War on Drugs

Any law that punishes someone without being able to produce a real-live corporeal (sp?) victim who has had his inaliable rights infringed upon by the one accused, is an infringement upon freedom. I can think of no exceptions.

Our drug laws are a prime example of this type of "guilty-before-proven-innocent-victimless-crime" mentality.

Our gun laws are the produced by the same mentality.

Any law that prohibits an individual against actions against himself or actions against an idea is an excercise of an unstable mental condition.
 
Are drugs a criminal problem or a medical problem?

Greetings,

Do drug users need to be punished or is their addiction punishment enough? I think it is. That is the message we should be sending about drugs: addiciton is punishment enough. What societal benefit is there to locking up all drug users instead of just those who commit crimes with actual victims? I think there's none. What would happen if we made drug users ineligible for public financial assistance? I would love to see people have to pee in a cup to get welfare, wouldn't you? (I'm not kidding, in case you have to ask. People with money to buy drugs don't need welfare.) Should we waste money "treating" people as an option in lieu of incarceration, or only offer treatment to those who honestly want it? The latter, I think, would liead to greater success in the long run.

Lawdog and I respectfully disagree on a few issues, but I recognize that his opinions are based on real-life experience and are valuable in any discussion of decriminalization. I value his opinions and fellowship greatly. We disagree that society should prohibit certain drugs under criminal law.

One point that I like to make in this discussion is that, as Mike in VA pointed out, none of us seem to care too much about the guy who smokes the joint on Friday night. The crack-whore mother of ten is a different story, even to me.

Regards to all,

Ledbetter
 
Thing is, with legalization, taxation and education, the "crack whore" won't exist - Crack is a very lucrative drug as long as it remains on the black market. Make it available via prescription (as I would narcotics/opiods and similar substances), and use would eventually drop. And the incentive for the addicts to commit crimes, the $$$ required to support the black market habit, will be significantly lessened.

Legalize it all, and we'll see a MAJOR drop in crime. For that matter, take the money out of it, and we'll see a major drop in new users. Why? It won't be a "glamorous" drug, since the kiddies likely tend to equate the shiny new car that the dealer drives with use of the product - They don't fill in the rest of the equation.

I've found that the largest supporters of "keep it all illegal" are the members of law enforcment who are tasked with enforcing drug laws, along with those bureaucrat/social worker types who are making their livings from the periphery of the struggle. Should legalization occur, these people will need to locate new employment. I wouldn't mind more cops making sure that violent criminals were behind bars, instead of more cops making sure that Junior isn't gonna smoke some weed...
 
I'll respect LawDog's position on this, while still disagreeing with his conclusion. I have argued this subject at length as well, and I'm tired of it.

The War on Some Drugs has been joined by the War on Some Guns, and they're both pounding the Bill of Rights into an early grave. That is the extent of my 'eloquence' at this point.

Greg_S, welcome to TFL - I want to read that book - it has been recommended to me many times. I tend to think I'll get a sore neck from nodding in agreement as I read every page. ;)

I now believe the War on Some Drugs will indeed end someday. In my mind, the only questions left are how many more innocent people we'll kill and incarcerate, and how much of the Bill of Rights will be left when we finally end this blasted 'War'.

I suppose I'd add one other point - I think LEO's will enjoy renewed respect when this 'War' ends, assuming they haven't been redirected into a more egregious attack on individual rights. I strongly believe this 'War' has damaged relations between LEO's and their communities.

Regards from AZ
 
It would seem to me that anyone who wants to continue the WOD must be in favor of the return of prohibition.

The costs of alcohol are horrific.

It is intellectually dishonest not to call for the ban of alcohol beverages. Alcohol still could be used in medicines.

However, we know that banning alcohol will be a terrific social failure.

Why do we think we can ban drugs with any more success than alcohol? If the antidrug folk had evidence that a program of laws would be successful, that certainly isn't out there.
Current laws do little. More treatment would.

Decriminalizing the use and sale while maintaining laws about behavior under the drugs is the way to go.

I would ask the LEOs on the list - would you like to work in an alternative universe where the drug of choice and legal sale was marijuana? Would those Saturday night patrols be better? Would more husband beat their wives and kids?
How about the highways?

Current drug laws reflect prejudices against the mere idea of recreationally getting stoned. Open access would probably lead to substitution of drugs and not the creation of significantly more addicts. Most people can take a joint or a drink and do just fine. Some recover from addiction like GWB. Should he have been jailed?

Also enforcement is clearly racially divisive. We don't need that.

We argue that we shouldn't ban guns but police the behavior if they are misused.

It is intellectually dishonest to adopt a different position about some recreational drugs.

Certainly guns are inherently more lethal.

