Drug Prohibition- Time for Policy Change??

[nuclear7]

Most people believe the so called War on Drugs started in the 1970s. In reality, drug prohibition has been around far longer. While alcohol prohibition was repealed, drugs remained illegal. Without exaggeration, this policy has been the biggest failure of the 20th century. Trillions of dollars have been wasted, nations have been de-stabilized and yet drugs continue to flow like water in every community in the nation at ever lower prices. Every so often there is an 'epidemic' of the moment. Right now heroin is the big boogey man but crack cocaine, meth and ecstasy along with marijuana have all had their days of hysteria. Research is now showing some interesting facts. While no one is arguing that drugs are good, there is mounting evidence that most drug users are not irrational nor slaves to their drugs of choice. The ones that are normally have mental illness as well as drug problems.

There are a huge list of negatives concerning the drug war. IMO, they far outnumber the negatives of the drugs themselves especially because drugs are so freely available to anyone including kids in elementary school. Why do people still support this policy? Is it simply because we don't know what else to do and can't imagine drugs being legal like they once were? Drugs were legal for all of human civilization until 1 century ago yet no historian has ever mentioned drug abuse as a factor in the collapse of any society.

If you support prohibition, can you even say why? I disagree with it on the grounds of civil liberties as well as a myriad of practical reasons. This is one thing we could change rather quickly to reduce crime and take money out of the hands of terrorists. The savings and tax money could be put into treatment for both drug abuse and mental illness. I would suggest that regulation and treatment would be far more effective at curbing destructive drug abuse than law enforcement and interdiction. We already know these things do not work.

 

[Katzndogz]

Make drugs legal under the same terms and conditions as drugs were legal long ago. Raise self defense to the use of deadly force when a drug addict is the assailant. The same way it was when side arms were on every hip. No medical care , no rehab , no EBT, employers can fire at will , use drugs and get thrown out of your home whether it's a rental or a parent shedding a minor addict. Families have the absolute right to confine an addict family member in an attic or basement chaining them to the wall if necessary. Those that can afford it can send the addict off to a full lock down facility for life after their lobotomy.

Now we have an argument for the legalization of drugs because they were legal at one time. One of the abortions of law enforcement was to make drugs illegal under the false promise that the authorities would protect the public from drug addicts and take that right away from the public.

 

[nuclear7]

My argument against prohibition is not solely because drugs were legal at one time but I do agree with a lot of what you said if you include alcohol in the mix. However, I do not believe we can chain people to a wall today under any circumstances. First, I think there needs to be a distinction between drug use and destructive drug abuse. I think there are many people who casually use drugs just like alcohol and cause others no problems. For the down and out addict or alcoholic that most associate with abuse, I think it should be deemed a mental illness and the individual could be involuntarily committed if they posed a danger to others. Of course, no one should be able to use alcoholism or addiction as a reason to claim any kind of disability or welfare.

The sad fact is that we are paying for all of this already. Prison isn't cheap and they can't even keep the drugs out of there. The failure of this policy can be seen in the actual prices of street drugs. For example, cocaine is less expensive now than it was in the 1980s. Imagine if gas was in such supply that you were paying under a buck a gallon today. State and federal deficits are being driven by these sorts of foolish policies yet kids get exposed to drugs at younger and younger ages. I can't imagine how this policy has survived to present day other than the fact that the drug lords, the police and the prison industry are making loads of money from it.

 

[Katzndogz]

I believe that drug users believe they cause no problems. Ask their family and it's heartbreak. We have not had a war on drugs for many years. There's diversion , counseling ,Detoxification, rehab , court ordered 12 step programs and community service. The prisons are filled with people who have committed crimes while high or to support themselves because they cannot work. They are too drugged out to get a job or keep one.

It is a real myth that drug users only commit crimes to get drug money. They commit crimes to get money period. Just because they use drugs doesn't mean they don't want a 46 inch flat screen or $300 Michael Jordan shoes. They just have to steal them or steal the money to buy them.

Crime is really the least of the problems associated with drug use. They use drugs because they don't or can't exercise appropriate judgment. While using drugs appropriate judgment is out of the question. Their lives fall apart. The pieces of this broken existence hit everyone close to them. Even the rich and famous are not immune.

Whether or not drugs should be legal isn't the only issue. What should be done with the addicts? Warehousing is a good solution. China sends them to work camps or factories. Anything that separates them from the society they burden is good. My favorite solution is a permanent one. A bullet to the head.

 

[nuclear7]

Of course, some drug addicts cause problems for their families as do some alcoholics. We can't make breaking someone's heart a crime. Why should it make any difference why someone committed a crime? Whether simple greed or drug addiction is the motive doesn't make the crime any different.

