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

Skip to comments.

Have We Lost the Drug Wars?
Townhall.com ^ | January 8, 2013 | Bill Murchison

Posted on 01/08/2013 10:59:00 AM PST by Kaslin

Forty-odd (exceedingly odd, I might add) years ago, who would have envisioned a national war against drugs? Nobody took drugs -- nobody you knew, nobody but jazz musicians and funny foreign folk. Then, after a while, it came to seem that everybody did. Drugs became a new front in the war on an old social culture that was taking hard licks aplenty in those days.

I still don't understand why people take drugs. Can't they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon? On the other hand, as Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy argue, in a lucid piece for the Wall Street Journal's Review section, prison populations have quintupled since 1980, in large degree thanks to laws meant to decrease drug usage by prohibiting it; 50,000 Mexicans may have died since 2006 in their country's war against traffickers, and addiction has probably increased.

Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics, and Murphy, a University of Chicago colleague, argue for putting decriminalization of drugs on the table for national consideration. The federal war on drugs, which commenced in 1971, was supposed to discourage use by punishing the sale and consumption of drugs. It hasn't worked quite that way.

"[T]he harder governments push the fight," the two argue, "the higher drug prices become to compensate the greater risks. That leads to larger profits for traffickers who avoid being punished." It can likewise lead "dealers to respond with higher levels of violence and corruption." In the meantime, Becker and Murphy point out, various states have decriminalized marijuana use or softened enforcement of existing prohibitions. Barely two months ago, voters in Colorado and Washington made their own jurisdictions hospitable to the friendly consumption of a joint.

The two economists say full decriminalization of drugs would, among other things, "lower drug prices, reduce the role of criminals in producing and selling drugs, improve many inner-city neighborhoods, [and] encourage more minority students in the U.S. to finish high school." To the Journal's question, "Have we lost the war on drugs?" 89.8 percent of readers replied, "Yes."

One isn't deeply surprised to hear it. National tides seem presently to be running in favor of abortion and gay marriage -- two more elements of the culture wars that began, contemporaneously, with the battle for the right to puff pot. Swimming against powerful tides is no politician's idea of a participatory sport. Conceivably, armed with practical (i.e., $$$$$$) reasons for decriminalizing drugs, advocates of such a policy course will prevail. We can then sit around wondering what all the fuss was about.

What it was about -- you had to have been there to remember now -- was the defense of cultural inhibitions. Sounds awful, doesn't it?

As the counterculture saw things, inhibitions -- voluntary, self-imposed restraints -- dammed up self-expression, self-realization. They dammed up a lot more than that, in truth: much of it in serious need of restraint and prevention.

The old pre-1960s culture assigned a higher role to the head than to the heart. Veneration of instincts risked the overthrow of social guardrails that inhibited bad, harmful and anti-social impulses. The drug culture that began in the '60s elevated to general popularity various practices, modes, devices, and so forth that moved instinct -- bad or good, who cared? -- to the top of the scale of values. There was a recklessness about the enterprise -- do whatever turns you on, man! -- incompatible with sober thought: which was fine with an era that had had it, frankly, with sober thought.

Drugs are very much a part of our time and culture, which is why the war on drugs looks more and more like a losing proposition. The point compellingly advanced by Becker and Murphy may win out over the next decade. If so, the drug gangs may disappear, the prisons disgorge tens of thousands. Will things in general be as good as they might have been had the culture walked a different path 40 years ago -- the path of civilized "inhibition"? Ah. We get down here to brass tacks.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: cannabis; cocaine; culturedrugs; drugculture; drugs; drugwar; ecstasy; legalizelsd; legalizepsp; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-368 next last

1 posted on 01/08/2013 10:59:06 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Have we lost the drug wars?”

Yes, duh.


