At Least 4 Good Reasons To End the War on Drugs

At Least 4 Good Reasons To End the War on Drugs

Debra J. Saunders
Townhall.com
June 12, 2011

If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us," President Richard Nixon told Congress in a special message on June 17, 1971, which generally is credited as the day the "war on drugs" began.

Actually, Nixon didn't use the term "war on drugs" in the address. He used it later. And while Nixon talked tough about going after drug traffickers, he emphasized that rehabilitation would be a priority as he dedicated the lion's share -- $105 million of $155 million in new anti-drug funding -- "solely for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug-addicted individuals."

Some 40 years later, there are only losers in the drug war. Drug use is up; 118 million Americans have used illegal drugs, and the cost of prosecuting the drug war and offenders continues to mount.

On Friday, various anti-drug war groups will be holding vigils in Washington, San Francisco and other cities to remember the drug war's many victims.

"The war you plan is not necessarily the war you end up fighting," noted Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

Sterling should know. As a congressional aide, he helped write the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which featured draconian federal mandatory minimum sentences.

Sterling will be at the vigil Friday in Washington's Lafayette Square.

This column is not to pay homage to drug use. Drug abuse was responsible for the death of 38,371 Americans in 2007, according to White House statistics. In 2009, 10.5 million Americans reported they had driven under the influence of illicit drugs. That's scary.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and it doesn't work for drugs. As Daniel Okrent wrote in his book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition," "In almost every respect imaginable, Prohibition was a failure. It encouraged criminality and institutionalized hypocrisy. It deprived the government of revenue, stripped the gears of the political system, and proposed profound limitations on individual rights."

I'll go down the list.

Encouraged criminality: The Department of Justice reported that in 2009, "midlevel and retail drug distribution in the United States was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members" representing more than 20,000 U.S. gangs.

Institutional hypocrisy: President Obama has admitted to using illegal drugs, President George W. Bush coyly would not say and President Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale. A drug conviction could have curtailed their careers, yet all three presidents were drug warriors in the White House.

Deprived revenue: Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimated in 2008 that legalizing drugs could save federal, state and local governments $44 billion per year, while taxing drugs could yield an added $33 billion.

Limiting individual rights: Allow me to quote Neill Franklin, a former Baltimore narcotics cops and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "President Obama needs to think about where he would be right now had he been caught with drugs as a young black man. It's probably not in the Oval Office, so why does he insist on ramping up a drug war that needlessly churns other young black men through the criminal justice system?" LEAP will release a report this week that addresses Franklin's concerns.

On the state level, the drug war has begun to wind down. In 2000, Californians passed Proposition 36, which mandates probation and treatment for those charged with drug possession. Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that made possession of small amounts of marijuana an infraction; 13 other states have similar laws.

As Sterling put it, "The states are no longer drinking the Kool-Aid from Washington on drug policy."

As for Washington: "Washington is never going to be the leader on this. They don't lead public opinion. They follow public opinion."

I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

dblboggie wrote:I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

Tax it!

You'd think the left would jump all over this issue.

You'd think so, but like so many in the political class they lack the courage to lead on this issue.

dblboggie wrote:I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

I think prohibition is a little bit different than making drugs such as heroin or crack illegal. I am for the legalization and regulation of Marijuana, but I would never go as far as saying that all drugs should be legalized. Making extremely addictive drugs readily available to a society would wreak havoc on that society, imo.
The War on Drugs has been an utter failure though.

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

I think prohibition is a little bit different than making drugs such as heroin or crack illegal. I am for the legalization and regulation of Marijuana, but I would never go as far as saying that all drugs should be legalized. Making extremely addictive drugs readily available to a society would wreak havoc on that society, imo.
The War on Drugs has been an utter failure though.

The assumption here seems to be that there is significant potential demand for these drugs that would exist but for the fact they are illegal. I do not believe this is the case.

I think we should legalize or at least decriminalize MJ, and possibly every drug except for methamphetamines--which are different from other drugs in that stanching the supply actually is within the power of governments.