And I have worked with kids on drugs too - so no preaching.
They would be better if we could deal with their drug problems in neighborhoods not riddled with drug trafficking violence.
 
BRAND NEW BOOK ON THE 'WOD'

As luck would have it, a friend forwarded an email to me from the Cato Institute ... they've just released, today, a new book on the War on Some Drugs.

http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=afterprohibition.html&cart_id=7600631.8300

An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century
Edited by Timothy Lynch

More than 10 years ago, federal officials boldly claimed that they would create a 'drug-free America by 1995.' To reach that objective, Congress spent billions on police, prosecutors, drug courts, and prisons. Despite millions of arrests and countless seizures, America is not drug free. Illegal drugs are as readily available today as ever before. Drug prohibition has proven to be a costly failure. Like alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has created more problems than it has solved. The drug war has destroyed the lives of inner-city residents, corrupted law enforcement, and distorted our foreign policy. Yet drug prohibition is still seen as a viable strategy by our political leaders. Paradoxically, alternative drug policies—such as legalization—fall outside of the parameters of serious debate in our nation's capital. No one maintains that drug legalization would be a panacea. There is no question that drug abuse would continue to be a problem even in the face of legalization. But drug prohibition is a blunderbuss approach that treats Americans with very little respect. It treats them like children. It is time to deal with adult drug use in a more open, honest, and mature manner. The drug war has been given a chance to work, but it has failed miserably. Timothy Lynch is associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies and a graduate of Marquette University School of Law. He is a member of the Wisconsin and District of Columbia bars and writes frequently on legal issues.

"You cannot read this book without recognizing the social tragedy that has resulted from the attempt to prohibit people from ingesting an arbitrary list of substances designated 'illegal drugs.' . . . Not since the collapse of the attempt to prohibit the ingestion of alcohol has our liberty been in such danger as it now is from the misnamed 'war on drugs.'"

-Milton Friedman

"The nation is crying for an honest weighing of the dollar and societal costs of the drug war against its limited accomplishments in reducing the admittedly serious problem of drug abuse. This volume addresses the many ways in which America is paying for its drug war‹many billions of dollars spent, encroachment on individual constitutional rights, distortion and corruption of policing, and incarceration of over 400,000 people in a futile attempt to keep the drug market from responding to domestic demand."

-Alfred Blumstein
University Professor, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Contributors
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Steven Duke is professor of law at Yale University.
Gary Johnson is governor of New Mexico.
David Klinger is professor of criminology at the University of Missouri.
David B. Kopel is director of research at the Independence Institute.
Michael Levine is a former agent of the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Daniel Lungren is a former attorney general of California.
Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice.
Joseph McNamara is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Roger Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute.
Daniel Polsby is professor of law at George Mason University.
Julie Stewart is president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
Click to expand...

Obviously put together by a bunch of lightweights. ;)

Seriously, those who remain committed to the War on Some Drugs are dwindling in number, as the evidence mounts, and the bodies and wasted lives accumulate.

Wasted because of addiction and abuse of drugs? Yes, some. And, many, many more due to incarceration, felony convictions, related violence, and on and on.

IMHO, it is time we took as honest a view of this issue as we do of firearms. The lost freedoms due to the War on Some Drugs are certainly impacting our fundamental right to self defense and the RKBA.

Regards from AZ
 
I am an LEO and I spend a lot of time enforcing the WOD on drugs. Do I think that what we are doing now is working? No. Am I concerned about a loss of our rights? Yes. Do I think legalizing drugs is the answer? No. Do I know what the answer is? NO!

What I do know is treatment also does not work. I run accross adicts on a daily basis that have been to countless rehab programs that are still using (Robert Downey, Jr is a current example of this). I have met countless addicts that do not go to treatment even when jail/prison is the penalty if they do not go. I do not know the best way to handle this problem but I do know treatment is not a pancea.

P.S. If someone wants to sit home and smoke a joint I could give a crap. I don't even arrest the potheads anymore as long as they are not doing something stupid.
 
This issue has been perplexing to me for years. I am against drugs completely. In fact I won’t even associate with any one who uses them, even if they don’t when I am around them. But on the other hand I can see what the WOD is costing as to our freedoms. The solution is a paradox for me.

Having said that, I do have one question. How is it legal under our constitution for the federal government to control drugs? I keep coming back to the 18th and 21st amendments…. Why was it necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol and yet we don’t need one for drugs? Now I’ve read the SC opinions regarding this matter and it seems that they did here what they are trying to do the RKBA. Because they were agin’ it then they rationalized the power to the feds…. Sorry, if we want to regulate drugs then pass a constitutional amendment to do it, but for gods sake don’t twist the constitution to say something it does not.
 