2 posted on 01/08/2013 11:03:49 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
prison populations have quintupled since 1980, in large degree thanks to laws meant to decrease drug usage by prohibiting it

Not nearly as much as you might think. When cops arrest someone for most any crime, and they are in possession, they often drop the other charges and prosecute for possession, since it is easier to prove.

IOW, the drug charge is often a form of plea bargaining that makes the courts run more efficiently. If drugs were made legal, then those other charges would be filed. I'm not sure prison populations would drop greatly.

The article makes it sound like most people in prison are non-violent non-criminal folks who got caught with a joint. There are some, no doubt, but they are certainly the exception.

3 posted on 01/08/2013 11:05:23 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism are linked.

With the Great Society, the government established ground rules: personal responsibility doesn’t matter. Work ethic doesn’t matter. School and family do not matter. Do whatever you want — the government has tons of money and will do whatever it can to help you maintain a lifestyle that is fun and void of all responsibility.

Any Fiscal Conservative should read the above and say, “We need to cut back the government.”

And any Social Conservative should read the above and say, “It’s no wonder so many people have gotten involved in drugs over the past 40 or 50 years.”

One could say that “we’ve lost the drug war” — but I think it is more important to note that we’ve lost the “limited government” part of our heritage. With fewer social programs, we’d probably have a whole lot less reason to worry about people taking drugs.


4 posted on 01/08/2013 11:06:14 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I still don't understand why people take drugs. Can't they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon?

I don't think this author has a firm grasp on the subject about which he writes.

5 posted on 01/08/2013 11:07:02 AM PST by GSWarrior (Click HERE to read entire tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The war is not against drugs anyway. The war is against the little guys trying to compete against the official government black-market drug trade.


6 posted on 01/08/2013 11:07:02 AM PST by Edgar3 (Don't THREAD on me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yes, they vote Democrat.


7 posted on 01/08/2013 11:07:11 AM PST by bmwcyle (We have gone over the cliff and we are about to hit the bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
O National tides seem presently to be running in favor of abortion and gay marriage -- two more elements of the culture wars that began, contemporaneously, with the battle for the right to puff pot.

Nope. Nobody mentioned gay marriage back then, or even imagined it. It was the sexual revolution that started at the same time, and gay marriage is just the latest stage in the Rev.

8 posted on 01/08/2013 11:07:30 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Tublecane
"Forty-odd (exceedingly odd, I might add) years ago, who would have envisioned a national war against drugs? Nobody took drugs -- nobody you knew, nobody but jazz musicians and funny foreign folk."

40 years ago was 1973 - the year the DEA was created, so clearly drug use had already been growing for a while. Maybe the author missed the sixties?? :)

9 posted on 01/08/2013 11:07:57 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The drug war was lost back in the 1950s with the Beatniks and the 1960s with the Hippies,
and the 1970s with the Counter Culture movement began a systematic destruction of all things we consider normal up until today.


10 posted on 01/08/2013 11:08:14 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (GUNS.. the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
One could say that “we’ve lost the drug war” — but I think it is more important to note that we’ve lost the “limited government” part of our heritage. With fewer social programs, we’d probably have a whole lot less reason to worry about people taking drugs.

We lost our war on alcohol in the near absence of social programs. And why are we "worrying" about people taking drugs in any case?

11 posted on 01/08/2013 11:10:35 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Only jazz musicians and funny foreigners took drugs 40 years ago? This after the hippies. And it’s not as if drugs suddenly became illegal in 1971, though that may be when the war ramped up and got its name. Who could have envisioned a national war on drugs back then? Everyone who was alive during Prohibition or had heard of it, which was everyone.

This is a remarkably poorly written article.


12 posted on 01/08/2013 11:11:24 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Depends on the intent:

If the purpose was to keep people from taking drugs, yes, we lost it a long time ago.

If it was to create a whole new class of criminals to control (as described in a quote from Atlas Shrugs posted on FR many times), then no. It’s working perfectly.


