Skip to comments.The War on Drugs is Immoral and Ineffective
Posted on 02/13/2013 2:23:16 PM PST by honestabe010
Despite increased efforts, manpower, and resources, the war on drugs has been a resounding failure. W.C. fields once quipped, If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. Theres no point in being a damn fool about it. Not only does the government continue to fail in its crusade against drugs, it continues to perpetrate a policy of immense immorality. It has been over forty years since President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. What do we have to show for it? The United States has wasted over one trillion dollars, caused incarceration rates to exceed that of the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin, discriminated heavily against African-Americans, propped up the drug cartels, and allowed drug profits to flow into the pockets of al-Qaeda and other such terrorist groups.
The biggest success in the war on drugs has been the protection of drug cartels profits. In a standard legalized business, there are countless importers and exporters of a particular good. However, due to drug raids and seizures, the price of maintaining an operation has been driven up, forcing out small time distributors. This allows the only viable distributors to be those with enough money and resources to avoid interdiction efforts. These are the highly violent drug cartels that are flush with cash. By keeping goods out and arresting local distributors, the government keeps the price of these drugs up. What else could a monopolist want?
From 1776 to 1914, drugs were mostly legal on a federal and local level. What was so wrong with that period of time? Alcohol prohibition clearly failed, creating a black market for alcohol, resulting in organized crime fueled by the likes of Al Capone. Drug prohibition in the United States has created the monsters known as drug cartels...
(Excerpt) Read more at timessquaregossip.com ...
The War on Morality is immoral but very effective
there is nothing good to say about drugs
You can say the same thing about the war on poverty.
Excellent, thanks for posting this.
Nor about the War on Drugs.
Drugs are bad. The war on some drugs are worse.
The “war” against ending any criminal activity is ineffective, and often immoral. Does that mean we shouldn’t arrest and prosecute gang members, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, white-collar criminals, or murderers? This is a stupid argument.
Two-thirds of murders are solved - a success rate surely several orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which drug "crimes" are even detected.
and often immoral.
Does that mean we shouldnt arrest and prosecute gang members, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, white-collar criminals, or murderers?
Unlike drug "crimes," those crimes have actual victims.
Same ol hippy clap trap.
Times Square Gossip — sounds about right.
there is nothing good to say about drugs
Do you have something good to say about freedom? The War on Drugs is the #1 reason why our 4th Amendment rights have basically evaporated. And for what?
Oh, and while we're on the topic, how did our 2nd Amendment rights save us from this? This is another thing that's annoying me recently: the idea that the 2nd Amendment is some kind of magic that preserves our other rights. If you're resorting to that, you've already screwed up. The people who let the War on Drugs erode our basic rights screwed up.
From wikipedia...."Registered sponsors for the measure include: John McKay, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington; Pete Holmes, Seattle city attorney; Kim Marie Thorburn MD and MPH, former director of the Spokane Regional Health District; and travel writer Rick Steves. Other sponsors include state representative for the 36th district Mary Lou Dickerson, immediate past president of the Washington State Bar Association Salvador A. Mungia, past president of the Washington State Bar Association Mark Johnson, former King County health official Robert W. Wood MD, University of Washington School of Social Work professor emeritus Roger Roffman DSW, and Alison Holcomb, campaign director for New Approach Washington, "on loan from" the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.'
..."The mayor and entire city council of Seattle support I-502, as does the King County sheriff. Former narcotics deputy and candidate for King County sheriff John Urquhart, saying "the war on drugs has been an abject failure"."
Don't be one of those folks and the problem is solved.
Libertarian Utopians are stupid.
They want all drugs legal for all people, right? Kids too, since to liberdopians they are just little adults. No age of consent is a retarded idea.
There are reasonable arguments for somehow changing the approach to drugs made by reasonable people.
This article is not one of them and is more hippy clap trap.
“From 1776 to 1914, drugs were mostly legal on a federal and local level. What was so wrong with that period of time? Alcohol prohibition clearly failed”
Drugs were mainly not invented or discovered nor known or available during most of this time period.
