Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs as a campaign issue to show Republicans were the “law and order” party. Have we won the war on drugs? It seems the answer is “no.” Is it time to re-assess our strategy?
Despite the fact that thee United States has just 5% of the world’s population, we hold 25% of the world’s prisoners! We have more prisoners per capita than North Korea. (So much for calling ourselves “the land of the free”!) In the world of supply and demand, supply of drugs has gone up (despite U.S. efforts), resulting in prices for drugs being cheaper than ever. There is even a documentary on Netflix, The Drug Wars, that indicates that the government is actually providing help to drug dealers, and it has crossed both republican and democratic administrations.
- During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military transported drugs in servicemen’s coffins.
- The CIA has admitted to selling drugs on the streets of Los Angeles
- There are some who claim that the Iran-Contra Affair also involved the transport of illegal drugs to fund the operation as a way to get around Congressional funding limits.
- Some watchdogs have claimed the recent Fast and Furious scandal was actually a case where the federal government provided weapons to the Siniloa Drug Cartel. The deal was that the Siniloa cartel would provide influence to find other drug groups, while the U.S. government would allow them to increase their territory.
We tried Prohibition once, and it was such a failure, that the state of Utah cast the deciding vote to repeal Prohibition. Prohibition actually increased violent crime, and increased the number of criminals in jails. When the public was fed up with the violence, we decided to tax alcohol.
The state of Utah (as well as other states) are tired of paying more taxes for more jails, and are looking at better ways to deal with non-violent, drug addicted inmates. The fact of the matter is the “law and order” party is now having to deal with high taxes to incarcerate these so-called criminals. Is it time to start legalizing drugs and taxing them in order to shrink our prisons and cut down on the associated violence?
Wheat & Tares 
Although I need to educate myself more on this issue, in answer to your question, I would say
YES!!!!!!!!!!
Ah, the usual pathetic liberal mantras about the CIA involved in heroin trafficking in Vietnam, Iran-Contra, etc…and yet, I agree COMPLETELY that the so-called “War on Drugs”, besides being stupid hyperbole, never ought to be have been fought, at least not with the impression that we can use the criminal justice system to combat personal stupidity.
I would say Nazi Germany had better odds of winning it’s respective war against the Soviet Union (Barbarossa) than we ever did, starting with Richard “Milhous” Nixon but heartily endorsed by his successors regardless of party. We failed to learn the lessons of “Prohibition” and the Volstead Act…people, regardless of the self-evident social ills of drink and/or ‘recreational’ drugs, will indulge to varying extents, for a myriad of reasons. Criminalizing both possession and/or manufacture and distribution only serves to give organized crime a most lucrative business opportunity. The real solution is, as is typical, in the free market, wherein employers ought to be able to screen out alkies and druggies, and certainly public policy mandates that Government, at all levels, and especially in the military, maintain a substance-abuse free environment.
Fix the racism problem. Even if you completely legalize all drugs, you’ll still have the problem with many times more blacks being convicted of crimes than whites.
Fix the underlying problems of the drop in mental health care, driving people to find other ways to find relief.
There are lots of things we can do before we just decide to stop trying.
Heretic, your cartoon implying the obvious pecuniary motive of the “Prison-Industrial Complex” is friggin’ spot on! Granted, mine own personal observation is by nature too limited to make a generalization, but observing the attitudes of mine own bro-in-law, a Deputy Sheriff’s Lieutenant in a Central California county, reinforces the notion. He is certainly in favor of harsh measures, to in effect “hook ’em and book ’em” with regard to druggies. Assuredly, the meth problem in metro Fresno and Visalia is “Gi-Normous”…it’s a veritable public health menace as bad as Ebola, IMHO. Yet the solution is to do more of the same “War” that’s been in effect since 1971. They build more jails, staff them with more correctional officers, field more deputies/policemen/agents to catch all these druggies and their dealers, and yet there’s no evidence they’re stemming the tide. When will policymakers finally admit that law enforcement cannot ‘stop’ these idiots from getting their drug of choice?