Portugal has decriminalized all drug use; it's worked well and has not led to increased drug use, probably for the reason I gave in my first paragraph. The law is not a deterrent. Anyone who wants to get into drugs, will. Anyone who is not so inclined, is not that way because of the law.

dblboggie wrote:You'd think so, but like so many in the political class they lack the courage to lead on this issue.

In a lot of cases I expect that if one politician tried to run a campaign promising to legalize cannabis, his/her opponent would get on their moral high horse and scaremonger about how kids would get addicted to drugs and so on.

dblboggie wrote:I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

I agree entirely. I'd agree probably even if marijuana was a more dangerous drug than it is. As it is, it's far less dangerous than something like alcohol.

the long term effects of cannabis, even in small doses, is a well known fact. A glass of wine a day will not harm you and may even benefit you.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:the long term effects of cannabis, even in small doses, is a well known fact. A glass of wine a day will not harm you and may even benefit you.

What's cannabis? What's drugs? I don't remember.

Who said that

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Who said that

Wasn't me.... I don't think.

Who stole my dope anyway?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:the long term effects of cannabis, even in small doses, is a well known fact.

What are those effects? Much of what I have read suggests the jury is out on what damage it does. The Wikipedia article suggests the scientific community is undecided. (I know that I can at least cite Wikipedia to you because neither of us believe it is part of a grand Liberal conspiracy).

Where is the clinching evidence of of its long term negative effects proved beyond reasonable doubt? That's not rhetorical, I'd really like to know.

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:(I know that I can at least cite Wikipedia to you because neither of us believe it is part of a grand Liberal conspiracy).

My problem with Wikipedia is that users can edit any page any time there. I can edit the page on Obama and put some silly stuff in there. But someone can turn around and edit out what I write. I haven't (and wouldn't) done that. But it's been something that's been going on with the Israel and Palestinian pages there.

I tend to take things with a grain of salt on contentious issues there. Other stuff, like reading about other countries is another thing. Or reading about the Octopus.

kronos wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

I think prohibition is a little bit different than making drugs such as heroin or crack illegal. I am for the legalization and regulation of Marijuana, but I would never go as far as saying that all drugs should be legalized. Making extremely addictive drugs readily available to a society would wreak havoc on that society, imo.
The War on Drugs has been an utter failure though.

The assumption here seems to be that there is significant potential demand for these drugs that would exist but for the fact they are illegal. I do not believe this is the case.

I think we should legalize or at least decriminalize MJ, and possibly every drug except for methamphetamines--which are different from other drugs in that stanching the supply actually is within the power of governments.

Portugal has decriminalized all drug use; it's worked well and has not led to increased drug use, probably for the reason I gave in my first paragraph. The law is not a deterrent. Anyone who wants to get into drugs, will. Anyone who is not so inclined, is not that way because of the law.

I wouldn't say that there is significant potential demand, but there obviously is a demand already.
And the fact that long term drug effects are worse than those of alcohol or nicotine, also speaks against the legalization of heroin, crack, meth, etc.
Also another problem with legalizing drugs is the fact that you can't test whether/how high a person is at a certain point in time. That obviously poses a problem for police officers that pull somebody over but can't test whether the driver is high or not.

There are a lot of pros and cons in this debate and I quite honestly haven't picked a side yet.

BubbleBliss wrote:

kronos wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I think drugs should be legalized. I know this might not seem like a conservative position - and you'd be right about that - but I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Prohibition was a total failure and that's why that constitutional amendment was repealed.

The prohibition on drugs has had the exact same effect that the prohibition of alcohol had. It's time to end it.

I think prohibition is a little bit different than making drugs such as heroin or crack illegal. I am for the legalization and regulation of Marijuana, but I would never go as far as saying that all drugs should be legalized. Making extremely addictive drugs readily available to a society would wreak havoc on that society, imo.
The War on Drugs has been an utter failure though.

The assumption here seems to be that there is significant potential demand for these drugs that would exist but for the fact they are illegal. I do not believe this is the case.

