd never get away with it even if so inclined due to fear of sponsor retaliation.

15 posted on 06/16/2010 10:15:17 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“Look man, if I wanna ingest PCP and put your head through your windscreen while screaming about zombies, that’s my ****ing right, man!!! “

You have the right to ingest the PCP. The rest of it should get you hung with a short drop and slow strangulation, so that you think about the consequences of it before you do it. Being intoxicated, even if legal, is still no excuse.


16 posted on 06/16/2010 10:15:44 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

They need to at least get straight with Commerce Clause.


17 posted on 06/16/2010 10:16:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
These War on Drugs threads are depressing, because they demonstrate just how entrenched the ideas of Big Government and the nanny state are even among so-called conservatives. It is shocking, quite frankly, how many “conservatives” are happy to set Constitutional limits aside when it comes to things they don’t approve of.

Hey man, murder's ****in' legal, 'cause it's not mentioned in the Constitution!

Hey man, George Washington was against the War on Drugs cause he grew ****in' hemp, man!

/typical libertarian arguments

18 posted on 06/16/2010 10:18:43 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

You curious about having a child prostitute?

Oh...yeah...I was just “kidding”.


19 posted on 06/16/2010 10:20:51 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Hey man, murder's ****in' legal, 'cause it's not mentioned in the Constitution!

Hey man, George Washington was against the War on Drugs cause he grew ****in' hemp, man!

/typical libertarian arguments

I cannot tell you how uninterested I am in your arguments in favor of statism. This same crap gets spewed and debunked in every WoD thread. All I'm going to say is that I don't ever want to see your ass on any thread crying about how some liberal fascist wants to ban trans-fats, or anything else, ever.
20 posted on 06/16/2010 10:22:15 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

“Personally, I’m not for telling anybody what to ingest.”

Well, I am.

I first of all support anti-drunkenness laws. One can drink without getting drunk. I don’t mind others drinking alcohol if they don’t get drunk. As for caffeine and tobacco, they do not promote anti-social behavior. Long human history has shown that.

But if you are drunk; or stoned on pot; or meth; or LSD; or cocaine; or whatever -

your inhibitions are lowered. you get psychotic. you get paranoid. you can’t properly make decisions. you tend to neglect vulnerable people in your care. you more often abuse vulnerable people in your care. you are more dangerous to people who have absolutely nothing to do with you. you can’t control your bodily functions as well. you can’t work to your best if at all. you can overdose. you can influence others to join you in your debauchery, particularly young people who may look up to you. you can’t help in an emergency. sometimes you are the emergency. you are more likely to commit every crime there is, from vandalism to murder. you are also a much easier mark for a criminal. most of the nutballs wandering our streets are there because either they abused drugs, or their caretakers did. They can’t string together a coherent sentence.

And none of this happens on your own private island. We live in a society, not separate cages.


21 posted on 06/16/2010 10:22:36 AM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

What’s ironic is that I actually agree with ending the “War on” part of the “War on Drugs.” Not so much because I think we ought to legalise drugs or that anyone has an inherent right to put whatever they want in their bodies, regardless of the effect it will cause them to have on others (they don’t), but because I really don’t like the ideas of militarised police forces, warrantless no-knock entries, property forfeiture laws, and the rest that come with the “War on Drugs.”


22 posted on 06/16/2010 10:23:21 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
I agree. However, I'm not at all depressed (and I don't need any chemicals to feel this way, thank you!) as the tide is turning, just as it did in the early 1930s against national alcohol prohibition.

It's unfortunate that it takes a depression and the government running out of money before politicians begin to realize they are losing a big source of tax revenue.

As you are probably aware, tax revenue--not the northeast liberal Catholics needing their afternoon shot of Cutty Sark--was the main reason Prohibition was repealed.

23 posted on 06/16/2010 10:24:05 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“Look man, if I wanna ingest PCP and put your head through your windscreen while screaming about zombies, that’s my ****ing right, man!!! “

Well, ingesting the PCP is ok with the Libertarians. Very “free” of you.

Putting the head through the windscreen, they’d punish you for that.

Better hope that’s all they do, and don’t decide you are one of the zombies. Because then they’ll kill you.

They’ll get punished for the murder in Libertarian land. Which could have been prevented if they weren’t allowed the PCP, but let’s not trouble the Libertarian waters.

Of course you are just as dead in that case.


24 posted on 06/16/2010 10:24:48 AM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
ban trans-fats, or anything else, ever

Now, because I'm not a retard, I'm quite well able to understand that trans fats don't make anybody go nuts and throw other people through plate glass windows. Apparently libertarians are too flippin' stupid to figure out the finer gradations of the argument.

25 posted on 06/16/2010 10:25:19 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Public drunkeness is the crime, not the drink.

Personally, if a guy wants to get drunk/stoned/wasted in his own home, without externalizing the impacts to the rest of us, FINE.