HM,
I volunteer at a drug transitional facility; in fact, I am on the board of directors. It will actually be the first of kind incorporating all of the therapies all in one place – music therapy, equestrian therapy, counseling, lodging students in transition and working with local companies to help them find jobs (men only at this time) and to make the transition back into the workforce.
We work with several charities, Forever Young being the most notable, to help make this happen. My family and my wife’s family are donating the land, most of the construction material, construction management and other goods and services to this cause. We lost a family member due to drugs and it has had an enormous impact on our family.
Before you start pushing for legalization, I would strongly encourage you to get more education on the subject. Drugs destroy people. They destroy families. Drug dealers push drugs on our teens to make money. Drug use and pushing drugs on our youth has increased in States where it is now legal. Drugs destroy. Making them legal will make a bad situation worse.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/health/marijuana-use-rising/index.html
Here is another article:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24501596/pot-problems-colorado-schools-increase-legalization
You can find articles that provide data saying things are better and some saying things are worse. The above article makes the most sense to me. Above all is the money that is being made. CNN has a show, HIGH PROFITS, devoted to the money being made off drugs in Colorado. When there is that kind of money being made it is going to INCREASE sales and drug use. That is just a fact of the free market.
Yeah, the assumption behind legalization efforts is that the only social cost of drugs is as a result of their illegality.
You have to distinguish between different drugs. Some, like marajuana, may be manageable in ways similar to tobacco and alcohol. If the costs of management are less being legal than illegal, by all means make these drugs legal. But other drugs are not manageable in any circumstance. Heroin, for example. There’s simply no option there but to criminalize possession, use, and distribution.
Yeah I’m similarly not inclined to support a lassiez-faire policy toward crystal meth. It’s destroying rural America, and legalizing it is not going to change that.
What is your take on the repeal of Prohibition? Net good or net bad?
“What is your take on the repeal of Prohibition? Net good or net bad?”
Neither. It shouldn’t have been enacted in the first place as it was forcing the removal of something that was just starting to decline due to the availability of clean water. What was needed was a change of heart to see that alcohol was no longer needed as a “social lubricant”.
For drugs there isn’t the same history. No one used drugs as often as they needed to drink safe liquid.
The war on drugs is a huge success! Why? Because it never had anything to do with stopping the flow of drugs, it was all about eliminating competition and creating a monopoly! Another intended benefit is the diversion of vast sums of money into the military industrial complex to “fight” it.
“What is your take on the repeal of Prohibition? Net good or net bad?”
Look at how large alcohol companies have become since prohibition. They are enormous and have spent Billions in advertising and promotion of their products. Companies wouldn’t spend these advertising dollars if they didn’t have a return.
The key phrase in the 89th section is “for the weakest of the saints”. When the weak and vulnerable see others using it is harder for them to resist. Likewise, when it is legal it is easier for them to become entrenched.
#3 – I believe in ‘Hook em and Book em’ on an equal ‘opportunity’ basis. If WHITE criminals are being left off scot-free, I’m outraged. More than likely they would be allowed to prey on yours truly and family.
The reason why blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate is simple: They DO they crimes that put them there. And since there is a greater likelihood that their respective victims will also be black, to be lax in enforcing the law on these cretins would be far more ‘racist’. Saying one of three black males between the ages of 18 and 45 are in the criminal justice system is also saying that two of three are law-abiding. It’s those law-abiding I’d want to protect.
#5 – Ken, I’ve experienced the heartbreak of seeing a loved one turn to drugs and wreak havoc on her life and her family. I advocate legalization and/or de-criminalization, and would rather see it dealt with as a public health issue, b/c ever-more draconian law enforcement measures have been tried over and over again w/o success. All it’s gotten us is a larger ‘prison-industrial’ complex, with a huge law enforcement bureaucracy with it’s own self-interest, to suck the taxpayers dry. Or is “Yew-Tah” at least one state that hasn’t been taken over by it’s peace officer unions?