13 posted on 01/08/2013 11:11:49 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

depends upon your idea of victory...

have we stemmed the flow of and use of illegal drugs...NO..

have we given up our liberties, 4th amendment rights and slowly turned our country into a police state... YES


14 posted on 01/08/2013 11:11:57 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

http://www.cduniverse.com/roy-clark-do-you-believe-this-town-lyrics-1431493.htm

Do you believe they voted this town dry?
Well you won’t believe it when I tell you why
The mayor and his cousin and the chief of police
have the bootlegging all nailed down
Do you believe this town?


15 posted on 01/08/2013 11:13:26 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (GUNS.. the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In 1948 I was still 4 yrs away from being old enough to join the Corps—had never heard of MJ—but one afternoon I picked up the daily news and there was sleepy-eyed robert mitcum busted!

http://dearoldhollywood.blogspot.com/2011/01/robert-mitchum-and-marijuana-charge.html

The world began changing faster not that long after that...

Semper Watching!
*****

*****


16 posted on 01/08/2013 11:15:40 AM PST by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Whoa! Great Minds, and only 8 seconds apart....


17 posted on 01/08/2013 11:16:32 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
When cops arrest someone for most any crime, and they are in possession, they often drop the other charges and prosecute for possession, since it is easier to prove.

So, the outcome is that thieves and thugs get a free pass on their thieving and thuggery. Doesn't sound like a terribly good idea to me.

18 posted on 01/08/2013 11:16:43 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
I still don't understand why people take drugs. Can't they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon?
I don't think this author has a firm grasp on the subject about which he writes.

He does, however, seem to have a finely honed sense of sarcasm.

19 posted on 01/08/2013 11:16:51 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Years ago. Decades.


20 posted on 01/08/2013 11:17:17 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

You left out the fact that it has created a money tree for the legal racket. Attorneys on both sides, courts, judges, staffs, forensics techs, jailors, bailiffs, bail bondsmen etc. etc. etc.


21 posted on 01/08/2013 11:20:28 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brightitude
I wasn't sure if he was being serious or not.

I must be suffering from PDS--pundit derangement syndrome.

22 posted on 01/08/2013 11:21:58 AM PST by GSWarrior (Click HERE to read entire tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In a brave new world, soma is needed for control...


23 posted on 01/08/2013 11:23:57 AM PST by GOPJ (News anchor arrogance is a cover for ignorance. - - freeper ryan71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The decriminalization lobby always seems to ignore a number of issues.

(1) How will previously illegal drugs be made available? Certainly not over the counter - you will not be able to just walk in and buy powerful street drugs legally at your local pharmacy or supermarket.

They will be available only by prescription.

(2) In order to get the prescription, a cottage industry of disreputable medical professionals and social workers will fill the gap. And they will not remain nonviolent

(3) Whether he gets his fix from a shady prescription mill and its enforcers rather than from a shady street dealer and his enforcers is immaterial to the employability of junkies.

They are unemployable and they will either be subsidized by taxpayers directly, or they will subsidize themselves through violent crime or, more likely, through both.

(4) Junkies by their nature, need to take doses that are lethal for nonusers and near-lethal for users. The government will not allow such dangerous doses to be dispensed. Therefore, obtaining the desired dose will be illegal in all conceivable circumstances anyway.

(5) Legalization will certainly encourage people who would not otherwise experiment to experiment.

Decriminalization will alleviate nothing and potentially create new problems.

24 posted on 01/08/2013 11:24:16 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; Kaslin

Handing the government the power to prohibit the use of certain substances leads to the loss of limited government. It’s not the other way around. And once you’ve ceded the principle, stop whining when people try to add to the list.

I’m always amazed when conservative rail about government control of soft drinks, fast food, and tobacco but stand arm and arm with the Drug Warriors.


25 posted on 01/08/2013 11:26:40 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“Have we lost the drug wars?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you’re not willing to fight - then you’re sure to lose.


26 posted on 01/08/2013 11:28:56 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They were lost the nanosecond they started.