Think imports. Section 8, regulating commerce with foreign nations.

Coca plants and opium poppies don't grow in North America, the products thereof have to be imported from out of country.

And, yes, the Federal Government has no Constituitional jurisdiction over marijuana, methamphetamine and other local products, and ought to leave enforcement of those to the states. I believe they get around that by requiring that recreational pharmaceuticals have a tax stamp -- but never issuing any stamps.

LawDog
 
Over in Cambodia marijahoocie is available for less than $10.00 a pound, most any drug one could want is readily available, damn near everyone carries, RPG, machine gun, rifle, and pistol ranges abound, and sex with children under twelve costs about $4.00. The place is run by "former" Khmer Rouge, (nudge-nudge, wink-wink,) and you can do anything you want as long as you pay off the right people and not express any moral judgments. There's a lot of Westerners living over there who think that they've finally found "freedom."

What they have is a "Lord of the Flies" situation, and they're too twisted to know the difference. Pot softens people's minds, and its popularization, and the virtual- reality/counterfeit reality rationalization it produces has significantly contributed to the epidemic of idiocy and insanity that now plagues the USA. In my experience, dopers will use any rationalization to justify their access to dope, up to and including voting for Genghiz Khan if he allows them a steady and predictable supply of psychedelic and other recreational drugs.

If dopers could keep their virtual reality and counterfeit logic defending that virtual reality out of my life, I would have no problem with the legalization of recreational drugs. But virtual reality and its idiotic rationalization are enthusiastically proclaimed by mainstream American cultural iconographers as simple "alternative lifestyles" or "dynamic humanistic potentiality empowerment," or other word salad idiocy. Since that sort of thinking is the defining feature of the Woodstock generation, who, by the way, are now the movers and shakers of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, I can in no way support any relaxation of laws prohibiting the production, possession or sale of marijuana and its like by anyone other than cancer patients. Contemporary American problems are largely the result of burned out ex-hippies in political power, and I am expected to imagine that dope and its widespread use doesn't hurt anyone.

The only way we could return to the decriminalization of dope is if American cultural paradigms were the same as when opium was legal: dopers were degenrates, people you avoided like the plague. Criminalization was not necessary then. Most folks were sane enough then to see that reality is not negotiable, and that Carlos Castaneda and the like belonged in mental institutions.
 
I now half-way agree with monro. I advocate the legalization of drugs. The Constitution does not give the United States the authority to regulate the substances placed in our bodies. Liberty is one of those all or nothing things. Either you have liberty or you do not. Freedom isn't being able to do those things within certain governmental perameters. If so, then those in the Soviet Union were free as we. Freedom is being able to do anything we want being constrained only by our own morals, values, and other people's rights.
I am for legalization, not use. If you choose to use, then I won't stand in your way, but if you do something to violate anyone's rights, or commit any theft of private property, or assault on anyone else, then I am for the most severe penalties possible. In order for law to work, there must be few of them, but those few must be stricty and harshly enforced. This is the only historical thing that has worked.
Remember: "The legitimate business of government extends to those actions which are harmful to others..." Thomas Jefferson. You may do what you wish with yourself. You may kill yourself on the stuff (which is likely in some cases), but should you do something to harm me or my family, then I may exercise my right of retribution. I'm not kidding myself, our society has gone soft, so that is why we will never achieve anything close to what I advocate. We must be a somewhat moral society in order for libertarianism to work. Freedom doesn't work when the people cannot control their own affairs, so now we find ourselves in the middle ground between Tyranny and Liberty.
I will submit that some things involved with the War on Drugs not only is unconstituional by the Tenth amendment, but Asset Forfeiture laws such as they are, are actually Bills of Attainder. Once we have destroyed the taboo against the BOA, then it is now just a matter of what degree we will replicate that cruel and unusual practice that we once were free of. Look the history of BOA's up. It is evil through and through.
 
Munroe, Lawdog--Alternatives to criminalization?

Munroe,

I understand your position from past discussions. Without arguing good or bad, isn't there any alternative to criminalization that you would consider sufficient?

Like denial of public benefits or employment, etc.? (Urine test every month to get welfare.)

As I remember, you and I disagree on whether pot should be legalized/decriminalized. I'm wondering what you, Lawdog and others think about the alternatives to using the criminal justice system to stop the impact of drug use on society.

Regards,

Mike Ledbetter

P.S. No one can control the date of their birth. We weren't all rolling around in the mud in 1970.
 
My ramble

Smiley, given that your friend has already ruined his life with illegal drugs, how could de-criminalizing drugs affect his experience? There will always be those who can't resist the allure of drugs, and there are many who regularly use drugs without hurting themselves and others. Putting them in jail solves nothing, and it hurts all of us in loss of civil rights, money, etc.