Remove both the criminal onus of drug abuse and those that might be inclined to seek help will more readily get it. Would the druggie culture be abated? Probably not, but at least they wouldn’t so readily turn to grifting family and friends, or stealing from those who mistakenly trust them (or just shoplifting or burgling in general) to support the cost of a habit hugely inflated by the risk of arrest/incarceration. The means ALREADY exists to defend ourselves from these morons. Allow the free marketplace to be truly ‘free’, so that at least private business can screen out druggies and alkies. Likewise the public sector and the military has a duty to keep the addicts and drunks from employment therein. It would bear mentioning that drastically curtailing the welfare state will also ‘starve the beast’. Given enough time to bring about some ‘tough love’, the problem will sort itself out, either by repentance of those that want to get better and those that persist kill themselves off. Good results or good riddance either way.
#13 – I would say, net BAD, especially b/c the intentions were so noble, but the ‘cure’ ended up being worse than the ‘disease’. The biggest problem, besides erosion of credibility in public institutions and a lessening of respect for law and those than enforce it, is that it set a terrible precedent: that Government can cure ills of the mind and soul by legislation, funding, and law enforcement. Not only does it smack of what Lucifer offered (being ‘forced’ to obey so we don’t ‘lose’ anyone), it ultimately distracts from where both human despair and hope come from: our sinful nature, and the Atonement through Jesus Christ to master it. The most effective ‘law’ is that written in our hearts.
Do you guys really have that bad of a misunderstanding of Prohibition? Do I need to write a post about Prohibition? Ken Burns did a great documentary on Netflix: See http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70281600?sod=search-autocomplete
#16 – Heretic, what I’d hope the lesson would be drawn from the experience of the Eighteen Amendment and the Volstead Act (aka “Prohibition”) is how moral panic and self-righteous crusading, even with the best of intentions, can yield such awful and UNINTENDED consequences, thanks to the error of relying upon Government fiat to rule the consensual behavior of adults. Sure, back in the day, there was much sermonizing about “demon rum”, and certainly the Eighteenth Amendment would have never been enacted w/o sufficient popular and electoral support. It’s not unlike what I’ve paid forfeit for in my own life: never underestimate what alcoholism, drug addictions, and/or sexual compulsions will drive people to do. Well-meaning sermonizers like Billy Sunday, Carry Nation, or even Heber J. Grant seemed to forget that cardinal rule: naively thinking that now that ‘likker’ was prohibited by law, the ‘good folks’ of this land would pour the contents of their liquor cabinets down the sink. As several states were already ‘dry’, or many counties therein, with a busy bootlegging trade ALREADY in place, it’s not as if any social scientist who barely graduated with a 2.0 average couldn’t figure it out. People who were otherwise law-abiding had to choose between personal integrity in obeying the law, or thumbing their noses at same because they valued their desire for booze more. Any recollection of why the Twenties were ‘roaring’ makes it evident what most folks chose.
I have no sympathy with anyone who’d be so stupid as to jeopardize their health, moral fiber, self-respect, marriages, family relations, employment, business opportunities, or their very lives or lives of others they may unintentionally harm. Alcohol itself has caused more social harm than any other chemical I can think of, yet misguided efforts to legislate it away only drove the problem underground instead of in the open where it could be more readily fought.
Just as “democrats” would have an opposing piece broadcast after a “wascally wepubblican” President gave a speaker (the reverse is true, just less often), so we have the voice of “opposition”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Drunkard_Magazine
I hope this is merely satire, as much to sell merchandise (where, as “Yogurt” from “Spaceballs” taught, the REAL money is made!!)
Heroine was orininally an otc drug and we didnt have the problem we have now. Lack of economic opportunity (almost all economic activities are regulated thru froms, fees, beauracracy, and taxes) and lack of non addictive coping mechanisms (religion) are the reason drugs are entertained. Fix these two problems and the drug use problem will go away.
The “Fix” to the “fix” (heroin, crack, cocaine, booze, porn, etc, etc, etc…) is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Only by admitting that we are lost (and if we are best by above or co-dependency with others likewise best) and that our ‘righteousness’ is as ‘filthy rags’ (Isaiah 64:6) do we render ourselves able to receive His grace and ability to heal.
