Is it time to rethink the war on drugs?

Tea Party Nation ^ | 12/13/12 | Judson Phillips

[Thad Lost]

We have had the “War on Drugs” since the 70’s. In the 80’s, the “War” went from just skirmishes to an all out nuclear war on drugs.

Now, thirty years later what have we accomplished? Has the “War on Drugs” become just another epic government failure like the “War on Poverty” with the only thing accomplished being massive government spending and an equally massive erosion of our Constitutional Rights?

My perspective on the “War on Drugs” is a little different from most people. I practiced law for 24 years. Ten of those years were as a prosecutor. The rest were as a criminal defense lawyer. Three of my years prosecuting I spent as a drug prosecutor.

In my line of work I have met and worked with more drug dealers and users than the average person would see in a lifetime. I have no sympathy for drug dealers and while I have some pity for drug users, controlled substances of all kinds including Marijuana are something to be avoided at all costs.

The “War on Drugs” has created several things. None of them are really good. First it has created a massive government bureaucracy at not only the Federal level of government but also at the state and local levels as well. The Federal Government pumps billions of dollars out in the “War on drugs.” This money is spent on law enforcement, prosecutors, defense lawyers, prisons, corrections employees, social workers, advertising and the list goes on beyond belief.

[nathanbedford]

The author makes the following points which, however unpalatable, appeared to be unassailable:

1. By any stretch of the imagination, this war has failed.

2. The second casualty has been Constitutional Rights.

3. the “War on Drugs” has created powerful criminal enterprises.

4. the “War on Drugs” has been a failure and has created more problems that it has solved

5. Liberty also means we have the right to make stupid choices.

6. we have created massive criminal enterprises that would die if drug use and distribution were regulated instead of being made contraband.

7. insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

[FerociousRabbit]

“...irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.”

And how is that different from the irrational behavior and psychotic thinking of non-drug users? I see no conservative argument in your post , just an irriational and, possibly, psychotic statement :)

[varmintman]

Now, thirty years later what have we accomplished? Has the “War on Drugs” become just another epic government failure like the “War on Poverty” with the only thing accomplished being massive government spending and an equally massive erosion of our Constitutional Rights?

Yes.

Some questions actually do have simple answers...

[varmintman]

I don't have anything to do with drugs and recommend everybody on the planet do the same; every drug problem in the world would vanish within five days if the whole world were to do that...

Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to

• "No-knock" raids, which are a clear violation of the fourth amendment and of the common law principle of a man's home being his "castle". In fact technically a homeowner who were to shoot and kill one or more government agents in the process of conducting a "no knock" raid would be entirely within his or her rights.
• The incarceration of large numbers of people who would otherwise never have had contact with prison systems. For many this amounts to a career training program for serious crime.
• Gang wars, drive-by shootings and the like.
• Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.

It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/

The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.

Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.

Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.

"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."

The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

• Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
• Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
• Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.
• Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?

[PMAS]

“If you want to be a registered drug user, you are not going to get public assistance. If you want to get high, you can do it on your own dime.”

This will never happen, registered drug users will become a whole new entitlement class.

[Boogieman]

“What would happen is they would steal the cheap drugs and resell them.”

No, they would do like every other criminal organization does when one of their rackets disappears because the laws change. They’ll just focus on other rackets that are still profitable.

Stealing the “cheap drugs” to sell doesn’t make any sense at all. Why steal the drugs to sell when there is no longer any large profit in selling the drugs? That makes about as much sense as the mob hijacking Budweiser trucks just because they used to sell booze during prohibition.

[Boogieman]

It’s not ignored at all. The point you are missing is that the War on Drugs doesn’t do much of anything to mitigate any of those effects, in fact, I would say it only exacerbates them. So, why should we keep doing the same thing that we know never works? That seems like a great way to perpetuate these same problems forever.

[Pelham]

“And how is that different from the irrational behavior and psychotic thinking of non-drug users?”

Oh that’s right... the amount of irrationality and psychotic behavior found in non-drug users is so similar to the numbers found among drug users. /libertarian idiocy off

[Mister Da]

You're right! Bureaucrats & their enablers cannot resist wielding control over people.

“If you want to be a legal drug user, then you register.”

Uh, we already have millions of legal drug users - people who drink alcohol. Shouldn't they register as well? Alcohol DOES destroy more lives than all other drug abuse combined. Alcohol IS a drug & it is used specifically to get high.

(Waiting for the circular argument that alcohol is legal but illicit drugs are not.)

Let's tattoo a “D” on drug users - their hand would be appropriate, & an “A” on alcohol users. Perhaps a “P” for prescription drug abusers, & a huge “G” for gluttons.

Registration as a drug user would publicly, legally doom a person to mediocrity, at best, whether the person is capable or not.

Now, before you scream back that drug use dooms a person to mediocrity, registration or not, YOU'RE WRONG. Responsible drug use is no more debilitating that having a drink after work or taking a pain pill for a sore back. Contrary to your misconceptions, many successful people use illicit drugs. I have known doctors, lawyers, accountants, politicians, & computer whiz’s who use illicit drugs - years ago, of course.

OTOH, ABUSE of anything will be harmful to anyone. One or 2 drinks aren't bad - they may be good for you, but a fifth a night & you are doomed. Same for illicit drugs & cheese burgers. It is drug ABUSE that is the problem, not drug use.

Given that no other way of dealing with drug abuse has been tried in the US other than policing, & therefore, nobody has a viable solution to the problem, I suggest that the Feds get COMPLETELY out of the illicit drug policing business, & let the states try innovative ideas to solve the abuse problem, & leave responsible recreational drug users ALONE.

Finally, as a matter of principle & freedom, should the gov’t have the right to tell you what you may & may not consume?

