Drug War Had To Fail

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nancy Siebern

New member
I have no way of getting this from the paper to the computer except hard typing. Trust me, there is a tie-in to guns and you might be surprised at the last sentence.

The Denver Post
March 3, 2000, page 11B
By Paul Kelly

Boulder - The war on drugs is a complete failure because it's based on false premises. A drug free society is almost certainly not possible or even desirable. This leads to such incredible spectacles as Bill "Two Pack a Day" Bennett as drug Czar. (Enforcing ideological purity is easier if you're not too sensitive to hypocrisy).
Corporate America spends $70,000 for each positive drug test. Since only about 1 in 20 drug users actually have a problem likely to affect their job performance, it's costing $1,400,000 to identify each problem drug user. Of course, they're easy to spot without the test. They're the ones screwing up on the job.
Drug paranoia is a very expensive habit.
Our Constitution is based on the philosophy of inalienable individual rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government exists to serve a sovereign people.
Since the war on drugs is predicated on the exact opposite philosophy, that the people exist to serve the government, which has absolute authority to dictate our lifestyles, whether we're happy or not, it's impossible to enforce drug laws without trashing the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment: No priest has ever been arrested for consuming wine in any "dry" state or county or during Prohibition. Rastafarians and Native Americans should be so privileged.
Second Amendment: Given how testy some peasants get when their betters kick down the doors to their filthy hovels, slam their faces against the wall, and force them at gun point to "make the correct choices in life", it would be better all around if only noblemen were allowed to possess weapons. Not that the gentry don't do drugs, they do. They just don't inhale and nobody kicks their doors down.
Fourth Amendment: This doesn't exist anymore. If a cop wants to search you or your car he will. He can always swear later he saw you drop a suspicious packet of paper. If he wants to search your house he can just fill out a perjured affidavit and find a friendly judge to rubber stamp the warrant. There need not be any citizen complaint or witness. The whole thing is internally generated.
Fifth Amendment: Civil forfeiture now allows the government to steal without so much as a nod to due proces. It also makes law enforcement a profit-sharing partner in the drug trade.
Police now spend a much smaller percentage of their time responding to criminal complaints filed by victims. Setting up drug deals is more lucrative. Besides, if the police arrest the burglar right away, they have to return your property. If they don't take any action until he sells your property and buys drugs, they get to keep the cash. So what do you think they're doing? At least you know if your house is burglarized, whether it's a cop looking for drugs (or guns) or an addict looking for money to buy drugs, he works for the government, and the proceeds are ending up in the police department's budget one way or another. We now define a crooked cop as one who doesn't share what he steals with the entire department.
Like everyone else in the drug trade, your government's in it for the money.
Sixth Amendment: It's tough to hire a lawyer after the government confiscates all your assets.
Eighth amendment: If you don't think 10 years for smoking marijuana rather than drinking beer isn't "cruel and unusual," whatever you're taking is a lot worse for the brain than whatever you're condemning.
Fourteenth Amendment: Ah, equal protection under the law.
That's where six guys can be involved in a drug deal, five are cops and one goes to jail. Our new social philosophy forces us to argue that the Constitution doesn't really apply to the government. Of course, this ridiculous premise leaves us with the little problem of trying to figure out what in the world it does apply to.
Doesn't it?

Paul Kelly is a Boulder carpenter and former vice-chair of the Boulder County Democratic Party.
 
The drug war has been lost for a long time. It is time to declare victory and go home while we still have a Bill of Rights.

I think there are a lot of reasons why we won't though. For one, there is too much money being made in the fight against drugs. We have created our own industry around the drug war. These people would have to find other employment. Another is that the drug war is a convenient way for the politicians to grab more power for themselves. We have so stigmatized the entire arguement by branding anyone who wants to call a halt to it as soft on drugs, a closet user etc.

