Time to end the war on drugs?
posted at 12:20 pm on December 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Seventy-five years ago today, the nation amended the Constitution to end Prohibition after a disastrous experiment in banning alcohol. Ethan Nadelmann uses the event to ask Americans whether the time has come to end its decades-long experiment in banning other drugs and allow citizens to make their own decisions on intoxicants. The appearance of this column at the Wall Street Journal shows how mainstream it has become to question the war on drugs:
The Americans who voted in 1933 to repeal prohibition differed greatly in their reasons for overturning the system. But almost all agreed that the evils of failed suppression far outweighed the evils of alcohol consumption.
The change from just 15 years earlier, when most Americans saw alcohol as the root of the problem and voted to ban it, was dramatic. Prohibition’s failure to create an Alcohol Free Society sank in quickly. Booze flowed as readily as before, but now it was illicit, filling criminal coffers at taxpayer expense.
Some opponents of prohibition pointed to Al Capone and increasing crime, violence and corruption. Others were troubled by the labeling of tens of millions of Americans as criminals, overflowing prisons, and the consequent broadening of disrespect for the law. Americans were disquieted by dangerous expansions of federal police powers, encroachments on individual liberties, increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the prohibition laws, and the billions in forgone tax revenues. And still others were disturbed by the specter of so many citizens blinded, paralyzed and killed by poisonous moonshine and industrial alcohol.
Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.
When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.
Do most Americans fail to see that? I’m not sure, and the fact that the question has become mainstream speaks to a dawning realization of that reality. Thirty years ago, talk of legalization remained on the fringe of American politics, mostly among drug users (with obvious interests in that direction) and libertarians. Reason Magazine would have been the most mainstream publication in those years to even make the argument, and perhaps the Village Voice. Otherwise, the thought of legalizing recreational drugs was thought politically insane.
No one doubts the destructive nature of most of the substances banned now, except for marijuana, where serious debate exists. Cocaine and heroin are deeply and physically addictive and deadly, as are most controlled or banned substances. But should people be left to their own devices and government stay out of the way of their behavior, only intervening when their behavior affects others? Where would that line get drawn, anyway?
Clearly, what we have been doing hasn’t worked. At the margins, it impacts behavior, but overall, Americans still create a huge demand that gets fulfilled by criminal enterprises. That is no different than what Prohibition created, and the effects have been the same: rampant violence, large wealth transfers to organized crime, dilution of law-enforcement efforts, exploding prison populations, and so on.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Under that definition, the American idea of a war on drugs is as politically insane as it gets. Succeeding administrations and Congresses led by both parties keep assuring us that they will turn the corner on the war on drugs, but nothing changes except for the names and the faces. We have enabled a powerful central government and organized crime to limit our freedoms in every direction as a result of this policy. We could at least roll back both by returning to the more rational policy on drugs that the US had before prohibition fever hit a century ago.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 Next »
We are already spending billions, if not trillions on the WOD.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I was stationed in Cartegena and Bogata in the late 80’s. We burned crops and conducted snatch and grabs. In some cases we saw entire villages that were “enslaved” by the exporters. They were forced to work the fields, process and package the product. Many of all ages were used as sexual toys, non-conformers were killed or simply disapeared.
People are hurt you just may not see it on your end of the pipe.
Alden Pyle on December 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Not sure on this one. There are more high school kids here in Ca. that are using Meth, and Heroin. That is a big problem. But then, on TV there is a drug for everything. They make up names for diseases as they go. I don’t need to take anything to feel good. One beer, half glass of wine and I am looped. So, I know that I cannot drink when I am not at home. I have heard that The One said he will legalize Pot. That is why most of the looney Obamabots voted for him. They would say that he is going to legalize pot. Wow! What a great excuse to elect someone. If they legalize anything, then pot it should be I guess. They need to restrict that a tad. But can they? It is easy to get in San Fran. I don’t need pot, or any other drug. I like being high on life. But, I do have many friends that are pot heads. And proclaim they are Conservatives. Hmmmmmmmmmm………
sheebe on December 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Oh yeah, I left out the healthcare angle. We’re probably moving toward Universal Healthcare. Now, with our current economic issues, let’s move toward Universal Healthcare. Then legalize drugs. Of course, addiction is a disease, which requires medical treatment. Do we really want to spend that much more money (which we don’t have) on a vast new medical/drug treatment agency, supported by governmental resources (our tax $)? Do conservative/libertarian legalization advocates really think this will be less expensive than the War on Drugs?