I don’t do drugs. I quit drinking years ago. I will never advocate their use. But human nature is what it is. No one will ever stop a person that wants to do drugs as long as they exist. And it is not possible to make every mind altering substance vanish.

All you can do is make people accountable for their actions. Such are the burden of a free society.


27 posted on 01/08/2013 11:29:19 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

You imply they would have been successfully prosecuted for something else, but present evidence for just the opposite. Why would they settle for drug charges if they could prove actual crimes (vices are not crimes)? Efficiency’s sake, yes, but of course efficiency is an empty goal if the end result isn’t just. What the drug war makes more efficient is putting more people behind bars with less effort, which was the article’s point in the first place. You have demonstrated it well.

Possession is a sort of catch-all that’s easy to prove, especially with a nonexistent 4th amendment, and easy to offer as reprieve for larger charges hanging over their heads. Without it cops, prosecuters, judges, etc. would have to do their real jobs and convict on real crimes.

About the nonviolent thing, assume the are all rapist murderers. Nevertheless they are behind bars for nonviolent “crimes.” You come at it from the perspective of there are a lot of bad people out there, they need to be locked up, and it’s a good thing to get them anyway we can. That is how most Law and Order types think, I’d bet. It is thoroughly unjust. We should be locking people up for acts which are malum in se, not other acts that aren’t as proxies.

Oh, and were drugs legal at least people wouldn’t be killing eachother over tlcontrol of the drug trade, which would wipe out whatever benefit we get from jailing violent criminals on nonviolent charges right there.


28 posted on 01/08/2013 11:30:08 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Decriminalization will alleviate nothing and potentially create new problems.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

It's too bad someone hasn't come up with the idea of dividing a country into separate sub-jurisdictions so we could test different approaches to things like drug use, and the jurisdictions with the best approaches would gradually see those adopted across the board. Rather than dictating policy for the entire country without any sense of whether or not it is working.

29 posted on 01/08/2013 11:30:44 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Hey, I’m actually in favor of legalization — I just want all the social programs ended first. I don’t care if people die in the streets because they make bad choices. But I do not want to say: “your bad choices are fine with me — take my money: I will support your bad choices.”

End social programs
End the war on drugs

I want both things, and I think the order matters a great deal.


30 posted on 01/08/2013 11:32:15 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

+1


31 posted on 01/08/2013 11:33:29 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It was amazing how quickly drugs appeared on the scene. As the author notes, it seems within a year or two went from nowhere, to everywhere. I saw many lives ruined as a result, and still today, the same old tired “no worse than alcohol” etc. nonchalance about dope. Now we can see where all this “tolerance” “free love” “civil rights” “turn on, tune out” crapola has gotten us. That wonderfully great culture has been corrupted by the left: abortion, divorce, atheism, unpatriotism, drugs, illegitimacy, STDs, quotas, lapdog media . . .what a difference 40+ years made. No wonder we are a nation divided with the brainwashed 47%+


32 posted on 01/08/2013 11:37:18 AM PST by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The decriminalization lobby always seems to ignore a number of issues.

(1) How will previously illegal drugs be made available? Certainly not over the counter - you will not be able to just walk in and buy powerful street drugs legally at your local pharmacy or supermarket.

They will be available only by prescription.

Says who? Any adult can buy the powerful drug alcohol.

(2) In order to get the prescription, a cottage industry of disreputable medical professionals and social workers will fill the gap. And they will not remain nonviolent

See above.

(3) Whether he gets his fix from a shady prescription mill and its enforcers rather than from a shady street dealer and his enforcers is immaterial to the employability of junkies.

They are unemployable and they will either be subsidized by taxpayers directly, or they will subsidize themselves through violent crime or, more likely, through both.

Or as alkies do: odd jobs, panhandling, can collecting, etc.