As for “anti social behavior”, I haven’t known many violent weed users. Just the opposite.

The WO(S) is a complete failure. I used to support it, but I’ve grown up. Imprisonment is up, and drug use is unabated. Meanwhile, as with Prohibition, we’ve created the criminal element out of whole cloth.


26 posted on 06/16/2010 10:25:56 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
They’ll get punished for the murder in Libertarian land.

Unless their brother-in-law is the judge on the private arbitration court they get to try the case.

27 posted on 06/16/2010 10:27:16 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

The primary similarity being that neither drugs nor guns force themselves onto you.

Personal responsibility.


28 posted on 06/16/2010 10:29:55 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Just use like alcohol man. It’s like legal man. Like alright man?


29 posted on 06/16/2010 10:30:42 AM PDT by APatientMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Now, because I'm not a retard, I'm quite well able to understand that trans fats don't make anybody go nuts and throw other people through plate glass windows. Apparently libertarians are too flippin' stupid to figure out the finer gradations of the argument.

Apparently, you are enough of a retard to overlook the fact that alcohol DOES cause people to go nuts and throw other people through plate glass windows. Yet it's legal. Go figure. Furthermore, it required a Constitutional amendment for the fed to be able to outlaw it, but that was repealed because it was shown to be an abject failure. But all that history and context means nothing to you, does it?
30 posted on 06/16/2010 10:30:46 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Personal responsibility.

Exactly. Unfortunately, many types of the harder drugs really cannot be used responsibly. The very act of using them is itself personal irresponsibility.

I don't, btw, apply that to marijuana, which I think ought to at least be decriminalised, and certainly ought to be open for medicinal use. What I have in mind are the hardcore hallucinogenics like angel dust, PCP, etc. as well as crack and the like. These very clearly do introduce "issues" for those around their users, even when relatively little amounts of the substance are used, which is much of the reason why trying to draw an argument between these drugs and, say, alcohol are illegitimate.

31 posted on 06/16/2010 10:34:40 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Apparently, you are enough of a retard to overlook the fact that alcohol DOES cause people to go nuts and throw other people through plate glass windows. Yet it's legal. Go figure.

Not typically, and not usually. What do you think the rate of use for alcohol causing someone to do something like that would be versus, say, PCP causing the same? Trying to draw parallels between alcohol and hardcore hallucinogens is ridiculous.

Also note, we DO punish the use of alcohol pre-emptively in certain cases, such as drunk driving, even when the person using the alcohol has not or has not yet injured someone else. It's because the law (rightly) recognises that engaging in certain behaviours for which there is a high probability of harming someone else can be dealt with proactively, even when it hasn't actually happened yet. this is an entirely legitimate part of the arbitrative role of government.

Of course, I know of libertarians who think drunk driving laws are illegitimate, so go figure...

Furthermore, it required a Constitutional amendment for the fed to be able to outlaw it

Primarily because of the federalism issues involved, not because the prohibition was in and of itself inherently unconstitutional. (BTW, I don't disagree with you that prohibition of alcohol via amendment was a bad idea).

but that was repealed because it was shown to be an abject failure. But all that history and context means nothing to you, does it?

Actually, it was repealed because the FedGov (or ZOG, as it's known in some libertarian circles) needed the revenue.

32 posted on 06/16/2010 10:40:04 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
Statement: "End the Drug War"

Response: It seems to be true that the government falls short in dealing with drug abuse. However, that is no reason to stop trying. No legal or moral rule has ever procured perfect compliance and that is no reason not to have rules

33 posted on 06/16/2010 10:43:47 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
How about we end it by everyone quitting using recreational drugs?

And Prescription Pain Medication too, right?

After all, pain medication can be used in a recreational manner.

34 posted on 06/16/2010 10:52:48 AM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Drugs used to be legal. I do not remember reading about the 1890s drug problem in history books being as serious as we have now.


35 posted on 06/16/2010 10:57:14 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
If the right to take drugs was mentioned in the Constitution, then you could compare them to guns. More silliness in defense of human degradation.

Drugs support an underworld of evil and hopelessness and ending the "drug war" will only allow more victims to be dragged into the pit.

Pretending drug-use is a matter of "personal responsibility" is the same as pretending abortion is "choice".

36 posted on 06/16/2010 10:59:31 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
I don’t mind others drinking alcohol...

How positively benevolent of you n00b

37 posted on 06/16/2010 11:00:56 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Deb

“If the right to take drugs was mentioned in the Constitution”

Adn the right of the fed gvt to decide for me is mentioned where?


38 posted on 06/16/2010 11:06:37 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Deb

Hey, old-timer. Is it your position that any right we have must be listed in the constitution? Last time I looked, the constitution was intended to limit the power of government not to list all of our human rights.


39 posted on 06/16/2010 11:08:42 AM PDT by whence911 (Here illegally? Go home. Get in line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Pretending drug-use alcohol use is a matter of "personal responsibility" is the same as pretending abortion is "choice".

