Happy 100th Anniversary, War on Drugs!

[Henry]

The War on Drugs Is 100 Years Old ? LewRockwell.com



To aid those easily confused, I do not advocate drug use. I do not, and never have, consume illegal drugs. I simply do not have the desire to put that crap in my system.

I am, however, fed up with having my property taken by force to fund an effort to prevent others from doing what they will.

Further, when some doper is trying to "fight his addiction", "get rehabbed", etc., don't be sending the state around to take my property through force in order to compensate them for their poor decisions.

 

[T755]

So your property was taking in forfeiture is what your saying? Or do you mean taxes to support public programs pushed forward by elected officials. . What are you saying exactly.

 

[eric001]

I second your stand on drug use, Henry--never done any of that crap, never will. It's my personal decision and has nothing to do with legality/illegality of the substances themselves. That said...

It has always seemed incredibly odd to me that Prohibition of alcohol was acknowledged to be a complete failure of legislative intent so shortly after it was enacted. A huge amount of historical analysis has been done on the whole period to supposedly enlighten today's population of the mistakes made, their purportedly good reasons for being made, and how the law of unintended consequences applied. Overall it's a very well documented period of history.

Yet somehow, for whatever multitude of reasons, today's "war on drugs," otherwise describable as prohibition on pretty much everything BUT alcohol (and tobacco), keeps going strong...in spite of the mounting evidence that the unintended consequences far outweigh any supposed good done by this "war" that just won't die.

The old adage of those not knowing history being doomed to repeat it comes to mind, amidst all the frustration that today's society has NO excuse to be that ignorant of how prohibition NEVER accomplished its stated goals, and only enhanced the power of criminal organizations while wasting time, money and even lives in the effort to enforce an overall unenforceable ban.

 

[Henry]

So your property was taking in forfeiture is what your saying? Or do you mean taxes to support public programs pushed forward by elected officials. . What are you saying exactly.

My reference was to the second in the form of income taxes, but it matters not. One is as evil as the other and failure to turn over your property will ultimately be met with the same response from state.

 

[ModernGunner]

Don't really care if some yabo chooses drug use. His / her body, his / her option. However, if / when they want to get 'clean', it should NOT be incumbent upon some government sponsored / subsidized program to assist them, either. They made the sole choice to venture into that 'world', so it should be solely upon their devices to get out of it.

That applies to other such programs. NO taxpayer $$$ for alcohol rehab, etc.

Collectively, we way too much taxpayer money trying to save dipsticks from themselves. Time to stop that and use the funds for something that's actually important.

 

[Henry]

The old adage of those not knowing history being doomed to repeat it comes to mind, amidst all the frustration that today's society has NO excuse to be that ignorant of how prohibition NEVER accomplished its stated goals, and only enhanced the power of criminal organizations while wasting time, money and even lives in the effort to enforce an overall unenforceable ban.

I I will add that in addition to enhancing the power of criminal organizations, the "war on drugs" enhances the power and fills the coffers of state, specifically organizations such as law enforcement, judicial systems, and prison systems. Criminal organizations and state are codependent enablers in the "war on drugs". Both benefit greatly from the "war on drugs".

I suspect that has more to do with the "war on drugs" than protecting citizen from drugs.

 

[JMoses]

I love how all these people that dislike the war on drugs "don't advocate" or "don't use" drugs....LOL, whatever.

 

[eric001]

I love how all these people that dislike the war on drugs "don't advocate" or "don't use" drugs....LOL, whatever.

I have had many acquaintances--wouldn't really call most of them friends--since my high school years who chose to use drugs of whatever type. I didn't like the idea of putting that garbage in my system, but don't agree with the .gov assuming the power to say what they can or can not put in their own bodies. Personal choice is just that--a CHOICE.

And since I'm straight, I guess I don't get to have an opinion about gay marriage? That kind of reasoning is just plain messed up. But I guess from your reasoning, a non-journalist has no legitimate input on laws/rules limiting the freedom of speech, and a non-devout person should have no say about the freedom to practice religion.

So much for that whole "pursuit of happiness" stuff the founding fathers thought so much of, huh?

People can argue particulars ad nauseum, but the whole point is...or SHOULD BE...that government infringement on personal liberty should not be the norm, or even accetable. My ability to choose to use drugs or to not do so should not be a legal/illegal decision--it should be the same as my decision on whether or not to smoke, to drink, or to say/wear something you might find offensive. If what I do or say causes YOU no harm, your right to your opinion should never trump my rights to do or say whatever offended you. If I want to smoke/drink/do drugs, you should not have the right to stop me. That choice should never have been made illegal in the first place. Those decisions are personal ones and the government should not have the power to interfere, period. The fact that I do not choose to do drugs, or smoke, or drink to excess is A) irrelevant to this discussion, and B) in no way related to my support of those who choose to do things that I don't want to do myself.

 

[Thor]

When the penalties of use of the drugs in a truly free society equal the damage they do to the freedom of others I could advocate their being legalized. As it is slap on the wrist punishment does nothing to offset the dangers they pose to the rest of us.

 

[Twangbanger]

Public budgets seldom go down. I strongly suspect all that will come from the legalization / decriminalization movement, is that the "War on Drugs" will get converted into a "War on Addiction," with your "stolen" public money simply being re-directed toward an army of statist social work counselors who _also_ will not want their budget to ever go down.

If you think drugs should be legal, that's fine & just say so. But stop pretending we live in a society where people are allowed to fail based on their life decisions. That ship has already sailed. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[rambone]

I love how all these people that dislike the war on drugs "don't advocate" or "don't use" drugs....LOL, whatever.