As I thought in the first place, there are very few people (outside of those making a living from the drug war) able to make any attempt to defend it as a policy. If we were to attempt to wage a 'real drug war' as you suggest, the costs would be astronomical. The entire federal and state budgets combined would not be enough to curtail the availability of drugs. The conundrum that the government faces is that it is trying to eliminate an entire market. Free markets are what our country is built on except in this one select area. The free market cannot be stopped because any temporary success in interrupting supplies causes prices to rise. As prices rise, more people are enticed into the drug business and prices fall once again. Drugs have become so cheap and so available that for most it is like making a trip to the local convenience store to pick them up.

Lastly, we already have good examples of places that execute drug dealers regularly (China) and they still can't keep the drugs out. China has a massive drug problem that it hides from the world. Even if it worked (which it clearly doesn't), I don't think most of us would agree to live under the Chinese system in exchange for the illusion of a drug free society.

 

[Katzndogz]

If China can do it so could we. The costs are offset by prison labor resulting in a profit.

Allow people deadly force to fight off attacks by addicts and there's no cost at all.

 

[gnarlylove]

Surprising defenses for legalization. Both of you seem intent to continue oppressing human beings like this is just a law of nature (in this case the addict). You demonize the addict, the person as if their actions of addiction are caused by anything other than poor living conditions, mistreatment, abuse etc most commonly resulting from insufficient funds (as a child or adult).

The best reason to legalize or at least de-criminalize drugs is it works. Look at Spain, and a few other countries that have tried it. There are plenty more evidence out there just like this one, a quick search will turn 'em up: 5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results - Scientific American

However, since American gov't is so involved with drug trafficking we likely won't see this policy without mass popular support (2010, in Operation Fast and Furious, we handed over to Mexican cartels 2 thousand firearms without tracking them!).


So let's reduce crime, not by everyone carrying weapons (that's insanity), but by policy. End the drug war.

 

[Katzndogz]

Look at Spain and Portugal, please do that. They are failures why would they be models?

 

[gnarlylove]

To compare legalization, we shouldn't let other factors get in the way. In Portugal drug abuse has sharply declined as well as related crimes. I'm not referring to Spain as a model for government, is that what you think I'm alluding? I'm just suggesting this is good reason to consider legalization, it reduces crime and abuse.

 

[jwoodie]

The one issue that "civil libertarians" always avoid is the legitimate government interest in the protection of children. If you can isolate them from the effects of adults using drugs, fine. If not, you are paving the way for even more ruined lives. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Please spare me the fatuous comparison with alcohol/tobacco. One form of abuse does not justify another form of abuse.

 

[nuclear7]

"The one issue that "civil libertarians" always avoid is the legitimate government interest in the protection of children"

I do not ignore this issue. In fact by its very nature, the black market does not care about selling to children. If the state had a real interest in denying kids access to potentially dangerous drugs, we would legalize, regulate and place even harsher penalties on selling to kids. I would include alcohol and tobacco in this as well. In my opinion, regulation would include no advertising and no name branding of drugs. I know as a kid that I was exposed to illegal drugs mostly by other kids. Now, I am sure there was an adult in that chain somewhere but they obviously did not care who they sold to as long as the money was good. This is the fallacy of prohibition. Not only is it costly and ineffective but it fails spectacularly at its primary purpose.

"Surprising defenses for legalization. Both of you seem intent to continue oppressing human beings like this is just a law of nature (in this case the addict). You demonize the addict, the person as if their actions of addiction are caused by anything other than poor living conditions, mistreatment, abuse etc most commonly resulting from insufficient funds (as a child or adult)."

I am not demonizing anyone. I can see both sides of the argument and this issue is more complex than most people realize. Most people do not realize that there are casual users of even so called hard drugs like cocaine. There are also down and out addicts who have ruined their lives. Research is starting to show that most of the people like this are mentally ill as well as being addicts. These are same people who the drug warriors use to scare the general public. They insist that if these drugs were legal that half the population would become dope fiends living in an alley and mugging old ladies to support their habit. Not surprisingly, the drug warriors have blocked unbiased research into the nature of all currently illegal drugs.

Most currently illegal drugs are plant based. The human brain has specific receptors for marijuana, cocaine and opium. We evolved along side these plants and criminalizing them is really a war against ourselves. This does not even begin to touch on the real reasons why these plants are illegal to begin with. The history of drug hysteria and prohibition in the US is really a study in racism at it's inception. As prohibition became the drug war, the drug warriors found a way to profit from the law and created the prison-industrial complex. The history is really fascinating and shows how a flawed premise has led us down this road of unending war with all of its nasty consequences.