I think we are rapidly getting to the point where a growing segment of the public is ready to say enough is enough. What it boils down to is how much freedom are you willing to give up to make sure the boy down the street doesn't smoke dope? Will you consent to internal customs inspections at state borders to make sure you aren't carrying drugs. How about internal passports and travel permits? Did you know that in many places utility bills are scrutinized for evidence of indoor growing operations? How about going to the home center and buying a steel clad and framed door for you house? Did you know that in much of the country you are committing a felony by "fortifying" your home?

Yes it's time to quit while we still live in a free nation.

Jeff
 
Do we have to beat this dead horse again?

Those who believe in the drug war are not going to change their minds. Those who believe against it are not going to change their minds.

Both sides can haul out endless facts and statistics to support their position.

Why are we re-opening what usually winds up in a mud-slinging contest?

Sigh.

I'll leave this thread open. For now. The first acrimonious remark, and it gets whacked.

LawDog



[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
Re the vaunted and foolish War On Drugs, why not simply follow The British Example, as some recommend re other situations.

Several times during the 19th and early 20th centuries, they invaded Afganistan. I believe that it was described as The Grand Game, though it got pretty rough on the direct participants. They usually got a bloody nose for their trouble, at which point, they would pack up and leave, for a while, having declared VICTORY on the way out.

They never won, and neither will we win this War On Drugs, which has turned out to be a lovely WELFARE program for those with the right political connections. Let's leave it, while we still have some semblence of individual freedom, and The Rule Of Law left.

Perhaps those who found themselves unemployed, could be put to work picking up loose papers and cans. What the hell, it would give them some exercise and fresh air, if nothing else.
 
You people need to come out on the road and see what drugs do to people. Before I became a LEO, I didn't care much about drugs.
So far, I've seen crack-addicted mothers neglecting children (you know, forgetting to feed them, change diapers,etc.), drug dealers kill each other over sales, beautiful girls doing unpleasant things for a hit. You name it, I've seen it. And even if drugs were legalized tomorrow, they still wouldn't be free. They would cost money, and drug users don't make the best employees.
 
So, we should dismantle the Constitution in the interest of preventing Crack Mothers from neglecting their babies?

Yes, there are serious problems with drug abuse. We don't need a War on Drugs to fix these problems. In 30 years, we are no closer to fixing these problems yet we are much, much, closer to invalidating the entire Bill of Rights in the attempt.

One thing the Brits got right in the last 30 years was to treat drug abuse as an illness, not as a crime. There will always be drug abusers no matter what laws are passed.
 
We Libertarians have been stating for years that the war on drugs creates crime, and gives the government, with the sheepels blessings, the excuse to ignore and violate the Bill of Rights. I personally believe that the war on drugs is one of the primary reasons we gun owners are in the situation we are in. Of course, Conservatives, who should be our allies in defending personal rights, usually laugh us off as a bunch of drugies. Unlike our President, I have never, ever, even tried what is considered "illegal drugs", and none of the Libertarians I know advocate their use. We believe that you and yours may do as you wish, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of me and mine. I.E. if my neighbor wishes to own an anti-tank gun, as long as me doesn't cause damage to me, mine, or my property, it is non of mine or the Government's business. It's about time that we stop our bickering, and realize that we are all on the same side. The side for "personal freedom and responsibility", the same side as our Founding Fathers.
 
Jeff, could you go into this a little further in a new thread?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>How about going to the home
center and buying a steel clad and framed door for you house? Did you know that in much
of the country you are committing a felony by "fortifying" your home[/quote]
Thank's, Hank
 
It is important not to characterize the war on drugs as being the solution to drug problems.
As an example, I am opposed to drugs AND the war on drugs because we are losing the war and it is too costly in terms of money and freedom.
If we want to wage war on drugs we need to define the problem in terms of a solution. This has not been done. The war has fallen prey to Washington DC's folly. If the progran doesnt work, allocate more funds.

If somebody has a solution short of legalizing drugs...

