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 ...
I may have used the wrong word, but the idea is the same. It didn’t exist in purifier form before the hand of man intervened to isolate it. After it was isolated, it existed as it had not before. I don’t see it as a crime against the English language to say whoever first isolated morphine “invented” the product of pure morphine.
I am not arguing pro or con on drug legalization or ending the drug war.
I am pointing out that the argument in this article is claptrap and statements such as Paul’s which you present are historically ignorant and at best is a ludicrous bromide.
purifier = purified
Just like poverty had become such by 1965 that the War on Poverty was put in place as a reaction?
Any other Progressive ideas you'd like to defend - Prohibition? The income tax?
The 1914 date is obviously a reference to the Harrison Act, which was the watershed for federal antidrug crusading. Surely you can’t think it claptrap, ignorant, or ludicrous to ignore the pitiful little progressive gestures made at regulating opioids and cocaine from the Gay 90s to 1914. Because there isn’t more than a trinkle in that era, and none before. They levied taxes in the 90s, passed the PFDA to attack all manner of food and drug business, not just the kinds that are part if the Drug War today, and I think banned the importation of opium for nonmedical purposes a few years before Harrison. Whoopty-doo.
Before the overzealous meddling of the same folks who brought us prohibition, drugs were a state and local issue, if that. As with most things before the progressive era, we were better off.
Some FReepers have the oddest faith in particular kinds of Big Government. To hear them tell it the early years of the Republic don’t count because it wasn’t until federal intervention, conveniently, that they became enough of a problem to justify intervention. Which I might buy had I never heard of government until a couple seconds before I heard that argument.
That’s not how it usually works. Usually they don’t draft laws against things until the problem has almost solved itself, as with child labor and the 8 hour workday. There’s also a perverse tendency to pass more laws the better things get.
Statism is strong among many Conservatives, and the perceived lawlessness of libertarianism is the primary basis for their arguments against it. It’s a difficult mindset to engage.
There are plenty of excellent arguments against the WOD. There are also plenty of sound theories that make the case against decriminalizing narcotics.
Protection of minors is equally important to deconstructing the WOD industry. In my opinion, repeal should be offset by clearly defined capital consequences. Doubtful the Statists nor Libertarians would be comfortable with my solutions.
Few are interested in the factual details, so I’m doubtful much will change.
The war on drugs has reduced the number of hard drug users in the US.
That was the goal.
Unlike drug "crimes," those crimes have actual victims.
Now watch the amazing Drug Warrior moving-goalpost trick - as all talk of gang members, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, white-collar criminals, or murderers is quietly but decisively abandoned:
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.
It's HEAVY drug use FOLLOWED BY CONCEPTION that creates a victim - so your argument no more supports a drug ban than a conception ban. And birth defects are also linked to alcohol and tobacco; do you favor banning those drugs too, or is your concern for yet-unconceived potential victims selective?
Protection of minors is equally important to deconstructing the WOD industry.
Since kids started reporting several years ago that they could get pot more easily than they could get cigarettes or beer, it appears that the more effective way to keep pot out of kids' hands is to legalize it for adults - so sellers have an incentive not to sell to kids (namely, the loss of their legal adult sales).
In my opinion, repeal should be offset by clearly defined capital consequences.
Including the deadly addictive drug alcohol?
More than that, it incentivizes the production and use of stronger forms - such as the crack form of cocaine, and heroin strong enough for a high via snorting. (And the rise in popularity of hard liquor during Prohibition.)
And yet you've never posted a single one.
That is a flat out lie. The amount of a drug that can, and does, result in deficits in the developing fetus, whether physical or cognitive, DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAVY OR REPEATED USE! See, I can use caps too.
I'm not surprised by your, "He did it too" argument (And birth defects are also linked to alcohol and tobacco;) either. It's the same type of argument used by liberal idiots almost on a daily basis. So, because there are substances which can result in birth defects that are not drugs, therefore, society should embrace drug use. Wow. the level of stupidity that goes into that argument is stunning.
The amount of a drug that can, and does, result in deficits in the developing fetus, whether physical or cognitive, DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAVY OR REPEATED USE!
so your argument no more supports a drug ban than a conception ban.
This logical conclusion stands unrefuted.
And birth defects are also linked to alcohol and tobacco; do you favor banning those drugs too, or is your concern for yet-unconceived potential victims selective?
So, because there are substances which can result in birth defects that are not drugs,
Actually, they are drugs - legal ones.
therefore, society should embrace drug use.