MH:
Prohibition restricted or made illegal: “The manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages.”
What are we missing?
The lawyers would point out that the Eighteenth Amendment, though it’s language prohibited alcoholic beverages, actually authorized the Congress to enact legislation making this Prohibition effective. Hence why when you watch period flicks, especially those involving Elliot Ness, they mention the “Volstead Act”, which was the law authorizing the enforcement of Prohibition, enabling funding for federal law enforcement (Ness, the protypical “G-Man”, was a TREASURY agent), and prescribing penalties therein.
And what, pray tell, was the state whose passage of the Twenty-First Amendment (repealing the Eighteenth?). None other than “Yew-Tah”
Ken, are you serious?
“Heroine was orininally an otc drug and we didnt have the problem we have now.” Of course life expectancy was less than 50 years, but whatevs.
Maybe the tactics in the drug war need to change, but I can’t support wholesale legalization. Drugs destroy people. A society should protect itself against them. Remember the Opium Wars in China? The Chinese were right and the westerners were wrong.
#21
I don’t understand your point. If the atonement is the answer, does that mean we shouldn’t have an opinion on the war on drugs, or we should only try to convert the whole world to the gospel?
JI, there is no “maybe.” The tactics NEED to change, because we’re losing the war on drugs. I’m curious what tactics you’d be willing to support, or what do you think is working?
With regards to Prohibition, by prohibiting alcohol, the government actually made binge drinking worse. By allowing its regulated use, we’ve actually cut down on the abuse. Similarly, we should expect drug overdoses to decrease by regulating it (which seems to have happened in California, Oregon, and Colorado where it is legal.) Cutting down on drug overdoses can’t be a bad thing.
A second benefit is the decrease in drug violence. Cartels enforce their contracts by killing people. If Budweiser, for example, started selling marijuana legally, they can now have access in courts to enforce contracts, and don’t have to start killing people with “cement shoes” or gun violence. Once again, less violence is a good thing, and it is precisely why the repeal of Prohibition was made. People were sick of the gangster violence of mobsters trying to control the illegal sale of alcohol.
So once again, while I don’t condone people drinking alcohol anymore than drugs like marijuana, the prohibition of such actually causes MORE crime. If we make it legal, regulate it, tax it, it should cut down on prisons, violence, and overdoses. These are all good things that I think most everyone can support. We can also use the tax revenue to establish drug and alcohol treatment centers to hopefully decrease abuse.
Certainly we even have Budweiser telling us to “drink responsibly.” I am sure we could make laws requiring drug sellers to promote similar messages, and provide a fund to help people get off their addictions. What’s not to like in an approach like this? Certainly it has to be better than the current failed policies.
#21 – Dexter, of course we each as citizens with agency to vote ought to share our opinions, especially on the “War on Drugs”.
It’s simply MY opinion that external efforts to legislate the consensual choice of adults (where they live, WHOM they live with, what they wear, what they ingest, watch, etc.) are futile. A person who does not respect himself enough to self-regulate won’t likely respect the law either if it comes down to obedience of same or indulgence in whatever appetite. Only by a change from within, e.g., a curbing of the desire to indulge with a change of attitude, habits, and perspective(s), can a person truly change. This type of change is not only possible through the Atonement, it is essential.
The dirty little secret is that most of those in prison are in prison for violence. While this may be indirectly related to the drug war, the reality is that there are very few “drug possession only” prisoners one could release.
I’m strongly in favor for a rethinking of the drug war. Many drugs have far less harm that alcohol or tobacco but are treated like heroin. (Seriously treating ecstasy like heroin makes zero sense) It’s not just that marijuana and many other drugs aren’t much worse than cigarettes or alcohol it’s that we really don’t treat those drugs seriously. It’s hard to take seriously allowing alcohol advertisements everywhere while ecstasy possession puts one in jail. At a minimum alcohol should be treated like cigarettes with severely restricted advertisements.