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Like nyterunner, I have seen the damage illicit drug use does, and can tell horror stories that would cause eye-burn. Lately though, I'm wondering: If we made dope "legal," would any more people start using? It appears that making it illegal hasn't dissuaded many folks, and crimes committed by those who need to support their habit are eating us alive. I don't want a coke snorter or meth-head or crack monster driving my kid's school bus though, and I think that we need civil protection against that. Problem is, people are often more concerned about "rights" than responsibilites. Man, I never thought I'd be considering this angle, gotta quit looking at that Libertarian web site... :)

------------------
When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; IT IS that they shall be destroyed forever...Psalms 92.7

[This message has been edited by Jhp147 (edited March 04, 2000).]
 
Gusgus's was the closest response to this post I was hoping for. I didn't put it up to discuss the "war" on drugs, merely to show it, as does any bureaucratic "solution" to any problem of national import, is ill-conceived and impossible to continue. The same holds true with the assault on our Second Amendment rights. This is no different from the "war on drugs" - just a different title. In the end, not only are our rights under the Second peeled away, but also our rights under all the other amendments. That is what Paul Kelley is saying. And we keep on letting them do this to us in every arena - education, health care, welfare, speech (witness John Rocker), elections, social "security", child care, firearms, motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, airbags that kill, airbags that 1/2 kill, bicycle helmets, the list is endless. The tactics are the same.
The second reason I posted it (and despite the fact I mentioned it before the article, everyone overlooked it) was that it was a well-thought-out op ed piece written by a DEMOCRAT!
 
Paul Kelly also did a pretty decent piece w/in the past month re firearms, etc. as a Guest Columnist for the RMN/CO.
 
The war on drugs directly equates to prohibition. It generates a whole new species of criminal and the profit incentive drives them to higher and higher risks. On the other end of the supply/demand chain, the user is forced into an illegal lifestyle initially because of the illegality of the substance then by the high cost of maintenance.

If drugs were legal and administers as is alcohol:
1. cost would be low.
2. quality would be assured.
3. people would not be forced into prostitution and theft to afford their habit.
4. the billions spend on the failed fight to stop the influx and use could be spend on real rehab programs that do not center on prisons rather on health and safety.
5. (well this list could go on and on.)
 
Not only was it written by a democrat, it was published in The Denver Post! Shocking to see such rationality comming out of the San Francisco of the Rockies. It's a hopeful sign! Things may be looking up.

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
 
Well I have to agree that this subject has been done to death. I just wish we could agree that what we've been doing isn't working, and try something else. I mean even Bush has done cocain for cryin out loud. Lot's of big money intrests resisting change though. I suppose we'll be beating our head against the wall for a while more.
 
Maybe we should try leaving people the hell alone as long as they are not endangering anyone else. Let everyone persue their own happiness and suffer their own consequences.

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
 
Lecture by Mr. Rolf Bromme, Stockholm, Sweden, in the 4th Conference Courage to Take a Moral
Stance - Society´s Obligations to Safeguard Democracy ("Mut Zur Ethik") in Feldkirch, Austria, on
the 6th-8th of September 1996. It has been published in German in Zürich, Switzerland, in the book
from the Congress i Feldkirch.

In a liberal economy it is essential to make the process of the market function. Some Economists in the famous Chicago school,
for instance the Nobel prize winner and political economist Professor Milton Friedman, considers that the process of the market
can continue to function in a drug permissive society. There is reason to question this.

It is only in a well-functioning market economy that prices are based on the true choice and preferences of the individuals. In a
legalised drug market such as Milton Friedman recommends, it is no longer the preferences and desires of the individuals that are
of central importance for price levels. This is because the drug addict as a drug consumer creates a "short circuiting" in the natural
price development.