I think we should legalize or at least decriminalize MJ, and possibly every drug except for methamphetamines--which are different from other drugs in that stanching the supply actually is within the power of governments.

Portugal has decriminalized all drug use; it's worked well and has not led to increased drug use, probably for the reason I gave in my first paragraph. The law is not a deterrent. Anyone who wants to get into drugs, will. Anyone who is not so inclined, is not that way because of the law.

I wouldn't say that there is significant potential demand, but there obviously is a demand already. And the fact that long term drug effects are worse than those of alcohol or nicotine, also speaks against the legalization of heroin, crack, meth, etc.

I don't think that heroin, crack, meth, etc. and substantially worse than alcohol or tobacco. Both alcohol and tobacco kill a substantial number of people every year. Besides, legal or not, people are still going to use heroin, crack, meth and other drugs keeping the illegal trade in drugs, the violence it generates, and the quality control issues that kill unwary users, a going concern. I think it would be better for all to legalize, regulate and control drug use and use the savings to expand programs to help addicts quit.

BubbleBliss wrote:Also another problem with legalizing drugs is the fact that you can't test whether/how high a person is at a certain point in time. That obviously poses a problem for police officers that pull somebody over but can't test whether the driver is high or not.

Actually you'd be surprised just how adept officers are at spotting people who are high on drugs. There are people busted for driving under the influence of illegal drugs every day in this country.

BubbleBliss wrote:There are a lot of pros and cons in this debate and I quite honestly haven't picked a side yet.

Well this is certainly one way to gain more information in your search for a position on the issue.

I think the pure extremely addictive nature of heroin, crack and meth pose the biggest problem.

Yes, officers can spot people who are high, but tests that actually give proof that would hold up in court as to how high you are at that particular time are extremely expensive (at least for Marijuana, as far as I know).

BubbleBliss wrote:
I think the pure extremely addictive nature of heroin, crack and meth pose the biggest problem.

Yes, officers can spot people who are high, but tests that actually give proof that would hold up in court as to how high you are at that particular time are extremely expensive (at least for Marijuana, as far as I know).

I would just counter that alcohol and tobacco are also highly addictive - though certainly there can be no doubt that heroin, crack and meth are as well, if not more so.

As for spotting people that are high, the officer doesn't have to prove the degree a person's high, the use itself is currently illegal. In a future scenario where drug use was legal, I am quite sure that law enforcement agencies could establish standards for drug use in conjunction with driving - and that could well be that any use while driving would be illegal.

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:the long term effects of cannabis, even in small doses, is a well known fact.

What are those effects? Much of what I have read suggests the jury is out on what damage it does. The Wikipedia article suggests the scientific community is undecided. (I know that I can at least cite Wikipedia to you because neither of us believe it is part of a grand Liberal conspiracy).

Where is the clinching evidence of of its long term negative effects proved beyond reasonable doubt? That's not rhetorical, I'd really like to know.

Let me come back to this when I've had a chance to re-read Ben Goldacre's book. I know that most of the research is inconclusive but I believe that prolonged use leads to psychological disorder.

dblboggie wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
I think the pure extremely addictive nature of heroin, crack and meth pose the biggest problem.

Yes, officers can spot people who are high, but tests that actually give proof that would hold up in court as to how high you are at that particular time are extremely expensive (at least for Marijuana, as far as I know).

I would just counter that alcohol and tobacco are also highly addictive - though certainly there can be no doubt that heroin, crack and meth are as well, if not more so.

As for spotting people that are high, the officer doesn't have to prove the degree a person's high, the use itself is currently illegal. In a future scenario where drug use was legal, I am quite sure that law enforcement agencies could establish standards for drug use in conjunction with driving - and that could well be that any use while driving would be illegal.

Sure, they're addictive but not nearly as addictive as heroin or crack. I have yet to hear of a case where somebody got drunk and then got immediately addicted to alcohol whereas that's what most crack/heroin/meth users encounter.

That's a good point. If it was illegal to drive on drugs period, then that would make it easy for law enforcement.