[blueunicorn6]

Well, I see some interesting excuses for people to use illegal drugs. One guy writes that illegal drugs keep him from climbing a clock tower and killing people. A common response for people using illegal drugs is because people drink alcohol. I know, I don’t understand that one either. Taking illegal drugs to escape from reality is cowardice. Attempting to escape from reality has another name.....insanity. No culture values cowardice, yet we want to make it easier for people to use illegal drugs and behave in a cowardly manner. I see article after article and post after post every day on Free Republic lamenting how Democrats vote. Many people vote Democrat because they’re afraid. Obama “cares” about them. He’ll take care of them. Conservatives recognize the insanity of that type of thinking. But, here at Free Republic, many supposed conservatives are fine with people using illegal drugs to escape reality and behave in a cowardly manner. If you think that escaping from reality is a good thing, then look at the Democrat policies. They are unrealistic. But, for some here at Free Republic, the unrealistic Democrat policies are bad, but people escaping from reality is OK. That’s a gaping inconsistency. You want to know how to stop illegal drug use? Call illegal drug users what they are....cowards. Use the word that describes illegal drug use for what it is.....insanity. “No man is an island.” Every toke, every snort, every shot somebody attempting to escape reality takes affects me. They affect you. You can hope that you can live in your bunker and avoid them, but they vote. They influence others to escape reality. Our Republic requires brave people. Fight or surrender. There is no hiding. How many people successfully hid in the Soviet Union? None. Fight or surrender.

[Pelham]

“It’s not ignored at all. The point you are missing is that the War on Drugs doesn’t do much of anything to mitigate any of those effects, in fact, I would say it only exacerbates them.”

I see. So in the world you inhabit the war on drugs actually increases drug use.

BTW, I think we have all noticed the social benefits conferred upon us by Bath Salts, which as far as I know are perfectly legal. But then face-eating is pretty common among non drug users, who are noted for their irrational behavior.

[tacticalogic]

I don’t see where in the Constitution something like the War on Drugs is authorized. Let state and local governments decide the issue.

Agreed. Let the "laboratories of democracy" work, and see what they come up with. If we decide we absolutely have to have a national policy, then look at what those laboratories produce and then pick the best one and draft and ratify an amendment to enact it. That's how it's supposed to work. This open-ended grant of power to the federal government over anything Congress can "find" to "have a substantial effect on interstate commerce" is bullshit.

[Mister Da]

Excellent post!

I must say though, that if you drink alcohol, then you use drugs as surely as a pot smoker. If you do not, then my apologies, in advance.

[OneWingedShark]

I always suspect that people who advocate legalizing drugs haven’t lived around people who use them much.
In the pretend world that libertarians inhabit the impact of drug users’ irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.

And in my experience War on Drugs (WOD) advocates fail to consider the impact of government's irrational behavior and psychotic thinking in pursuing such contraconstitutional policies.

What has the WOD done to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments? Given there was an amendment needed for prohibition, why is there no such amendment needed for the WOD's authorization? What has the necessity to justify the WOD under the "commerce clause" done in interpretation of that clause?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Practically speaking, there are several problems.

To start with, marijuana needs to be separated from both other illegal and pharmaceutical drugs, breaking the paradigm that the FDA is be the single monopoly authority that determines what pharmaceuticals and non-pharmaceuticals (OTC and alternative medicines and herbal medicines) people can use.

And breaking this monopoly has all sorts of ramifications, such as legalizing the consumption of raw milk, unless it is outlawed at the state level, and raising the question of why the federal government is involved with regulating alcohol and tobacco.

But then, there is a huge problem coming down the pike of an enormous number of Americans addicted to prescription opiates and synthetic opiate painkillers; who now that they are being reformulated to make them harder to abuse, will in great numbers turn to cheaper and more effective heroin.

In 2010 alone there were 15,000 opiate and synthetic opiate fatal prescription pill overdoses in the US. Estimates are that 5 million Americans are misusing these drugs, with no clear picture on how many of them are addicted.

And the movement to heroin, costing only a quarter as much as the equivalent prescription medicine, is happening a lot faster and in greater scale than was expected.

Current methods of exchanging a methadone addiction for heroin addiction are clearly insufficient to handle this huge increase in addicts.

Last but not least are all the other illegal drugs, such as methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and numerous pharmaceutical type brain drugs, as well as weird blends of who knows what such as bath salts.

[Boogieman]

“So in the world you inhabit the war on drugs actually increases drug use.”

I did not say it increased drug use, but that it exacerbates the negative effects. It turns drugs into expensive commodities, which encourages illegal behavior by drug users to get money to obtain those expensive commodities. The profits from those commodities fund the activities of criminal gangs, which engage in all sorts of other criminal and antisocial behavior. Drug users are also funneled into the criminal world and penal system, which just encourage them to engage in other kinds of crimes as well. All of those things result from the War on Drugs.

[bramps]

Who sells the addicts their heroin and crack?

[Mister Da]

Drug use & alcohol use are one & the same, done for exactly the same reason - to get high. Alcohol is an intoxicant DRUG.

So, if drug users are cowards, escaping reality, then every beer drinker in America is a coward, escaping reality.

See what that idea gets you at a ballgame or office party!

[Boogieman]

“Attempting to escape from reality has another name.....insanity.”

If that were true, then we’d all be insane. Every person who drinks a beer, plays a video game, reads a work of fiction, goes to the movies, plays recreational sports, goes on a camping trip, etc. All of them, insane, according to your definition.

Or, maybe, it’s instead true that every human being needs some escape from reality, in part to maintain their sanity, and drugs are just an unhealthy one to choose.

[upsdriver]

The War on Murder has been a dismal failure, too.