And if we want to get rid of the violence associated with drugs, then make them easily and legally available in hospitals. That’ll kill the markets, will reduce abuse and more important vehicle misuse while on the drugs. It’ll cut our *huge* costs for prisons and police, hopefully make communities safer, and one would think deescalate the problems of police violence. And the added plus is that the government gets to tax the drugs. Plus while users are in hospitals paying for safe drugs, we can encourage them towards treatment programs.
This isn’t legalization. It would still be illegal to possess them outside of a hospital. It is heavily regulating their use. Much like large explosives are legal but are used in a highly regulation fashion.
#30 – How about the notion that adults, fully citizens (e.g., not mental incompetents or convicted felons), ought to be freely able to possess (as long as circumstances of said ‘possession’ don’t constitute a public health/safety issue, to wit, the experience of a neighborhood resident running a jet ski rental business out of his garage and storing three 55-gal drums of AVGAS with predictable result…) ANYTHING, and drink, swallow, chew, snort, inject, rub on, suppository (does that cover dosing methods?) whatever chemical or herb (I’ll leave out live animals though that wouldn’t completely surprise yours truly) they so desire, as long as the act of doing so doesn’t pose an immediate and proximate threat (no Libertarian would seriously propose allowing drunken/stoned driving, operating heavy equipment, or performing brain (salad) surgery while ‘impaired’). Likewise said ‘adult’, though obviously not acting very wisely or maturely, ought also to be solely responsible for the costs of his/her indulgences…ergo, society doesn’t have a duty to ‘rehab’ him nor give him special ‘disability’ benefits b/c he CHOOSES to get drunk/stoned.
It seems that private interactions and social opprobrium would do far more to curb the scourges of alcohol/drug abuse than anything law enforcement can do. If said indulgences would tend to impair one’s ability to ‘socialize’, have a decent family life, and do well in one’s gainful pursuits, should that be more of an incentive than possibly landing in the clink? But perhaps I preacheth to the choir…or at least, in most addicts/drunks there’s a disconnect between their bad habit(s) and the consequences, or they’ve sunk into suck despair and depression that they don’t care anymore. If I had the ‘magic bullet’ (yes, I’ve touted the Gospel as ‘that’, but it can’t be marketed), I’d either be a ‘hero’ on the order of Dr. Jonas Salk or be targeted by a ‘hit man’, employed by legions of cops/correctional officers, counselors, and rehab outfits whose livelihoods I’d be threatening!
#30 – agreed, the obvious injustice of some kid doing a 20-year stretch for possession of one joint in some southern state’s worst prison was a rarity even fifty years ago and is largely done away with. Even Texas, one of the ‘toughest’ states on drugs, mandates ‘drug courts’ and diversion for offenders charged with ‘only’ possession (not with ‘intent to sell or distribute’, though, and one would be surprised how little it takes to make that manner of charge stick) due to overcrowding concerns as much as ‘evolving’ attitudes. The 2016 elections may well even see Medical Marijuana initiatives pass in the Lone Star State.
Douglas (31) I’m not sure what grounds your views of what ought to be allowable. The problem with many drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) is that they don’t merely affect the user. Thus the state has a compelling reason to regulate them IMO.
Likewise the reason for rehab is that (1) it lets citizens become more productive and is (2) much, much cheaper than prison.
Finally the reason most don’t want drugs fully legalized for any use is the information problem. That is people in general don’t have enough information to use dangerous substances on their own. Therefore such things (including dynamite, extremely harmful pesticides, etc.) have their trade regulation so that those purchasing them are capable of handling them. For drugs, where a mistake with dosage could mean death, that typically means some degree of medical training.
While I’m quite sympathetic to the “let the buyer beware” mentality the fact is there are so many ignorant people out there that something like this is necessary or else some way to ensure that lawsuits against bad trade can be conducted.
#33 – Clark, what ‘grounds’ my views is this somewhat quaint and perhaps even kooky notions that adults ought to be able to freely manage their personal affairs, unless proven under due process of law to be unable (incompetent or a convicted felon), which includes taking into one’s body whatever they deem ‘fit’. Accompanying the ability to theoretically poison one’s self (which is what I’d be doing if I popped open a 22 oz. IPA beer with an ABV of 7.5%, thereby taking in about 1.5 oz of ethyl alchol into my 197-lb frame) goes the responsibility for consequences thereof, including criminal charges (DUI) if found to be driving, boating, pilot an aircraft, operating heavy machinery, etc. I dearly loved my (late) mother but believe that once I reached the age of majority I no longer required her oversight.