What a transparent and feeble misrepresentation of my argument. My actual argument, as I clearly stated, is that genuine concern for birth defects - as opposed to using them as a smokescreen - would call for a ban on those legal drugs just as surely as a continued ban on illegal drugs.
"The good news for men is that sperm is produced continuously in a 74-day cycle, so the body does clean itself over time." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/19/health.drugsandalcohol
We will agree to disagree on this issue. You are free to go snort your cocaine, inject your heroin, smoke your pcp laced dope, etc etc. Just, for God’s sake, DO NOT procreate.
Not sure where you get your numbers from but I'll share with you what I know.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health was performed initially in 1971 by Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and is now an annual event sponsored by SAMHSA. Illegal drug use peaked in 1979 with 14.1% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days. The 2012 survey results are not yet available, but the 2011 survey results reported that 8.7% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days.
This is a decrease in the rate of illegal drug use of 38%! This would be an enormous success for anyone much less for the Federal government. Since most of their programs tend to be colossal failures.
Drug use during pregnancy was first reported in a survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1992. They reported that just over 5% of pregnant mothers used illegal drugs. The NSDUH survey from 2008 reported 4.3%.
Another decrease in rate of use. This time of 14%!
Finally your 540% increase for drug overdoses seems to be another complete fabrication. Nowhere in the literature can I find such a claim.
I assume you're referring to this CDC report based on the dates you used. However this report also includes poisoning deaths due to things like carbon monoxide poisoning, something that was never intended to be addressed by the War on Drugs.
In fact, data on overdoses due to the use of illegal drugs seems to have been swamped by overdoses due to legal drugs. Now that more states have been trying to make marijuana legal, I believe that data on overdoses of illegal drugs will be lost entirely.
I suspect you're involved in one of these harm reduction groups. You only care about your "right" to do whatever you want regardless of the damage and cost to others.
The War on Drugs was an attempt to prevent people from getting lost in the drug underclass. Drug using workers have a higher incidence of involuntary absences from work. 32% of drug using workers lose their jobs due to degrading work performance and unsafe events on the job. They start jumping to increasingly lower salary jobs until they drop out of the work force. The rest of us pay for this in increased prices.
In Chicago, 82% of persons arrested test positive for illegal drugs. 35% of these are using multiple illegal drugs. Since they can't work, they're forced to steal from the rest of us so they can get the money they need to satisfy their addictions. In 1989, a New York city study found that 67% of DUI suspects were taking 2 or more illegal drugs. Putting the safety of the rest of us at risk.
I stand by my original comment.
If your user name is correct, I thank you for your service and pray you get help for your addictions.
With all posted evidence being on my side.
You are free to go snort your cocaine, inject your heroin, smoke your pcp laced dope, etc etc. Just, for Gods sake, DO NOT procreate.
I use no mind-altering drugs, legal or illegal - and my children are healthy and very intelligent. Your snide insinuations are down to the usual Drug Warrior low standards.
Oh, it peaked then? What was the 1971 figure? It's not available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nhsda/ar18tbl.htm.
The 2012 survey results are not yet available, but the 2011 survey results reported that 8.7% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days.
This is a decrease in the rate of illegal drug use of 38%! This would be an enormous success for anyone much less for the Federal government.
And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation. Giving the War on Drugs credit is the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise.
Drug using workers have a higher incidence of involuntary absences from work. 32% of drug using workers lose their jobs due to degrading work performance and unsafe events on the job. They start jumping to increasingly lower salary jobs until they drop out of the work force. The rest of us pay for this in increased prices.
If individuals choose to make themselves less productive - through drugs, alcohol, or staying up too late - it's the rankest collectivism to regard this as a "cost" to "the rest of us" that justifies restricting individuals' liberties.
And note that the DEA says 75% of adults who used drugs in the past month are employed.
In Chicago, 82% of persons arrested test positive for illegal drugs. 35% of these are using multiple illegal drugs.
You say 8.7% of the population uses drugs - has anything close to 8.7% of the population been imprisoned? If not, then drug use does not cause criminal behavior.
Since they can't work, they're forced to steal from the rest of us so they can get the money they need to satisfy their addictions.
They'd steal less - if at all, instead of can collecting or panhandling - if the War on Drugs wasn't hyperinflating drug prices.
In 1989, a New York city study found that 67% of DUI suspects were taking 2 or more illegal drugs. Putting the safety of the rest of us at risk.
Alcohol DUI puts the safety of the rest of us at risk - is that sufficient reason to ban that drug?