The addict's chemical dependence on drug consumption gives rise to an unnaturally escalated demand and thus an extremely low
elasticity of prices. In other words, it is the addict's dependence on drugs which forces him to obtain them almost regardless of the
price. If the drug addict does not have the money required, he gets it for instance by stealing, by deluding the social services or
insurance companies or by selling drugs to other addicts. A female drug addict has prostitution as a further method of financing
her drug consumption.

What happens if we legalise the drug market, that is, allow drugs to be sold freely or under state control? Those who are already
dependent, that is the addicts, will continue to give priority to drug consumption over all other kinds of consumption. This is not
surprising. Other markets will function less satisfactorally on this account.

As a result of his drug consumption, however, the addict will also be more dependent upon state and local government support for
his survival since his capacity for work often decreases - not only initially through his impelling need to satisfy his craving - but also
in a longer perspective, through increasing functional impairment.

This, however, is what happens even when the drug market is not legalised. The radically new element in a legalised drug market
is that many more people - through the information which low drug prices transmit to the public - start to use drugs and quite soon
become addicts also.

It is this which, in time, will threaten the basis of the liberal economy itself, namely the human capital of civilisation. On the
individual level this means that the decent, human virtues of the drug addicts are dissolved and replaced by more animal-like
instincts.

This "spontaneous order" - a concept introduced by the Nobel Prize winner, moral philosopher and political economist in the
famous Austrian school, professor Friedrich A von Hayek - will be replaced by a "spontaneous chaos". The basic mechanism for
the functioning and survival of individuals and groups is put out of action. Chemical dependence will inhibit the information system
of the market economy.

The decisive question will be how quickly an increase in the number of addicts will occur and how many will actually become
addicts if there is a legal drug market. There is some experience on which to base these estimations.

Several studies suggest that an addict, after his own initiation, often draws betwean one and up to six new individuals into drug
abuse during the first 10-12 months of his addiction. "The spread" is thus rather quick. One can use the expression "exponential"
spread during this phase of the spread. The rate depends greatly on the drug policy practised in society, if, and to what extend, it is
permissive or restrictive.

One can naturally argue that some addicts voluntarily - and entirely on their own accord - will seek treatment for their drug
dependence. However, this will not occur - according to one of these studies - until after an average of about 4 years after their
initiation, and that is long after the whole spread has occurred. In addition it is relatively seldom that an addict seeks treatment for
his drug dependence specifically, but rather for the consequences of his dependence. This means that the treatment period is often
followed directly by a new period of drug abuse, since the distressing consequences are cured, anyway for the moment, and the
craving for the drugs thus becomes more central and dominating again.

Such a rapid rate of spread can naturally not continue for ever. People with whom the drug addict has close contacts notice that
addiction results in misery and enormous practical problems, and they become more careful. So in time the curve will level out. It
is uncertain when this commences. And we do not know for certain how large a proportion of the population will have become
addicted, when the levelling out commences.

We know, however, that about 50 per cent of the drug addicts will stop their drug abuse on their own accord at least six or seven
years after their initiation. We do not know for certain why this happens - but probably because physical, mental, social and
economic problems become so severe that, in the long run, the satisfaction of the craving does not outweigh all the suffering and
problems.

A further question that needs to be investigated is what happens if society follows a very restrictive drug policy in general, but at
the same time allows a group of established and registered drug addicts to obtain drugs through legal prescriptions, that is through
a physician.

Sweden has experiance of legal prescribing of, principally, amphetamines, during the sixties. In addition New York has had legal
prescribing of methadone. In both cases there was a further spread from addicts, who sold their drugs on the black market. The
risk of a further spread is thus still very great during legal prescribing. In addition legal prescribing to addicts gives quite the wrong
signals to people in the risk zone.

During the Swedish experiment with a permissive drug policy - from Spring 1965 to Spring 1967 - the number of addicts increased
at a far faster rate than both before and after the introduction of this policy, a rate similar to the geometric progression curve. The
number of drug addicts doubled roughly every 20th month during the two periods before and after roughly every 12th month during
the permissive drug policy. In the beginning of an addiction epidemic developments are not so noticeable since the numbers of
addicts are relatively few. After only a few years, however, developments become obvious.