I would start with de-criminalizing marijuana (and tobacco :)) and set up a regulating structure similar to alcohol. If it works, add other drugs. Our income, property, and regular sales taxes will go down, and we'll be able to actually put violent criminals away behind bars for the sentences they truly deserve. There will be no incentive for gangs to use violence to protect their turf and products. They would use the courts to solve disputes just like all other legitimate businesses do now. Drug users would have a higher expectation of a quality, safe product.

People use drugs now, and THEY ARE ILLEGAL. The difference between now and prohibition times is that the family and community structure doesn't hold bad behavior in check with shame. For some people these days, the only person telling them what's right and wrong is Dr. Laura.

Now if we could just end the public education system, we would really be getting somewhere :).

Just my opinion.
eric
 
Munro's comments here illustrate what I think is the real impetus of the honest advocates for the drug war (as opposed to the dishonest advocates, who have another motivation). They see recreational drug use as the fountainhead of irrational doctrines, and since irrational doctrines can lead to social destruction, the government must nip this degeneracy in the bud.

The problem is, this has long been the basic argument in other parts of the world for religious intolerance. "Evil" doctrines threaten society so its advocates must be suppressed, its rituals banned.

In practice, this type of policy only succeeds when it merges with totalitarianism, and sometimes fails even then. In a classicly-liberal "open and free" society, substance prohibition only generates black markets and their attendant street violence, sets law enforcement against property rights, and corrupts public officials.

Prohibition also reinforces another pernicious doctrine -- that people are children, who cannot be trusted with making important decisions about their own lives, and must be supervised by Parental Government. For God's sake, Parental Government, keep all the guns locked away from those crazy kids! It is a "soft bigotry" that works with our socialist school system and welfare state to undermine personal self-responsibility.
 
Mike, if we could guarantee that drug abusers would be ostracized by society, if American society would return to Personal Responsibility, and if my tax money goes to getting them off the drugs and not maintaining their addiction, I would have no objections to legalizing every kind of recreational pharmaceutical out there.

Right now, we live in an era where nothing evil someone does is their fault. Criminals are apparently more victimized than their victims. Some critter commits a crime, and next thing you know sociologists, psychologists, the ACLU, and several thousand bliss-ninnies are telling him and the World that it wasn't his fault.

As for ostracization, a little while ago fashion designers were using a marketing strategy called, and I'm not making this up, "Heroin chic". They may still be using it, for all I know. Holy Mary, Mother of God -- addiction is chic???

Addiction is already being touted as a disease. Diseases get a lot of tax money, and Lord help us -- there's the Americans with Disabilities Act. Won't be too long before someone puts the disease of addiction on the list of stuff an addict can get my tax money for.

Someone gives me a guarantee that:
  • addicts will be ostracized, and addiction would be regarded along the lines, oh say, child molestation
  • everyone will be held reponsible for their acts, no exceptions, no excuses, no whining
  • my tax dollars won't be spent by some pansy-***ed addict on his drug of choice

I get that guarantee, and I'll be the first guy in line to strike down the drug laws.

Until then, no way.

LawDog

[Edited by LawDog on 12-01-2000 at 06:18 PM]
 
Lawdog--Fair enough.

Hey!

First of all, thanks for hanging in on this discussion. I agree with and support you fully on points two and three and, as to point one, think that people earn ostracization by what they do, not by what's in their bloodstream. I agree that no one should force you to associate with anyone you don't want to, anymore than is presently the case.

Consider this: Isn't the reason for "heroin chic" that it represents danger, rebellion and the flaunting of authority? Would that be the case if it weren't illegal?

Regards to all,

Ledbetter
 
represents danger, rebellion and the flaunting of authority?
Click to expand...

Hell, the fight for our Second Amendment rights is about dangerous, rebellious and anti-authority as anything else out there, but I doubt if the House of Versace is coming out with an NRA-inspired line anytime soon.

LawDog
 
LawDog,

I would venture that if these drugs were de-criminalized, welfare was based upon working returns (work for what you get), and true law came into effect (punishment for the infringement upon another) that personal responsibility would climb, and that in turn would create an intolerence for recreational drug use, meeting your 3 points.

Of course we have to start somewhere...
 
You know, that's kind of odd, because every druggie I've run across that's still able to vote (and based on this election, not a few who aren't allowed to vote) votes for more welfare, not less.

How about we go about it a bit differently? We get the welfare/Medicare/AFDC/whatthehellever cleaned up in this country, prove to me that that, at least can be done, let me see the dying of the ACLU on the vine and more men actually growing a spine -- and I'll relax my position on dope.

Welfare reform and growth of Personal Responsibility first, though.

LawDog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top