cs89 on December 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Not true Mark…you can to on the street today and purchase hits of crack for less than $5. Same with heroin and meth. I talk to people in treatment and they have dealers that will take their drivers licenses as collateral for one hit of crack. It’s not the price. It’s like Esthier said, addicts get to a point that they can not function in their jobs which means no income coming in to support their habits. Results in criminal activity.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
+1. There is also a fair bit of hypocrisy regarding those who presently use illegal substances and their disregard for how profits from those substances enable our enemies who want to destroy us all. Their personal needs/desires outweigh all else.
a capella on December 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Great point Alden.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I was stationed in Cartegena and Bogata in the late 80’s. We burned crops and conducted snatch and grabs. In some cases we saw entire villages that were “enslaved” by the exporters. They were forced to work the fields, process and package the product. Many of all ages were used as sexual toys, non-conformers were killed or simply disapeared.
People are hurt you just may not see it on your end of the pipe.
Alden Pyle on December 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Thank you for this. You seen the truth of what does happen. Sadly some will argue with you on this one. I know, I have a relative that is high security. A lot cannot be said. But basically I was able to learn this and more of what goes on with the cartels.
sheebe on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I’m ok with legalizing pot also, but not the others.
4shoes on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
True, but, unless I’m mistaken, it can kill in one day.
So, maybe 50% off on break-ins? That’d be an interesting stat if we could confirm that.
I’m sure we would at first, but with our economy going down right now, it would be harder to say whether or not it would stay down.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
However, the problem is right there in your quote block:
This is what many people see as the stumbling block here.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM
So a person has a duty to maintain himself in such a manner that he maximizes his utility to society.
Karl Marx couldn’t have said it any better.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:43 PM
$1 a gram, from bubble-gum dispensers.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet how Al-Qaeda finances their terrorist groups with the drug trade? Maybe I missed it.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Overdose is major killer of heroin addicts. Takes just one time.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
So we should outlaw cold medicine?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Being impaired is being impaired no matter what you have injested.
TexasDude on December 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
One can be both.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:48 PM
With a field probriety test.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:48 PM
And for this you can thank the WOD. If drugs weren’t illegal, drug gangs wouldn’t exist.
Does Jim Bean have to enslave it’s work force?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:49 PM
You mean sobriety?
It’s not the same though. Being high will slow your reactions, but it won’t prevent you from saying your ABCs or make you uncoordinated.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Not quite true. There are different degrees. No matter what, impaired while operating equipment is not a good thing. But I’d rather deal with a beer impaired person then a heroin or meth impaired person. Weed impaired..well..just sit them in front of the tv.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
No. He’s got a thing for probes. And butts.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM
That’s not true. Diamonds aren’t illegal.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Lady, have I got some stories to tell you….
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Overdose is major killer of heroin addicts. Takes just one time.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
You are right! Just one time! I was at a party years ago in Santa Barbara. The druggies would go in the bedroom to do the hard crap. The Pot smokers were out back doing their thing. I noticed that a lot were not even 18. So I thanked my friend for inviting me and left. As I was almost to my car, I heard screaming from the front bedroom. A young 17 year old, that looked in her thirties. Did on line of coke. She died instantly. I started to run to the house. But, being a daughter of a Ex Police Officer. I hesitated. Grabbed my cell phone and called the police. So many people took off running like the chickens they are. When the cops got there and the Ambulance. I told the cops why I was leaving the party. I told them they could drug test me and test me for alcohol. They looked at me and said that there was no need. The owners of the home were charged. And the parents of that very pretty 17 year old had their life turned upside down. So, that is what we thought. Come to find out a few years down the road. She took the coke to the house. It was her parents coke that they were selling! Drugs isn’t worth the price no matter what.
sheebe on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Anything can kill in one day, if you take enough of it. Drinking too much water at one time can kill you.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Lol. Hey, I’m not one to judge.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
What??? Legalize narcotics? No way! I mean, how is Gangland Violence Ltd meant to maintain its high profit margins if Potty Peter and Collin the Cokehead can get theirs from the local “alternative” pharmacy?
FierceGuppy on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
If it’s not drug gangs, it would be turf gangs..or gambling gangs..or racist gangs. Gangs are gangs and will form for the pure gang mentality.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
With Democrats controlling all three branches of government, we’ll all need more drugs.