Do you think the only people who oppose Prohibition Episode II are drug addicts?

 

[phylodog]

I'd like to see it end. I'm not so gullible as to believe it would come without a new set of problems but I'd prefer to see problems for those who choose to have them rather than problems created for everyone. We're 100 years into it and arguably much worse off as far as drugs are concerned than when we started. It is not working.

I'd like to see it ended but not before individual responsibility becomes a priority in this country once again. Stop making excuses for everyone and everything and searching for reasons to hold me financially or emotionally responsible for the actions of others and I'll stand in line to cast my vote for legalizing everything.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'd like to see it end. I'm not so gullible as to believe it would come without a new set of problems but I'd prefer to see problems for those who choose to have them rather than problems created for everyone. We're 100 years into it and arguably much worse off as far as drugs are concerned than when we started. It is not working.

I'd like to see it ended but not before individual responsibility becomes a priority in this country once again. Stop making excuses for everyone and everything and searching for reasons to hold me financially or emotionally responsible for the actions of others and I'll stand in line to cast my vote for legalizing everything.

Bingo!

 

[littletommy]

I love how all these people that dislike the war on drugs "don't advocate" or "don't use" drugs....LOL, whatever.

Okay, try this then, "I love how all these people who are for the war on drugs won't admit that they are addicted to the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars and the free loot that has been "forfeited". LOL, whatever.

 

[Destro]

Whe "war on drugs" will not stop at legalization, it will simply operate under a new mission. Somebody is going to enforce the new "legalize and tax" laws. Crime begets crime, bureaucracy begets bureaucracy

 

[rambone]

I'd like to see it ended but not before individual responsibility becomes a priority in this country once again. Stop making excuses for everyone and everything and searching for reasons to hold me financially or emotionally responsible for the actions of others and I'll stand in line to cast my vote for legalizing everything.

Bingo!

I don't really understand this argument. And it is constantly used by lots of people.

If you don't like being burdened with financial responsibility of addiction then how can you tolerate the current system in any way, shape, or form? Billions of tax dollars per year are blown on investigating drug users, arresting them, imprisoning them, not to mention the cost of injured cops, clogged courts, prosecution efforts, bureaucratic waste, corruption, and civil rights settlements. And that's just half the story. You also have to account for all the breadwinners who are removed from their families and given criminal records, reducing the chances that they will ever find good jobs or that their families will rise above welfare. The drug war creates orphans and amplifies dependency.

Secondly, the argument puts a dollar value on liberty. It makes me wonder what other principles are for sale. Its similar to saying, "Gun control is a failure, but I won't support ending it until taxpayers stop funding gunshot victims." Uh...

I'd like to see it end. I'm not so gullible as to believe it would come without a new set of problems but I'd prefer to see problems for those who choose to have them rather than problems created for everyone. We're 100 years into it and arguably much worse off as far as drugs are concerned than when we started. It is not working.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad you are softening toward repealing the Drug War. I just don't get the idea of waiting around.

 

[hoosierdoc]

+1 phylodog. You have the right to ruin your life from drugs and rot in the hole you dig.

but as said, that won't happen. We'll give them $$, they will buy drugs, then we'll house and rehab them, and the cycle resets.

 

[phylodog]

Don't get me wrong, I am glad you are softening toward repealing the Drug War. I just don't get the idea of waiting around.

Hoosierdoc nailed it. I'm all for freedom and liberty and I'll readily admit that the war on drugs has been a failure. Knowing how this country works I am not willing to support a simple end to the laws prohibiting drugs tomorrow because I know they will be replaced with taxes to pay for free drugs, free treatment, free healthcare, free housing, free food, free daycare and free cell phones. Right now those laws are in place and that is the lesser of two evils. At least some of the money wasted is paying the salaries for people willing to get out of bed and work for a living and those people are much more likely to raise children who will do the same. I'm not saying it's right but that's how it is.

 

[rambone]

Hoosierdoc nailed it. I'm all for freedom and liberty and I'll readily admit that the war on drugs has been a failure. Knowing how this country works I am not willing to support a simple end to the laws prohibiting drugs tomorrow because I know they will be replaced with taxes to pay for free drugs, free treatment, free healthcare, free housing, free food, free daycare and free cell phones. Right now those laws are in place and that is the lesser of two evils. At least some of the money wasted is paying the salaries for people willing to get out of bed and work for a living and those people are much more likely to raise children who will do the same. I'm not saying it's right but that's how it is.

I'm familiar with the justification but it still isn't logical to me. Drug users can CURRENTLY get free housing, food, childcare, phones, health care, etc, etc, etc. Its already happening. Today, it is happening, right now. The drug war IS NOT preventing it in any way. (And as I stated before, breaking up families and passing out felonies to breadwinners is a great way to INCREASE dependency.)

So... ON TOP OF the gigantic welfare state, we ALSO have the billions spent on incarceration and bureaucracy. We have BOTH boondoggles, rather than just one. We have the greater of the evils.

 

[steveh_131]

(And as I stated before, breaking up families and passing out felonies to breadwinners is a great way to INCREASE dependency.)

Exactly. I really don't understand the logic of this.

Is it cheap to keep a man in prison? What happens to his family while he's in there? Government assistance, of course. What happens when he gets out? More government assistance. How does a felon get a good enough job to get off of government assistance? The drug war fuels life-long welfare dependence.

If you really want to base this decision on a financial cost/benefit analysis, the drug war loses on every front.