In the Swedish drug epidemic the number of addicts was hardly noticeable in the early fifties. In 1954 an estimation was made of
the number of amphetamine addicts in the youth gangs in Stockholm. The investigators, The Child Welfare night patrols, arrived at
a figure of 200 known drug addicts in Stockholm.

In 1960 the number of intravenous amphetamine abusers was estimated at almost a thousand in the whole of Sweden. In 1965 the
number was about 4.000. In 1968 the National Committee for the Treatment of Drug Addicts estimated that the number of addicts
was about 10.000 in the whole country. From 1969 the epidemic was checked by a far more restrictive drug policy. Professor Nils
Bejerot showed in his doctoral thesis in 1974 how the number of addicts increased and decreased, respectively, depending upon
the drug policy in society.

The unsuccessful experiment with a very permissive drug policy in the mid sixties in Sweden was carried out quite officially with
the support of the Medical Board. A small number of physicians had permission to prescribe drugs, principally amphetamine, to
addicts. The experiment was relatively short, about 2 years, but long enough for a large number of people to be drawn into an
addiction which lasted several decades. Others met an early death. The loss of human capital will never be retrieved.

An accelerating drug abuse will definitely interfere with the cultural evolution which - without being planned - develops all the time
from beneath. It will interfere with the basis of our civilisation which is common sense, and with our way of thinking - definitely in
the case of addicts but also for other people in a society where there is a growing abuse of drugs.

A liberal market economy requires norms and moral rules if it is to function properly. It is just these requirements for the
functioning of the market which are threatened in a society with a growing drug problem.

The whole question should also be investigated from another point of view. What happens if one refrains from following Milton
Friedman's advice on legalising the drug market? Will we then get a "planned order", which means some kind of organisation of a
planned economy type? Actually there is little to suggest this. All that happens is that one market is more or less closed: the drug
market.

Naturally there is a risk of an illicit market which leads to high marginal costs for drugs - a kind of risk bonus for those who defy
the law and act in a way that can give a long prison sentence. The high prices of drugs on the illicit market, however, gives the
message - not so much to the addicts - but above all to people who are at risk - that the price of drugs is far too high for it to be
worth their starting. This is particularly the case as most people are aware of the risk of dependency, and thus of the difficulty of
stopping drug abuse.

It is precisely how people in the risk zone react to high prices which is decisive for whether they will begin taking drugs or not.
With a very restrictive drug policy there will be a less precipitous development. It provides a breat-hing space for the authorities to
act and to take into treatment those who are already addicted. If the number of drug addicts increases very quickly, society cannot
manage this.

The way society reacts, which strategies it uses, and which means society has to take care of addicts without their own consent,
has been of decisive importance for developments. In Sweden we have legal means of introducing compulsory treatment, even if
these are little used. In several other European countries the local social authorities lack the means for compulsory care of addicts.

Today Sweden has a very restrictive drug policy and is also a unique example of a society which is on the whole successful in its
fight against drug abuse, even if advances are slow. It is not the number of drug addicts which has decreased drastically. Rather it
is the number of new drug users which has remained at a low level from the middle of the seventies. In the long run this means
that the population of drug addicts ages successively without being replaced by an equally large number of younger people.

The old drug addicts from the sixties are seen as a hump throughout the age pyramid. The new addicts are few. If this successful
drug policy is to succeed also in the future it is necessary for other countries to see the advantage of introducing methods similar to
those in Sweden. Otherwise the pressure on the Swedish drug policy will be too great to resist.

It is therefore absolutely necessary that the Swedish drug policy is displayed to other countries in Europe so that also these may
learn from the Swedish mistake of the sixties. It is vital to demonstrate to politicians and the public in Europe the advances made
by the restrictive Swedish drug policy.

