The War on Drugs is Immoral and Ineffective

Times Square Gossip ^ | February 13, 2013 | Brian Woodward

[JustSayNoToNannies]

There are also plenty of sound theories that make the case against decriminalizing narcotics.

Such as?

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?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Certainly the Drug War prevents the free market from providing milder doses of the big, bad substances.

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.)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

There are thousands of valid legal, moral and ethical reasons to keep fighing in the WOD.

And yet you've never posted a single one.

[SoldierDad]

It's HEAVY drug use FOLLOWED BY CONCEPTION

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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

It's HEAVY drug use FOLLOWED BY CONCEPTION that creates a victim -

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!

Evidence?

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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

"Pregnancy that occurs after the development of tolerance with chronic marijuana use may involve an ovum that has been damaged by exposure to the drug during critical developmental stages." (emphasis added) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6090911

"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

[SoldierDad]

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.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In 2012, the US drug survey (first started in 2002) found that 8.9% of the American population 12 and over had used illicit drugs in the last 30 days. That is an overall change from the late 1970's estimates of about 9.5%. I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would consider a .6% decrease over a three decade, trillion-dollar cost a "success!"

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.

[ExTxMarine]

If your user name is correct, I thank you for your service and pray you get help for your addictions.

First, I am trying to have a good conversation, so why do you need to attempt to insult me by implying that I have some sort of addiction?

For the record, before I joined the Marine Corps, I used marijuana on an inter-mitten basis, but never was a "regular" user. After joining and since departing the Marine Corps, I haven't touched illicit drugs. As a matter of fact, while in the Marine Corps, I was the drug officer for two of units and my current job deals with drug users and their actions. Every company I have worked for since I turned 18 has performed pre-employeement and random drug screens, and you might be surprised to find that I have never tested positive for anything that was illegal. So, before we continue, just because the government has over stepped their bounds doesn't imply that I or anyone else who wish to point this out is an "addict."

Can I assume that you believe that all the pro-2nd Amendment Freepers are just murderers and psychopaths who you are attempting save from themselves and each other?

I got my numbers from various sources on internet, you can search and find them just as I did. The problem with both of our sources is much like the "illegal alien" numbers: they are skewed to favor which ever side that is wielding the numbers. But, just to be OVERLY fair, let's use your numbers.

So, over four decades of increased militarizing of our local law enforcement and laws that allow no-knock entries, asset forfeiture laws and a general overall attitude which makes the police think they have the right to do anything because the ends justify the means - you think is a good thing. Of course, I didn't mention the numerous wrongful deaths, destruction of private property and WRONG address no-knock entries.

Over those four decades, we have spent trillions of dollars on the war on drugs and you think a 38% and 14% reductions are acceptable results for the amount of money and the amount of rights lost! I on the other hand think we are throwing money AND OUT RIGHTS down a rabbit hole! By the way about 37% of the annual Federal WOD budget goes to law enforcement efforts while about 35% is used for treatment purposes! So, for all the rights lost and money spent, we are still spending as much on treating people already LOST in the morass of illicit drugs as we are spending on trying to keep people out of it: I consider that a failure!

It is funny that you would come on a Conservative website and then denigrate the idea of individual "rights" and individual freedoms. I bet we can agree that drugs are bad. I have lost family members and friends to drugs. I have had family and friends go to prison because of drugs. I have terminated many men for popping positive on random drug screens - good workers that I hated to lose. But, I have fired MORE people for alcohol related work-performance (DUI, drunk on duty, etc...) than all other drugs combined!

The problem that I have is that the government has overstepped it's limits because of people like you think it is the governments job to limit everyone, because someone MIGHT cause a problem. Well, unfortunately that is the price of true freedom - someone might do something wrong or dangerous that endangers others and then you write laws to limit his actions which endangered others (DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc...)! You want to assume that everyone who does drugs is out to hurt, harm, maim or infringe upon others - and that is a FAR stretch in my book.

Even worse, people like you are trying to regulate MORALITY. People should have the morals to not use drugs (they are bad for you and will kill you) and they should have the morals to not show up to work on drugs (I agreed to work a good days work for pay, then I have to follow the rules of no drugs). No law is ever going to eliminate peoples basic wonder and curiosity when it comes to drugs - it will NOT happen.

More importantly, your whole assertion about the cost of work injuries and higher goods and higher crime is a proven point of failure every single time it has been tried: prohibition does not work! Alcohol prohibition in the US saw RISE in every single one of the items which you mentioned. The WOD has caused every single one of the items which you mentioned to RISE! So, your whole point of including this data is an illogical delusion since you refuse to learn from the past.

I will end with a simple question: should we bring back Alcohol Prohibition? If not, then why not? I mean alcohol accounts for more work related and road related incidents than any other drug. So, do you think the government should reinstate Prohibition?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

We will agree to disagree on this issue.

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 God’s 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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

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?