As for the ‘information’ issue, in today’s age of the Internet, this is certainly a red herring. I can understand about 125 years ago when the patent medicine or snake oil salesman would ply his trade to gullible rubes in rural America, hence the FDA Act of 1906 during the “Progressive” Era when Teddy Roosevelt and his ilk ran riot with the notion that their version of “Good Government” could solve America’s social ills. It really began with him, a REPUBLICAN, not his distant cousin from Oyster Bay, New York, with his “New Deal” some thirty years later. Again, the free market has well responded, by making scads of information available. There’s no excuse for someone to claim ignorance when they can pick up even a cheapie smartphone and browse away.
Government does have a duty to regulate when there is reasonable expectation of immediate harm. My erstwhile neighbor who ignorantly stored about 150 gallons of aviation gas in his garage is a terrific example, and methinks the fire codes of the State of California sufficed to write this guy up for one terrific citation at least (fortunately, it was just his garage, part of his house, and his four jet skis that went up in smoke, the adjacent neighbor’s house was just a wee scorched, and no injuries), the Sac County DA did investigate for criminal charges but none were filed, AFAIK. As my dear-departed mama would have said, ‘your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins’.
Someone lighting up a joint simply doesn’t pose that same degree of proximate threat. In fact, a “no on drugs” commercial ran a few years ago where some 30ish fellow articulates how he smoked pot regularly and ‘nothing happened’. The shot pans away to the voice of his mother upstairs (presumably, his ‘pad’ is her ‘basement’) asking if he sought employment, to which he responds affirmatively, but not convincingly. The moral of story? He was right…he smoked pot, and “nothing” happened…
I support the “Gawd”-given right of my fellow Americans to make utter fools of themselves.
Apologies – it was Teddy who was from Oyster Bay and Franklin DELANO from Hyde Park. Franklin DID marry a distant cousin, Eleanor, which social custom I thought was peculiar to Kentucky, not the upper crust “Old Money” of “New Yawk”.
The short answer to MH’s question is an unqualified “Yes.”
Ken says in #5,
Spoken like a true drug warrior. Always assert ignorance on the part of people who disagree with you; it saves you the trouble of having to get any actual facts. Frankly, by any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, the money spent and lives ruined by anti-drug law enforcement efforts far exceeds the damage done by drug use. Ironically, Ken then cites a CNN (!) report on marijuana use, of all things, to “prove” his point.
In further irony, when we talk about lives and families ruined by drugs, the majority of the ruining is done by law enforcement and the legal system, destroying (and in many cases, ending) lives by enforcing unnecessarily harsh laws. In addition, the role of the drug war in militarizing American civilian police forces shouldn’t be underestimated.
Yes, people become addicted to drugs and alcohol and sometimes destroy their lives. But there’s a healthy middle ground between the wasteland of prohibition we have now, which has created and maintained the cartels and the gang violence, and complete legalization with no attention paid to consequence.
In short, MH, yes. You clearly need to educate some people on Prohibition. Apparently they’ve failed to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences, and still think either that Waving the Magic Wand of Legislation cures all ills, or that the social damage to ALL OF US from the drug war is an acceptable price to pay to bust some poor schmuck with an ounce of weed.
NI, so you’re saying that the cost of the “war on drugs” is far more than the cost of legalized use of alcohol and tobacco?
I’d like to see the numbers on that, because I highly doubt it.
And it looks like I have good reason to suspect the truth…
Silverrain,
If drugs were made legal, and alcohol and tobacco were made illegal, people would start doing crime to obtain cigarettes and alcohol. Do you disagree?
#39 – We already have the history on PROHIBITION (of alcohol). I presume tobacco would be no different. As it is, organized crime conducts a thriving trade in bootleg cigarettes thanks to misguided efforts to tax them out of existence.