By the turn of the century knowledge of them and their availability had become such that laws in 1906 and 1914 were put in place in reaction.
And prohibition didn’t occur until 1919. The author doesn’t know how to even think straight to make an argument.
“there is nothing good to say about drugs”
They’re palliative. They’re socially useful. They provide good entertainment.
There, that’s three things.
Two words, ‘opium dens’.
They want all drugs legal for all people, right?
No. They want marijuana legalized for the same people who are legal to drink alcohol. Other drugs can be dealt with in ways that are specific to the harm they cause.
If arresting and prosecuting people for murder, rape, etc. had no discernable effect on those activities, led to as much corruption as the Drug War, and created all new problems we’ve never had to deal with before, then, yes, we should wonder whether they’re worth the trouble. But we never will, because those things you mention are malum in say, or evil in themselves, and people wouldn’t stand for perpetrators not to be brought to justice.
Drug consumption, production, and distribution are not evil in themselves. We criminalize them because we don’t like their direct and indirect consequences. If it’s a big waste of money, those consequences come about anyway, and new evils result from the direct and indirect consequences of the Drug War, rather than the drugs themselves, it’d be stupid not to considering dropping the whole charade.
malum in say = malum in se
Same ol hippy clap trap.
Times Square Gossip — sounds about right.
Yep. There are thousands of valid legal, moral and ethical reasons to keep fighing in the WOD. But one of the obvious reasons to ignore the idiots calling for legalized dope is to point out who they are:
Stoned out dopers and libertarians.
“From 1776 to 1914, drugs were mostly legal on a federal and local level.”
Please review the history of Opium Dens in the US and laws passed in response to them with respect to the statement quoted above.
Just because hippies were wrong about almost everything doesn’t mean they were right about nothing. The Drug war is a failure and Vietnam was a mistake. Imperialism and prohibition are immoral, and for much the same reason. If thinking so makes me a hippy, so be it.
Also available-right along with opium-cultivated and even traded since long before the 19th century-coca, ergot and other grain molds, peyote, psilosyben(sp), and of course, marijuana-organic drugs were used thousands of years ago, right along with beer, wine and uisge/whisky-ancient humankind was apparently not innocent of intoxication of any sort...
Opium, cocaine, and marijuana have been used since time immemorial. The active ingredient for cocaine was first isolated and morphine and heroin were invented in the 19 th century. Amphetamines and barbiturates, were developed in that century as well. PCP, LSD, and certain other substances didn’t come along until shortly before the Drug War, so I guess you’re on solid ground there. Otherwise, you are remarkably ignorant.
And the organic predecedent of LSD is a form of ergot-corn smut. LSD was first experimented with by the government, supposedly looking for a cure for serious and recurrent psychosis-boy, did they ever get that wrong...
“There are thousands of valid legal, moral and ethical reasons to keep fighting in the WOD.”
No there aren’t. But if there are, the reasons are valid for alchohol and prescription drugs, too, only they don’t count for drug warriors for no reason whatsoever.
I expected that meme. No actual victims, heh? Funny. I deal with the results of people who used illegal drugs every day at work. Try spending time in a school. Or, do you think that the cells of a zygote are unaffected by the parent who uses and abuses drugs? Do you believe that ovum and sperm are unaffected by drugs? No victims, my arse.
Try telling that to the thousands upon thousands of drug addicted babies born to drug using parents. Try telling that to the children in schools who struggle with various learning and social deficits as a direct result of the illegal (and sometimes legal) drugs their parents used and abused. I see the evil in drug consumption on a daily basis.
Ever heard of fetal alchohol syndrome (FAS)? Prescription and over the counter drugs can harm your fetus. While we’re at it let’s prohibit tobacco, caffeine, cleaning products, sweeteners, raw food, and so on.
You are fishing for victims.
A 2011 report titled the Global Commission on Drug Policy was formulated by, among others, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz, former President of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, and former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Below are some of their recommendations and conclusions:
“The global war on drugs has failed ... Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption.”
Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers.
End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.
Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.
The war on drugs is immoral and ineffective. The meta-analysis of researchers and scholars leave us with one conclusion: legalization is the only viable solution.
I can’t imagine any pregnant woman with a functioning brain even taking an aspirin without dire need-the whistle has been blown on prescription drugs such as antidepressants in the UK already-they are looking just as bad as the illicit stuff.
I and most of my family believe drugs are bad juju, illicit or prescription, and I never touch them, but that is just my opinion. I would never seek to force it on anyone by law or threat.
As a child, I remember hearing about thalidomide causing terrible birth defects-my mom told me that it was considered a safe sleeping pill for years...
By the way, I’d like to point up how you basically forfeited the argument when instead of responding to my unassailable verdict that drug use isn’t evil in itself first through adding pregnancy into the mix, then by admitting legal substances affect kids, too. But if that’s true, it is not grounds for making drugs illegal. There must be some extra element with which we may distinguish between illegal and legal baby-affecting substances.
What is it? Your irrational fear and hatred of some drugs, that’s what.
In 1988 Paul made a presidential campaign stop at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws while running on the Libertarian Party ticket. “What was so bad about the period from 1776 to 1914?” Paul wondered, referring to a time in American history when drugs were legal on the federal, and, in many towns, local level. “In the 20th Century, the doctors, like all business people, decided that there ought to be a monopoly. If you wanted a little bit of codeine in your cough medicine, it would be much better if you come to me so I can charge you $25 for a prescription.’
and then it will be on to pedophilia for the Libertopians
how did you extrapolate that from those quotes?
I was talking about libertopians
You won’t convince me that legalizing cocaine and heroin for the kids is a good idea. ever.
Thalidomide was a sedative discovered to be effective at treating the symptoms of morning sickness. Because it is chemically racemic, thalidomide consists of two molecular isomers that are mirror images of eachother. One of these halves inserts itself into biological processes—I don’t think we know how, exactly—and adversely affects child development, leading to birth defects.
If this is Tuesday, it must be Belgium...
I’ll believe that when libertarians start saying it’s okay to force marijuana smoke into children’s lungs.
who wants to legalize them for kids? There would be a legal age just like alcohol. Studies show that drug use does not markedly increase based on legalization, there is an initial spike but that lasts for a short period of time.
“However, according to analysis put forth by the American Journal of Economics & Sociology in a 2000 article titled Legalize Drugs Now, the increase is expected to be minimal. Whether a drug is legal or not plays a small role in whether individuals decide to consume them. The study asserts that it expects an initial spike in use immediately after legalization. However, as with alcohol prohibition, this effect will wane with time. The study shows that the average per ca pita consumption of alcohol has fallen to its lowest level ever. The legalization of alcohol reversed the potency effect. The legalization of drugs will do the same.
“You won’t convince me that legalizing cocaine and heroin for the kids is a good idea. ever.”
Rest easy, for almost no one is pushing for that. I think it oughtta be the concern of parents and various in loco parentis agents, and definitely none of fedguv’s business. But I won’t hold rallies for it, or anything.
You are correct-a drug called phenergan was/is used to replace it for a time-also causes sleep/drowsiness, but I heard there was some doubt about the safety of that one, too. In my world, pregnant = no drugs-have some crackers and chamomile or ginger tea.
Didn’t alchohol consumption spike during prohibition, or is that a myth? Seems to me that for those who do risk punishment to shoot, smoke, or pop ilicit substances, they may take more than they otherwise would for it to be worth it. Certainly the Drug War prevents the free market from providing milder doses of the big, bad substances. I imagine that were concaine legal they’d probably have sold a wine cooler version of it by now.
“wine cooler version”
Wasn’t that what the original Coca Cola was?
From The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2,
“We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level.”
Morphine was not invented it was isolated.
Now that you mention it, yes. Funny story, back in its infancy FDA busybodies decided to go after Coca Cola for exposing its customers to cocaine. When it was discovered that the coke in Coke had by that time been largely replaced by caffeine they went after them for false advertising instead.