(4) Junkies by their nature, need to take doses that are lethal for nonusers and near-lethal for users. The government will not allow such dangerous doses to be dispensed. Therefore, obtaining the desired dose will be illegal in all conceivable circumstances anyway.

Any adult can easily buy several times the lethal dose of the drug alcohol.

(5) Legalization will certainly encourage people who would not otherwise experiment to experiment.

So let 'em - contrary to Reefer Madness mythology, a single experience with a drug is rarely if ever damaging or addicting.

33 posted on 01/08/2013 11:40:52 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
It's too bad someone hasn't come up with the idea of dividing a country into separate sub-jurisdictions so we could test different approaches to things like drug use, and the jurisdictions with the best approaches would gradually see those adopted across the board. Rather than dictating policy for the entire country without any sense of whether or not it is working.
 

Actually, that is an idea in progress. 4 years ago even the leftist libtards in California realized legal marijuana was a bad idea and so that proposition was defeated. Now that Colorado and Washington have allowed it - we will witness the free-fall of civil society in those states as crime and welfare rates increase.

34 posted on 01/08/2013 11:41:17 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
In order to get the prescription, a cottage industry of disreputable medical professionals and social workers will fill the gap. And they will not remain nonviolent

Yeah, you just can't turn on a TV without hearing about the lastest shootout between shady docs having a dispute over their OxyContin turf.

Oh. Wait. Actually, I don't recall hearing any stories like that at all....

35 posted on 01/08/2013 11:42:28 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You make a lot of assumptions.

So let it be written. So let it be dumb.

How do you justify a police state?

36 posted on 01/08/2013 11:43:09 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
the same old tired “no worse than alcohol”

Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, and unlike alcohol can't kill you in a single evening of overuse.

37 posted on 01/08/2013 11:44:42 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The old pre-1960s culture assigned a higher role to the head than to the heart. Veneration of instincts risked the overthrow of social guardrails that inhibited bad, harmful and anti-social impulses. The drug culture that began in the '60s elevated to general popularity various practices, modes, devices, and so forth that moved instinct -- bad or good, who cared? -- to the top of the scale of values. There was a recklessness about the enterprise -- do whatever turns you on, man! -- incompatible with sober thought: which was fine with an era that had had it, frankly, with sober thought.

This comment could only be made by someone who thinks "a shot of bourbon" isn't a drug. There was a lot more drinking of alcohol in the 1950s than today, and a much greater societal tolerance for drinking and driving ("one for the road"). The difference between the '50s and '60s wasn't the difference between sobriety and intoxication, but in the choice of intoxicants.

38 posted on 01/08/2013 11:45:37 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I was recently reading William Graham Sumner’s “What the Social Classes Owe to Eachother,” which is from the 1880s, when the state was vastly less involved in our lives but the exact same arguments for its expansion we hear today were gaining momentum. He goes on about how throwing winos in the drunk tank supports them in their drunkenness. Which seems counterintuitive, but is plain as day when you think about it for a moment.

Personal responsibility takes care of itself, unlike the Welfare State. In the very least we know problems like drunkenness or drug addiction take care of themselves if people do not. You won’t be a drunk forever on your own, unless you happen to be a famous writer or somesuch. Why do we interfere with this process? Out of sympathy for the drunk? But that’s their problem. Because we fear worse should drunkenness be unbound? For instance I’m always hearing about how heroin addicts will be robbing me to make a living in the event heroin is legalized. But they already do that, first of all. And there’s be a lot less heroin addicts if we stopped taking care of them, because heroin is a deadly addiction.

Some people just can’t see how criminalizing a thing can give you more of it. But what gives you more of it still is coddling the abusers. That is, the Welfare State gives you more people who need welfare. Worst of all possible outcomes may be legalizing drugs and coddling users in the warm embrace of the state. From a practical perspective, not according to the dictates of justice, that is. Putting them behind bars is better than leaving them free and paying all their bills if you want not to support their habits, I’ll admit.