Lack of initiative in many countries in Europe is due both to the fact that they see no solution to the problem, and therefore are
prepared to give up, and also that people begin to believe in Milton Friedman's recipe of legalising the drug market. The hope of
avoiding serious criminality sounds so attractive to people who are not aware of the realities. However, the increase in addiction in
large groups of people in Europe is a very serious problem both to the foundations of civilisation and to a liberal economy as such.

If we do not manage to stop the exponential increase in the number of drug addicts, quite different totalitarian demands will be
made in European societies. Then there will be demands for "strong men" or dictators, which are in themselves a very serious
threat to a liberal economy regardless of whether the strong men or dictators who take command are communists or fascists.

The interesting point from the Swedish example is that it shows that it would be possible also in other countries to reduce the drug
problem by democratic methods in a liberal economy. It requires, however, a farseeing and firm drug policy and, not least, strong
support from a large part of the population. Sweden owes its support from public opinion to an extensive campaign through books,
newspaper articles and hundreds of lectures by a single person, professor Dr. Nils Bejerot. His knowledge and his ability to
communicate his theories to ordinary people has had a decisive effect on Swedish drug policy, in spite of the fact that the
politicians were against it in the beginning.

Hmm.

Question for the Libertarians: If your party takes control, which will you champion? The rights of the drug users, or the national economy?

Even if what is postulatd here has only a very small chance of happening (say 10%), will your party gamble that legalizing drugs will not crash the economy, or result in the demand for a 'strong dictator'?

In other words, are you going to play Roulette with the economy and hope that the ball doesn't land on 00 through 10?

LawDog




[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 04, 2000).]
 
People who decry the evils of recreational drugs (prostitute mothers and crack babies,gangstas,etc) are looking at trees and not seeing the forest.

Why didn't we have these societal problems prior to prohibition?

BTW, I don't need to grab a ride with a cop on the 'street'. Thirty years working in healthcare exposed me to just about every facet of the underclass there is.
 
False dichotomy Lawdog. This so called relationship between legalized drug use and a capitalist economy would apply equally to any substance in which the user is chemically dependent.

I, for instance, am chemically dependent on food. Using the author's reasoning, "it is no longer the preferences and desires of the individual that are of central importance for price levels. This is because the (food) addict as a (food) consumer creates a 'short circuiting' in the natural price development. "

"The addict's chemical dependence on (food) consumption gives rise to an unnaturally escalated demand and thus an extremely low elasticity of prices. In other words, it is the addict's dependence on (foods) which forces him to obtain them almost regardless of the price. If the (food) addict does not have the money required, he gets it for instance by stealing, by deluding social the services or insurance companies or by selling (food) to other addicts. A female (food) addict has prostitution as a further method of financing her (food) consumption."

"What happens if we legalize the (food) market, that is, allow (food) to be sold freely or under state control? Those who are already dependent, that is the addicts, will continue to give priority to (food) consumption over all other kinds of consumption. This is not surprising. :p Other markets will function less satisfactorally on this account."

It's not a good idea to take economic advice from Swedes, whom the US has been feeding since the end of WWII via the IMF and a plethora of other "programs." Sweden has the absolute most socialized political/economic system in Western Europe. They are only a little better than the Russians. In Sweden, business people pay as much as 80% of their income in taxes to support all of those wonderful social "services." But instead of abolishing the handouts, they propose to micromanage everyone's lives. Of course, it makes sense in Sweden, because everyone there is a ward of the state.

I don't want to be like them, thank you!

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
 
We look at the "War on Drugs", and we can debate its uselessness, or continuing the fight. Perhaps we should back up.

Exactly where in the Constitution is the power to make substances illegal given?

Whereas:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Besides these things, the actions of the persons involved are the issues, not the substances themselves. Otherwise, "Gun control" would work. Duh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top