Gangja, heroin, PCP and cyanide, just for starters.
NoDonkey on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
People binge and die from alcohol poisoning in a day.
Even if it was 5%, wouldn’t that mean it was a success to legalize?
Fair point, but that effects crime overall.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Why do we not see beer in coke machines?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Black markets exist for many reasons, legal or illegal.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
If drugs were legal, they couldn’t do this.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Yeah, you did. This has always been a pet peeve of mine and reflects the self centerness of present recreational users. They hurt us all in many ways.
a capella on December 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM
It’s scary what’s cut in drugs today. Kids mindlessly take things and end up dead.
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM
One of the great philosophical conundrums of our time.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM
We should talk then.
That’s not true. You can’t smoke enough (pot or tobacco) to kill yourself in one day. You can’t drink too much milk or eat too much food (you’ll just throw up).
Even with water, you have to be fairly stubborn to die from drinking too much.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Diamonds are extremely rare, which makes them highly valueable. You can’t compare them with drugs.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM
There’s just a couple things I’d like to add.
It’s a bad idea to equate drugs to each other or to overstate the destructiveness of drugs like pot.
People, especially young people, see anti-drug propaganda about pot, realize it’s mostly over-blow BS, then they tend to disregard warnings about more dangerous drugs.
Coke and heroin should not be lumped together in the “highly physically addictive” category either. Coke and its derivations are addictive and very compelling once “the ball gets rolling”, but they are not in the same category as heroin when it comes to physical addiction. I’ve seen people mess around with coke for years on weekends etc without doing serious damage who then decided they could “handle” sniffing heroin.
It turns out, they couldn’t. Not that cocaine hasn’t crushed people too, but it is not nearly as physically addictive like heroin, and it’s not even a close call.
forest on December 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM
That explains why employees of Wal-Mart and K-Mart keep shooting each other over turf.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
You do realize that this can be reflected back at ‘your side’, don’t you?
After all, the self-centeredness of present nanny-state do-gooders has constructed a legal framework that enables this entire marketplace to exist. You hurt us all in many ways.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Thanks..I must have missed it. Unfortunately our society is too much about me, me, me. People don’t stop to think about cause and effect. Although I’m sure now we’re going to hear about how the CAUSE is the evil US empire..sigh..
Wileygrl3 on December 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Wrong. Diamonds are actually not at all rare. DeBeers has been artificially choking the market supply for decades to keep the prices up. You wanna talk rare? Rubies, emeralds, tanzanite…diamonds are a dime a dozen.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
So, those users who enable terrorists are only victims of our drug laws? It isn’t really a reflection of their own selfishness and unwillingness to obey our laws, right?
a capella on December 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Which is kinda my point to those who said legalization would kill the black market.
True.
With only 5%? I don’t know. I feel confident in saying that most people wouldn’t consider it a success, but I could be wrong.
True, and increases in drug and alcohol use. This wouldn’t be the best time to change drug laws, at least not for those who want legalization to seem a success.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
There’s a reason why Al-Queda isn’t in the corn smuggling business.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I’m very much against drugs, but I’m afraid the “War on Drugs” is not working. It’s costing billions, yet any high school kid can get whatever poison they happen to want to put in their bodies. All we’re doing is transferring wealth to the drug barons who paradoxically profit from the illegality of drugs.
I would guess that, were we to drop the legal prohibition on drugs, the usage and addiction rates wouldn’t change all that much, despite dropping prices. Perhaps that money would be better used in teaching responsible parenting, the lack of which is the root cause behind so much substance abuse.
I wouldn’t claim that’s the only, or even the best, solution, but falling prices of drugs probably would result in less crime, and fewer people in jail, no matter what other solutions were tried.
mr.blacksheep on December 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM
You know, I could almost go there — provided drug users are not entitled to unemployment benefits, are not entitled to medical treatment for drug-related diseases (such as hepatitis or AIDS), and anyone (parents included) hurt by one is allowed to sue for restitution not only the user, but a fund into which all dealers must pay.
Oh, and same fund must pay detox costs for anyone who needs such to quit the habit after figuring out the dead end road they’ve driven down.
Given the way our country works, I think I’ll keep the war on drugs, thank you.
unclesmrgol on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM
If we end the WOD how are we going to train our children to accept the government yoke around their necks? There are also any number of tertiary benefits to the WOD.
First, the government all too often breaks into the wrong home and kills innocent people, thus freeing them from a wicked world where illegal drugs may be present.
Second, the WOD not only provides for the welfare of tens of thousands of gang bangers around the nation, it also provides an excuse to inflate our police force several magnitudes over what would otherwise be necessary.
Third, if not for the WOD Americans might never have allowed the government to shred the Bill of Rights and confiscate the property of private citizens without trial, prosecution or even evidence.
Fourth, without the WOD a lot of lawyers would be out of work and the size of government would shrink dramatically.
Fifth, without the WOD more American’s would continue to have faith and reverence for the Constitution and Bill of Rights and liberals would find a less receptive audience to their ideals.
Sixth, without the WOD the people of Central and South America wouldn’t enjoy a vibrant black market that pumps cash into the back pockets of politicians and bureaucrats who’ve developed a habit of looking the other way. This is why the governments of those countries are so respected.
Seven, Christmas wouldn’t be the same for many children if they had to stay home and open presents on Christmas morning rather than visit their parents in prison.
Eight—well, I could go on and on but it would take too long. Suffice it to say that a nation that doesn’t wage war on it’s own citizens is hardly a nation at all! Our founding fathers were simply idealistic and naive.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Not if you know anything about economics.
Bars and convenience stores could increase their profits by selling to minors. Yet for the most part, they don’t.
The reason why is no conundrum at all. They know that they could lose their license if caught. The license is worth more than the additional money they could earn selling to minors.
Everyone is proposing handling drugs like alcohol and cigarettes. That is, no selling to minors.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Fact is, America drank more after we ended the prohibition. And now we have hard liquor ads on TV that we didn’t see a decade ago.
Fact, making drugs legal, will make it harder to remove kids from homes where the parent is using drugs.
Fact, there will still be a black market…hello underage drinking and the black market for cigarettes.
Lets look at the porn industry. Back in the 50s the porn industry was relegated to the red district. Now its an easy mouse click. Making drugs legal will only make things worse, not better.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Do you believe that a citizen has a moral obligation to obey any and all laws passed by govt? In your opinion, is there any limit to this obligation? If you believe there is such a limit, why do drug laws not apply?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Are you trying to argue that legalization would have no affect on drug prices?
If you feel that legalization would have no affect, please explain why we don’t have black markets for bread and soda.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM
There is no ‘black market’ in as much as there is no ’society’. These are just terms we abstractly use to refer to human networks.
In the case of drugs, legalization would have a profoundly destructive effect on that particular facet of the ‘black market’.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM
OK, with all that said, what we have done so far hasn’t worked…..
DL13 on December 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Haven’t read any of the posts, yet. But, I would be against legalizing drugs. It is not a victimless crime like some people like to say. You look up and down the whole chain of drug usage and someone is getting hurt real bad, in some cases, death.
On the flip side, sure legalize it and then tax the hell out of it to pay for rehab centers, hospitals, and nursing homes where the users/abusers can go to get help after screwing up their lives and others. But, again, what about the people who are growing this stuff in other countries? Will this decrease their crime cartels? I’m thinking Columbia.
cjs1943 on December 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Once again, this is because of the drug laws. You don’t see towns being taken over by mafia alcohol manufacturers anymore.
If drugs weren’t illegal, drug exporters would have neither reason nor resources to take over a town and turn it into a drug factory. The profit margins created by our drug laws are what’s driving all that.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Won’t fly. Users enable our enemies because they won’t obey our laws. There is also a market for child porn. Is it there because of a legal framework or a taste for the illicit in the consumer? And, don’t hand me any of the usual cant about child porn causing harm to others while drug use doesn’t. Ripples in the pond.
a capella on December 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM
As I mentioned before, the whole reason drugs were banned was not because of the effect on the user, but the cost to society as a whole.
Drug users don’t live in a vaccum.People don’t like stepping over catatonic users, unconscious in their own filth. Until you can insulate society from the drug user’s costs, they’ll never legalize. resurrecting Opium Dens ain’t gonna cut it.
Iblis on December 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Maybe it would have helped if I had added a ;-)
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I would agree with you there.
I see the sense, but again, would you deny unemployment benefits to alcohols, as well as other benefits? Would you deny them to obese people who live on McDonald’s? Would you deny them to smokers?
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Is there change needed? Yes.
But should that change be that we use the French defense?!
For starters when you purchase any foreign-made or distributed drug you’re doing nothing less than supporting evil. All around the world entire villages are literally enslaved to the local drug lords with a brutality rivaling the old USSR. Much like cheap Chinese goods, there are consequences you don’t see when you plunk down the folding green for your product.
As for you simpletons who spout ‘legalize and tax’, have you all forgotten there is already a massive network dedicated to smuggling drugs in under the radar for tax-free profits? The same scum who sell illegal drugs now will simply go about their business with no change; meaning the possible tax income from this venture would be minimal.
And BTW has anyone here thought – really thought – about the ensuing social breakdown a mass legalization would create?
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Because Bread and Soda is available to all and is considered healthy compared to drugs.
There are a lot of drugs legal, and there is a black market for them, including alcohol and cigarettes.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Snorting a Maginot Line, as it were?
…sorry.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
True, but only marginally. Most people who wanted to drink, could, even during prohibition. One difference is that they drank mostly the hard stuff.
A decade ago, such ads were illegal.
If the parents only crime is using drugs, why would we want to remove kids from those homes?
Why would there be a black market for something that can be bought in the local convenience store?
Are you saying there is no underage drinking now?
There already is a black market for cigarettes, because of the high taxes on them. Are you saying that making drugs legal will cause the taxes on cigarettes to go up?
Back in the 50’s, there was no internet, so it would have been pretty hard to click your way to a porn site back then. Should we get rid of the internet to make it harder for people to visit porn sites?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Laws, I argue, you have no right to enact.
As I said before, look back in time to when there was no drug prohibition.
Your ex post facto justification for these laws doesn’t make them any less unconstitutional. Or more rational.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Ah. A drug warrior speaks. Did it ever occur to you that this abuse occurs because your War of (Some) Drugs has placed production and distribution of this product into the hands of violent, amoral criminals?
Does Miller or A-BInBev enslave its workers or use them as sexual toys?
All of these “terrible” drugs were once perfectly legal in this country (amphetamines were legal without a prescription until 1954, and Americans took huge quantities of them in the 40s and 50s). Do you ever wonder why the horror stories you describe didn’t occur back then? Have you ever even asked yourself that question?
CTD on December 5, 2008 at 2:15 PM
there may be at first…but it would have to be regulated like alcohol….at least it would put the drug cartels out of business, which would be worth it…the damned gangs have taken over our country…MS13, bandidos, HAs, Mexican Mafia…etc.
they should also legalize drugs that are GOOD FOR YA!!! like barry bonds took… ;-)
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Shoes are legal, and there are still sweat shops.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
No, those killed by drug-financed terrorists are the victims of our drug laws.
At one point in the 1980s, half the Colombian Supreme Court had been assassinated.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
And in almost every case, you can trace that violence to the WOD, not the drugs themselves.
There was a lot of violence associated with alcohol smuggling back during prohibition. A lot of people died because of it. That violence disappeared with the ending of prohibition.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Now imagine a law is passed that shoes are illegal to own, wear, or transport. What happens to the price of shoes? The illegal shoemakers get rich and use the money to take over towns where they can make shoes and do whatever the hell else they want.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Let me guess, next week you will be banning women who wear lots of perfume.
The week after that it’s off to the dungeons for anyone with a bad hair cut.
Since when do you get to outlaw anything you find unpleasant?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:19 PM
yeah the prohibition is what gave the italian mafia the power…never would have heard of Capone had it not been for prohibition…and he ran chicago…and as far as I know the chicago outfit still does..
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:20 PM
But isn’t that like complaining about the mob violence and power during the prohibition?
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 2:20 PM
That all depends on what the tax rate is.
Cigarette smuggling was not a big problem until the recent huge increases in taxes.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM
That was an argument for banning alcohol, too. It just doesn’t work.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I keep seeing, over and over, people confusing “drugs” with “the illegal status of drugs.”
Every negative outcome I see the drug warriors trotting out has nothing to do with drugs per se, but with the War on Drugs.
CTD on December 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
There’s no black market in bread because it is healthy????
There’s also a very high tax on alcohol and cigarettes, which provides a profit margin for people who sell untaxed alcohol and cigarettes.
Black markets only exist where a product is artificially restricted or taxed heavily.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Because there will still be laws that make it illegal to give to minors. The minor may not be able to buy directly from the convenience store, doesn’t mean they don’t get it.
Cigarettes are taxed, which is why there is a black market…as well as its illegal to smoke under 18…haha, ever been to a local high school, how many kids smoke. That legalization sure does stop kids from drinking and smoking.
The first step will be to make it legal, and thereby acceptable. Within a few years, instead of seeing ads that we shouldn’t use drugs…you will see heroin ads making it cool to shoot up.
And if you don’t understand why kids should be removed from parents who abuse drugs, then please don’t have kids.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Facts in evidence:
1. Terrorists benefit from present use of illegal drugs.
2. Users of illegal drugs know this and continue to use.
Conclusion:
Users of illegal drugs feel no moral obligation to fight terrorism and would rather enable it than obey the law.
Question: Do you disagree with the above?
a capella on December 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM
People don’t like riding on airplanes with small children, yet they manage to survive.
By all counts drugs are already so easy to find now, why should we expect a sudden explosion in addicts if it were to happen? Which it won’t.
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Should we make it legal to allow a 3 year old to buy a needle and heroin to shoot up?
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Yes, but consider the choice for the consumer: he can buy a clean, regulated product from a reputable commercial source or something that may kill him in a back alley. And either way, the price is going way down because illegal drugs sell for something like 10,000x what they cost to produce.
We have pretty hefty alcohol taxes; how many people still drink moonshine? There’s a small minority that don’t mind the risk of going blind but that’s about it.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Factor this map in – does the unsuccessful WOD have any connection with the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in our country who provide an excellent hiding place for foreign drug criminals??
If we had no such illegal underground society of serf labor, providing cover for the vast majority of drug runners, maybe the WOD might have a chance. But with our government failing to enforce immigration laws, the WOD doesn’t have much of a chance to succeed.
fred5678 on December 5, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Facts in evidence:
1. Terrorists benefit from present laws regarding illegal drugs.
2. Supporters of these laws know this and continue to support them.
Conclusion:
Supporters of present laws regarding illegal drugs feel no moral obligation to fight terrorism and would rather enable it than change the law.
Question: Do you disagree with the above?
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM
did the mafia continue in the alcohol business after prohibition? no. of course the power they built up, they channeled into gambling…but thats legal…so what would they do to get all that money?? nothing.
and if they become legit, so what? its a good thing. the reason the gangs sell drugs is the vast amounts of money involved…take the money out of it, which is derived from the illegality, and the money and the power is gone from the gangs.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I do see your point, but will you concede that our culture has undergone a bit of a shift in the last 50 years or so? There’s more self-indulgence, less self-restraint IMO. Healthcare, economy, morality, and governmental assistance programs are also quite different now than then. Chemistry has also advanced a lot, in legal settings and drug labs.
In other words, you can’t make an apples-to-apples comparison between what happened then and what would happen now.
cs89 on December 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:25 PM
And econ 101, lowing the price will make the product more available. Hence more users.
And it won’t be long that we will see ads on tv making it cool to be a loser, instead of don’t use drugs ads.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Except now they can be sued by anyone they hurt if their products don’t meet the advertised purity standards.
Except now anyone who wants to can also open up a store and sell these drugs, which will force the price down close to the cost of production.
Of course the drugs are not “cutting our nation off at the knees”, but then reality never was your strong suit.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Come on guys, we’re the party that understands free markets and price competition. The guys who sell their products for 1/100th what they charge now are going to get all the business. Those gigantic profit margins they have now will fall to what the market can bear.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:29 PM
The laws against selling to minors are very effective because the stores run the risk of loosing their license if they do. The current laws do nothing to prevent people from selling to minors.
As to the black market in taxed goods, that’s an argument for keeping taxes low, not for banning things out right.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Fact, if drugs were legal, terrorists would no longer benefit. However, you want to keep drugs illegal, so you are the one who is seeking to aid our nations enemies.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM
and politics!
No, lowering prices decreases supply.
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM
You really are a pathetic twit.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:32 PM
True, but more people drink now than during Prohibition too and we’re undeniably better off.
Doubtful. We don’t allow hard liquor makers to advertise much, and nicotine sellers have to put giant warnings on their ads.
I would like to take the trillions we now spend on jailing, interdictions and etc., and instead use it to educate people as to why drugs are a stupid life choice.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 Next »