39 posted on 01/08/2013 11:46:12 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Now that Colorado and Washington have allowed it - we will witness the free-fall of civil society in those states as crime and welfare rates increase.

That one's going on my check-back-in-a-year-to-rub-their-nose-in-how-wrong-they-were list.

40 posted on 01/08/2013 11:47:32 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Can’t they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon? “

A nice shot of bourbon leaves you lucid, grounded in reality, sane, aware of your surrounding.

People who get high want to get MESSED UP. A nice shot of bourbon won’t do it.

And no, I am not defending my sacred cow, I don’t drink bourbon. I have never had more than one drink at a time in my adult life.

But a shot of bourbon will not harm you, and most likely will be a net positive for your health. Thus, it is not of much interest to drug lovers.


41 posted on 01/08/2013 11:48:10 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I don’t know, have we lost the murder wars? Because people are still getting killed.

Have we lost the theft wars? Because merchandize keeps getting stolen.

Have we lost the vandalism wars? Because I still see graffiti.

I guess we’ve lost all the wars, and just let everyone do everything they want to. Since we’ve “lost the wars.”


42 posted on 01/08/2013 11:49:40 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
What would happen if we "won?"

Think of all those DEA jobs that would go away.

Think of all the Don Johnson wannabes who could never slick their hair back and drive forfeited Ferraris.

The purpose of the War on (Some) Drugs is not to "win."

To steal a phrase from Steve Jobs, "The journey is the reward."

43 posted on 01/08/2013 11:49:40 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I’m always hearing about how heroin addicts will be robbing me to make a living in the event heroin is legalized. But they already do that, first of all. And there’s be a lot less heroin addicts if we stopped taking care of them, because heroin is a deadly addiction.

Not to mention that legal heroin would be much cheaper and motivate correspondingly less theft.

44 posted on 01/08/2013 11:50:45 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
That wonderfully great culture has been corrupted by the left: abortion, divorce,

The country's first no fault divorce law, and one of the first laws legalizing abortion, were both signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan.

45 posted on 01/08/2013 11:51:59 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Your argument loses a lot of force when you realize the shady world of prescription drugs you describe already exist. So does the world of junkies stealing to feed their habit. We ca shift the forces now used to crack down on drug sales and possession to fight the real crimes of robbery, burglary, etc.

I truly cannot understand the paper thinness of drug warrior arguments. You’ve had a long while and much opposition and that’s all you can come up with? Specters of things that are already happening with the unjust, deadly, costly, demoralizing drug war.


46 posted on 01/08/2013 11:53:59 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

I just find it interesting that so many of these patriotic Americans forget that Opium was real popular with the Constitution writing set.

But then lots of people don’t like the ugly truths of history.

Like the fact that drug laws only came about recently on the timescale of civilized man.

How oh how did we ever survive? How did we not collapse into a drug fueled haze?

Lets not speak of the sheer volumes of amphetamines that rushed through many of the projects like Manhattan and NASA.

Lets not mention the genesis and main ingredient of Coca Cola was Cocaine and men/women/children drank it freely with no CocaCola trade developing and CocaCola violence.

Drug use is part of every human era and many human endeavors. For better or worse, it just is.


47 posted on 01/08/2013 11:54:42 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Legalizing pot is a libeal agenda. Liberal agendas fail. End of story.

But if it sends a thrill down your leg to hope this succeeds... knock yourself out.


48 posted on 01/08/2013 11:54:57 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
A nice shot of bourbon leaves you lucid, grounded in reality, sane, aware of your surrounding.

Ditto for a few puffs of moderate-potency pot.

49 posted on 01/08/2013 11:56:39 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I must assume some are deterred from drug use b drug laws. But the margin has got to be so thin it’s anorexic. Come on, who doesn’t at least try something that really wants to? Maybe not crack or meth, but any number of milder alternatives.


50 posted on 01/08/2013 11:57:18 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-368 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