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 6 ... 8 Next »
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Or we can up the heat on the war on drugs.
Instead we make it cool to look like a pimp and a drug dealer.
Do you really think the mafia ceased to be the mafia? Robbers and thugs have existed since the dawn of time, making crimes legal doesn’t decrease crimes, it increases it.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM
This is only true if you can demonstrate that people are not already getting all the drugs they want.
What’s more likely to happen is that people will continue to buy the same amount of drugs, but will have lots more money to spend on other things.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:32 PM
In other words, score! Because you know I am right.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
No more than we’d make it legal for him to smoke a cigarette or drink Jack Daniels.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
So making something legal makes it a bigger crime? What?
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
It looks cool because drug dealers make money. Being a moonshine runner was glamorous too; hell, the Kennedys still brag about it.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM
You know, it’s topics like this that make me realize there are just as many nanny staters on the right side as the left.
Depressing.
BillyRayValentine on December 5, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I’d like to see you try to sue a crack or meth or heroin seller. What are the odds that the object of your suit would willingly show up in court? Or that they’d have enough assets to even be worth suing at all?
Of course the drugs are not “cutting our nation off at the knees”, but then reality never was your strong suit.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 2:37 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM
The lower the price and the more you make an addictive product to have no societal stigma, and the easier it is to obtain it, the more users you have…tobacco, alcohol, porn are all good examples.
Tobacco, everyone smoked. Hollywood made it cool. The only reason why smoking is down now is because society has made it the greater evil over smoking weed.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I know that you are an idiot because you can’t form a coherent arguement.
I have stated at least 3 times in this thread that I want drugs treated the same as alcohol, and I specically mentioned bans on sales to minors.
Yet you have to gall to accuse me of wanting 3 years old to be able to buy.
You sir, are an embaresment to carbon based life forms. I’m through with you.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Quite right. Most toddlers need a good belt of Laguvlin.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Of course you can’t sue them now; that’s the whole problem. They’re a black market.
But it’s pretty damn to easy to sue legal drug sellers like Pfizer or Walgreens.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Then if it isn’t available to everyone, there will be a black market…which was my point.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Well for one, we could take his store, his house, his car.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that the dealers will still be hanging around street corners after drugs are made legal?
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:38 PM
You sir can’t follow an argument, you made the claim there would be no black market.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I wonder how many times three year olds sneak off to buy things on the black market.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Exactly, it became less popular because people recognized it was bad for you, not because gov’t made it illegal. That’s called freedom at work.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:41 PM
There would be no black market, unless the govt made the taxes prohibitive.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:41 PM
we’ve tried that before to no avail
so do you think drinking alcohol is a CRIME??? please. and yes the mafia lost a lot of power without prohibition…and the drug runners will lose their power without the illegality of drugs.
can they go in to something else? sure, but what else makes as much money?? and money IS POWER.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Pretty soon smoking will be illegal, and I fully expect that to cause tobacco sales to start climbing again.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:38 PM
And the fact that you see no problem with drug abusers to keep their kids, tells me you are the one who is an embarrassment to carbon life forms.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM
When I was a 20 something, I worked with a 60+ yearo ld Dutch immigrant. She openly bemoaned the fact that doctors would no longer prescribe narcotics for internatinal traveling toddlers, like they did when her kids were little.
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Shrug. How big is the black market for cigarettes and alcohol to minors? Fairly small, because it’s much easier to just sell legally to adults.
Minors aren’t considered competent adults so the consensuality issue doesn’t apply.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM
We tried that before…ok, so everything hard lets just give up. Abortion…too hard. The war on terror…too hard.
And the mafia didn’t lose any power, they still had their wealth and their organization…they just changed their focus. Lets see, one son of a mafia member became President, and 2 became Senators.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:45 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM
bigger than you think. I would bet there are more illegal drinkers and smokers than there are drug users.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM
You have to wonder – if the US simply gives up on something as important as keeping harmful drugs away from it’s citizens, what ELSE will be capitulated on???
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
No, on the contrary I think it would increase most prices, since we’d tax the hell out of them all.
Very likely.
If they’re unemployed because of those issues, I would, but that has more to do with my disdain for unemployment benefits anyway.
And you don’t think these drugs would be taxed heavily?
And how do you demonstrate that? Anecdotes don’t work, but if they did, I could easily point you to people who feel they can’t get all they want, at least not right when they want it.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM
+1
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM
i always saw the war on drugs as a euphamism for the war against marxist terrorism in south and central america. end prohibition and keep helping columbians kill farc doods, i say.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM
In case you missed my point…the mafia became the government, they didn’t lose any power, their power base became greater.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Yeah, next thing you know we’ll be openly condoning homosexuality, Mormons, and gun ownership! This “freedom” agenda will lead to madness and chaos!
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Seems as though you’re implying that Americans have already capitulated on their ability to think for themselves, and need nannying.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM
next they might give up other elements of the nanny-state.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 2:56 PM
There are times that I believe the only real difference between liberals and conservatives, is what aspect of your life they want government to control.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Are you serious? Do you really think people chose to do something precisely because it’s illegal?
If so, surely it’s offset by the larger number of people who won’t do something precisely because it is illegal.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM
No, no. The hard criminals were at the height of their power during Prohibition, and losing their major source of cash and legitimacy in the eyes of the people was a crushing blow.
The fact many went legit after just proves our point. It’s better to have our Ted Kennedys in the Senate than gunning people down in the streets.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM
The difference between making drugs illegal and taxing the hell out of them, is non-existant.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’d pretty much prefer that the US (by that I mean the Federal Gubmit) focus on defending the nation and let the citizens live. As long as “I” do something that harms only “me” – why the h*ll should the gubmit give a rat’s back-end? Unless it was simply a desire to control my behavior, and that is unacceptable.
Onager on December 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM
After the govt is done protecting us from harmfull drugs, it can start protecting us from harmfull ideas.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM
No one will ever find my grow room anyway.
SouthernDem on December 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM
for the consumer. the big difference is that we’d deprecate the prime revenue stream for international terrorism.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I don’t just think it, I know. And a good many studies back this up. Forbidden fruit and all that.
You are true, there will always be a lot of people who will do whatever those in authority tell them to do. No independant thought wanted or needed.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 3:02 PM
The international terrorists will still be able to make a killing. They will bring them in and sell them for less than the tax. As long as they can undercut legitimate sellers, there is room for profit.
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 3:03 PM
You know, while we’re at it why don’t we disband the FDA? We don’t need those government nanny-statists telling us which foods are good to eat and which aren’t.
After all people are perfectly capable of finding out who puts Melamine in the milk and so on. And hey, this is the age of the Internet! People can inform each other about who sells good stuff and who doesn’t in a heartbeat.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM
where is the mafia today? the 5 families are pretty much gone.
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Look, I am so with you on the nanny state things. Hate seat belt laws, hate speed laws, hate trans fat laws etc. Heck I don’t even like the smoking nazis.
But there are some things that government should enforce. Should we allow illegal seizure of property to fight the war, no. But I wouldn’t have a problem with carpet bombing a few drug lords.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:06 PM
This obviously isn’t about preventing self harm. It’s perfectly legal to chop off your index finger or eat bacon every day.
Drugs are illegal because of what they do to your mind. They change and influence your thoughts. Therefore, banning drugs is basically making certain thoughts illegal.
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:06 PM
It is time to end the war on drugs. It has been a disaster that has shoved billions into criminal pockets.
If the public wants to poison itself, it should be free to do so.
saiga on December 5, 2008 at 3:07 PM
right4life on December 5, 2008 at 3:05 PM
HAHA, you think the mafia is limited to 5 families?
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:07 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Teen age drinking is higher in Europe than it is here. Guess which has drinking at a young age legal?
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I wouldn’t go that far. I know plenty of people who see no harm in pot (at least no more than alcohol) but also see no need to break the law on this one.
Are you sure about that? I’m not.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Use tax revenue from pot to fund the military. Hippies funding the military, it will be beautiful.
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Because the FDA’s purpose is to regulate companies in order to protect us from unscrupulous people selling us things that aren’t what they claim or don’t do what they claim. This ia a perfectly legitimate function.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Really? I would say the Kennedy Family has done more damage legit than when they were into crime.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Umm, the current legal limit in most states is 080 BAC which is one beer for an average sized person.
Nathan_OH on December 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM
See this is where the libertarians lose the argument, they think the war on drugs is on their drug of choice…weed. They forget all the other hard drugs out there that will be easier to use and abuse.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
And the function of the WOD is to protect people from unscrupulous slimeballs that sell them incredibly harmful goods.
This too is a perfectly legitimate function.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Man, there are a bunch of fools here. “It’s my choice, I can shoot up ten lines if I want! It doesn’t harm anyone!” Baloney. Drugs are evil. Yes, it’s a great idea to legalize something as soul killing and plain deadly as heroin, meth, and cocaine. I disagreed with the ending of prohibition, too. Alcohol is a deadly drug, and so is tobacco. It ruins lives by the millions. It kills millions. It sucks money from people who are addicted and gives it to human predators, legal or not, who profit on misery and woe. My brother in law was killed by a drunk driver. My brother got hooked on some illegal drug and started committing crimes under it’s influence.
It’s cheaper, not as much need for crime! says MadisonConservative. Except drugs by definition alter your mental state. You lose rationality, and everything else. Why do you think they pump those suicide bomber types up full of drugs? Simply because they don’t fear anything or stop to think. Drugs are a terrible, terrible thing. They are poison, with no use at all. Why not regulate rat poison or cyanide for internal use as well?
The War on drugs needs to shift. Supply and demand need to be attacked. Just go through a treatment center and see the poor souls there, ruined because they tried a drug and no longer have a freedom to choose. They hurt their employers, their families, and themselves. And Marijuana is just as bad as a gateway drug, plus it makes people stupid.
For those who say it’s not bad, exactly what has happened to the Netherlands? What is that country good at? Oh, they sell sex tourism! Drugs lead to tons of other crimes as well–selling yourself because you’ve ruined any other options. Pimps, homelessness because you can’t hold a job due to brain fried or not showing up because you are high. Increasing health care costs, dirty needles–think a nation of heroin hopped up people care about disposing of their needles safely?
I would indeed support executing drug dealers–they are responsible for cold blooded murder of people by poison. They are murderers, and should be at the least shot up with their drugs, gotten extremely addicted, then left to wither in a cell for a few weeks on withdrawal symptoms and then sent to the chair. Murderers and slime.
Vanceone on December 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM
So are you OK with just weed, then?
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM
That’s probably because you don’t remember what Prohibiton was like.
http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults3.htm
Those were the days when the Mafia could rape your sister and kill your brother and the police would just laugh at you, because the Mafia paid them twice their salaries to look the other way.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM
No, the function of the WOD is to punish citizens for engaging in a consensual transaction where both parties fully understand what they are doing.
No, it’s a violation of our rights.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM
But at least the mafia had style.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I lean libertarian. There are some very compelling arguments they have. But after many long debates with people who want to legalize weed, I am convinced it should remain illegal. Because 9 times out of 10 they want to remove the stigma of being a loser, but no law will make them less of a loser.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I think that this is the most compelling reason for drug use not to explode….much like smoking, it will be seen as unhealthy and the domain of losers.
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM
And still the Kennedy family has done more damage to America when they were legit, than when they were local terrorists.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Nor should it. Using drugs is a bad life choice, just like eating a side of bacon every day, or smoking a pack of cigarretes a day, or hitting yourself in the head with a hammer every day. But only one of those is illegal.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM
They will switch to the next banned substance, say, transfats. Can you just see them peddling illicit pats of butter and eightballs of lard?
RushBaby on December 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM
LimeyGeek on December 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Smoking was always known to be bad for you. They were called coffin nails way before they knew anything about cancer…the lawsuit against the tobacco company was a joke, and a money grab from the greatest mafia …the government.
Smoking was also considered cool. Smoking is now becoming less only because Hollywood promotes it as evil.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM
WTF?! What planet are you living on? Drug use is considered ‘cool’ by a huge amount of Americans, especially among young people! Losers are the ones that REFUSE to shoot/smoke/snort themselves into la-la land!
(and f**k like animals, and swear like drunken sailors. Speaking from bitter experience)
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM
1. .08 isn’t drunk.
2. That’s not true anyway. An average size woman would need at least two to reach that limit if not three, and they’d all have to be consumed in the same hour. An average size man would need three or four.
http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/bac.htm
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Well, just think, had we never passed Prohibition we might never have been cursed with them.
One of the biggest problems with making any consensual trade illegal, whether it be sex, guns, booze, or drugs, is that it legitimizes criminals.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Actually, while heroin is indeed extremely addictive, the only way the drug itself tends to be physically harmful is via overdose (and one can overdose on just about anything). Pure heroin itself is actually quite well-metabolized by the body with little or no long-term ill effects on internal organs (though like morphine, it does raise blood pressure while in the system, which for some people can be dangerous). Long-term use of opiates won’t, say, kill your liver like alcohol will.
Rather, the long-term physiological dangers associated with heroin have to do with the means of ingestion, which is usually intravenous injection. Repeated needle-sticking is where issues like heart and blood infections, HIV, and phenomenon like vein collapse originate.
That’s not to suggest, of course, that heroin addiction is a healthy lifestyle choice. But this is one case where the deletorious effects can clearly be attributed to the addictive behavior itself, and not the way the body reacts to the drug (again, at least at non-overdose levels).
Blacklake on December 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Legalize “drugs” and tax the crap out of sales. Some narcotics may require special review prior to legalization (i.e. methamphetamine, probably not a wise choice for legalization), but alternatives should be considered for a change. A perfect way to recover the economy…everybody gets high from the “drug” industry!
Wyznowski on December 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM
My biggest concern with the whole drug debate is the kids. I have done foster care for many years. Making drugs legal will make it harder to remove kids from an unsafe environment. If a bum wants to be a bum, I don’t care ( ok I do care…but not as a taxpayer )
Nor am I all that excited to see commercials that make using hard drugs cool, like they have done with alcohol.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Just imagine, for instance, if Dems somehow got a supermajority and guns were made completely illegal, and the only place anyone in America could buy a gun was from a black marketeer.
Or imgaine the Bible was deemed “hate speech” and you could only buy them from criminals.
When you make something illegal that a lot of people want, power flows to those who will provide it.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Then you should be in favor of ending the WOD. Ask any kid in high school whether it’s easier to buy alcohol or weed.
When you have totally unregulated black markets it’s much harder to control behavior, because there’s no incentive for anyone anywhere in the distribution chain to follow ANY laws at all.
I imagine they will be limited to print ads, and forced to put big warnings all over them, like cigarette sellers have to.
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM
This is already true in China. The Bible is banned. But far from enabling crime lords, filling this demand is being met by missionaries giving them away for free.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Blacklake on December 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Never mind that your mind becomes a zombie and you have cravings to where you don’t care how you have to get it, you will get it. Your liver is fine, the mind is jello.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM
The kids who smoke weed, no someone who sells it. The kids who drink, no someone over 21 willing to sell it to them.
Do you really think that more kids know dealers than people over 21 willing to get them alcohol?
Before I turned 21, there was only one time I had trouble getting alcohol, and then, we just went to a liquor store and waited until we found someone we knew we could ask to buy us something.
Now, I’m sure some people can walk into any city and find pot in a similar manner, but I wouldn’t have the slightest clue how to do that myself.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:37 PM
TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Do you not listen to yourself? You are all about the government shouldn’t control drugs ( which controls behavior ) but then you are arguing that by making it legit it will make it easier to control behavior?
Making it legal will increase the amount of use, this is not debatable.
“I imagine they will be limited to print ads, and forced to put big warnings all over them, like cigarette sellers have to.”
Then you can not see past your feet. All you have to do is look at how alcohol is advertised. It may start out with print ads with warnings that no one reads…or in a tv ad with lawyer speak at the end that no one listens to.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I dont forget about the hard stuff and I dont smoke weed.
Legal, tax it, regulate it.
Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Instead we continue to make people felons, so they cant get jobs, so they rob the local store, so they go to jail so they become thugs, I see it a hundred times a month. Possesion felonies are where it begins.
Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Why is that a big deal. Three presidents in a row now, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, have all admitted to drug use in their youth. So it’s not like drug use is an impairment to success. It CAN be certainly, but some people will wind up losers no matter what.
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Here is my drug plan.
People caught should have to enter in a drug clinic instead of prison. Kids are removed. If they can’t remain sober, they lose their kids.
Drug dealers should be in prison, and while in prison they should learn how to work and get their high school diploma.
Drug lords should be executed.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Only at times?
The wish of some people to employ the power of government to control the lives of others falls outside political boundaries and shouldn’t reflect badly on conservatism as a whole. Not to start another argument about what a “true” or “real” conservative is, but to me, conservatism is based on the founding principles of this nation, which includes freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By that measure, prohibitionists and nanny-staters are not conservatives.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM
When you use drugs you are a loser, no matter how successful you are or will be. When you become sober and clean, then you are no longer a loser.
Most drug users never get sober, and thereby are a drag unto themselves, their family and to the community.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM
They shouldn’t have been made to exist in the first place.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Like I said before, if someone wants to be a loser, then they should be prepared to lose…their kids, their job, their social standing.
Murder is also against the law, even though that was someone’s liberty and pursuit of happiness…there are limits to this.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM
You don’t think there are alcohol lords, though legal, or cigarette lords, though legal, porn lords, though legal?
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I’d agree with you if you wrote “abuse drugs” and then only if you applied to all drugs, not just the ones that are currently illegal.
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:58 PM
They wont be a drag to their community if they arent in jail. If they are a drag on their family, they are jerks, but that is not my problem, it is the problem of their family.
If they are a drag on themselves. Tough noogies, they can make the decision to get clean on their own.
Your proposals = nanny state.
I think people who lecture others about their life choices are loosers. So there.
Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 3:59 PM
What is your basis for this argument? Explain why this is so without applying your own biases and emotions. If somebody prefers smoking MJ over drinking alcohol in their leisure time, why is one a loser and the other not?
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I agree
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Yes, Murder is something held in the common law, it infringed upon the rights of another. Guess what? Drug laws are only the result of nanny staters, holier-than-thou types and racists. Which one are you?
Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM
…or oil lords, though legal, or big-pharm lords, though legal, or insurance lords, though legal…
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I’d put more priority on executing the dealers than the lords. There will always be another drug kingpin to replace the ones that die of one reason or another; the opportunity for such power and riches is something we’ll never be able to make unattractive.
Dealers are another story. They don’t have the advantage of distance, have limited hiding spots and their ’soldiers’ are generally a joke. We could get them if we had the spine. Cut out the middlemen and the addicts can demand all they want to no avail.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Murder interferes with the rights of another human being. Smoking a joint, snorting a line, or shooting up, does not.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM
What, because you say so??
I suggest you look into the history of Americas Drug laws and come back when you are ready to debate with something other than a straw man.
Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Caffeine is a drug, so is nicotine, so is an aspirin. There are many drugs which affect the central nervous system. Who gets to decide which drug effects are good and which are bad? What will be the basis for the determination?
If abortion is legal even though it results in the death of a potential human life, why shouldn’t someone be able to light up a joint at home to relax? Who is being hurt by the action?
Who controls our bodies anyway?
By the way, did you know that marijuana was made illegal in order to protect domestic rope manufacturers? It’s true.
Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Someone can lose their job and family by being addicted to stamp collecting. It’s silly to think that you can end addiction by making illegal some of things that people are addicted to.
Obviously, if my addiction to stamp collecting impairs my ability to take care of my child, I should be charged with child endangerment. But if your addiction to anything affects no one else, it’s no concern of society’s. Murder has a victim by definition. Smoking pot doesn’t.
Being a loser is the right of every American.
justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next »