Try it that way.

L

40 posted on 06/16/2010 11:08:42 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Hey man, murder's ****in' legal, 'cause it's not mentioned in the Constitution!

Are you really a moron or do you just play one?

As far as your claim that was a typical libertarian response, I'm calling you a bald faced liar right here and right now.

I've been on more than a couple drug war and libertarian threads and have never seen that argument, let alone have it terms a "typical libertarian argument".

C'mon...have some personal integrity.

41 posted on 06/16/2010 11:08:54 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I understand your point, but I still have to disagree.

Mainly I guess my view is this: It’s not the government’s job to decide that for someone.

If they take drugs and then do something illegal, then by all means they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

As for alchohol, you have to admit it too hurts others than the user. Drunk driving? Neglected kids?

All that is horrible. But it is the person, not the substance that is responsible.


42 posted on 06/16/2010 11:09:55 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Deb
If the right to take drugs was mentioned in the Constitution, then you could compare them to guns.

You have lots of rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In fact the Framers were so concerned about this point being spelled out so no one could make any mistakes about it they included this:

Amendment the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There's no explicit Constitutional right to drink alcohol. But when we banned that the 22nd Amendment had to be ratified and the Volkstead Act passed.

Drugs support an underworld of evil and hopelessness and ending the "drug war" will only allow more victims to be dragged into the pit.

Which is exactly what happened after Prohibition ended. We're now a nation awash in hopeless alcoholics dying on every streetcorner.

Oh, that never happened? Sorry.

Have a good day.

43 posted on 06/16/2010 11:12:48 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
It's been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs.

If enough drug kingpins and high level dealers had been tried, convicted and summarily executed, the "war" might now be just a footnote.

44 posted on 06/16/2010 11:16:52 AM PDT by JimRed (To water the Tree of Liberty is to excise a cancer before it kills us. TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

You should have used a comma. Though I’m not a drinker, I hate the pain and loss caused by alcohol over the centuries, but it doesn’t maintain a worldwide network and sub-culture of narco-terrorism and death.


45 posted on 06/16/2010 11:16:53 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

I am benevolent, aren’t I? Drunken jerks peeing in my doorway get driven off. But I don’t mind if someone has a drink or two.

Surprisingly, there is a difference between a drink or two and drunkenness. Perhaps someday you will discover it, NOOB.


46 posted on 06/16/2010 11:19:41 AM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: libertarian27

How about we outlaw the abuse of prescription pain meds but allow legitimate use?

Or would that just be too crazy?


47 posted on 06/16/2010 11:20:16 AM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

“Public drunkeness is the crime, “

Agreed, so I wouldn’t ban alcohol, as I stated.

Not all drugs contribute to all the anti-social activities I listed.

What sort of anti-social behavior comes from pot smoking? Milder forms, such as paranoia, lack of focus/concentration, indifference to the needs of others legitimately vulnerable to you, reduction of good inhibitions as to your personal behavior, acceptance of harder drug usage, general laziness and worthlessness.

There are exceptions, but they don’t make the rule. Just like sometimes some people can jump off a bridge get survive. However it is still a bad harmful thing to jump off of a bridge.


48 posted on 06/16/2010 11:23:11 AM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Deb
You should have used a comma.

I'm out. I have some on order but they won't be in till the end of the week.

Though I’m not a drinker, I hate the pain and loss caused by alcohol over the centuries, but it doesn’t maintain a worldwide network and sub-culture of narco-terrorism and death.

Actually it does. Alcohol abuse causes millions of deaths annually. And alcohol prohibition a la the Capone era is what caused the gangsterism. (Is that a word? It is now.)

Once alcohol was re-legalized the gangland warfare to control its distribution ended. We have narco-terrorism precisely because the stuff is illegal. When was the last time you saw the Budweiser guy and the Miller guy shooting it out over territory?

It doesn't happen because the alcohol trade is legal, regulated, and taxed.

Now I personally think that deliberately putting something in your body that makes one more stupid than one already is falls under the heading of a very poor long term survival strategy. But that doesn't mean I think we should make it a Federal matter.

There's absolutely NO Constitutional authorization for Congress to tell us what we can and can not put into our bodies. They can't tell us not to smoke pot any more than they can regulate the amount of salt in our food. In fact if you allow them to regulate one, you've pretty much agree that they can regulate anything they wish.

Best,

L

49 posted on 06/16/2010 11:25:30 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
How weird that you use the carnage and waste caused by drinking to make the case for equally available drug use. Or did you think I'm a drinker and you could pretend I'm a hypocrite? Sorry. I never drink anything but Cream Soda, never have, and I somehow escaped the drug trap that got lots of my friends and family.

It makes me sad that people who claim to be conservatives twist their logic to rationalize drug use as "personal responsibility". Delusion.

50 posted on 06/16/2010 11:28:05 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson