A ceasefire in the war on drugs
posted at 5:01 pm on January 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw
It’s a conversation which seem to keep coming up year after year. Has the “war on drugs” been a complete bust? (If you’ll pardon the pun.) After more than forty years it seems like an increasing chorus of voices are calling for a new approach to a problem where we just don’t seem to be making much progress. But now the Wall Street Journal is getting in on the act, asking, “Have we lost the war on drugs?”
President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971. The expectation then was that drug trafficking in the United States could be greatly reduced in a short time through federal policing—and yet the war on drugs continues to this day. The cost has been large in terms of lives, money and the well-being of many Americans, especially the poor and less educated. By most accounts, the gains from the war have been modest at best…
The decriminalization of both drug use and the drug market won’t be attained easily, as there is powerful opposition to each of them. The disastrous effects of the American war on drugs are becoming more apparent, however, not only in the U.S. but beyond its borders. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon has suggested “market solutions” as one alternative to the problem. Perhaps the combined efforts of leaders in different countries can succeed in making a big enough push toward finally ending this long, enormously destructive policy experiment.
It’s a rather clinical, emotionless analysis if you read the entire thing, but perhaps that’s the best approach if we’re to have a serious discussion about it. The entire concept of drug legalization – or, at a minimum, decriminalization – seems to be a study in mixed emotions for conservatives. And that may explain, at least in part, why there doesn’t seem to be much movement in either direction on this. On the one hand, the normal libertarian, “keep the government out of my business” tendencies of many Republicans seem like they should find the concept of decriminalization appealing. Further, the idea of the individual accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices rather than having the nanny state dictate their actions certainly sounds like a natural fit for conservatives. And finally, the cost to federal and state budgets for fighting this war – well described in the WSJ editorial – looks like an appetizing potential target for cost cutters.
But there are obviously factors which make this a difficult proposal to sell on the starboard side of the aisle, and perhaps the first – and biggest – is purely ideological. For too many conservatives, it seems as if one of the chief arguments against decriminalization is that it’s something that liberals want, and thus it must, by definition, be a bad idea. Further, there’s that whole “pot smoking hippie” thing. The idea of doing anything to make them happier will drive away Republicans in droves, unfortunately.
And are the arguments I laid out above all that salable among 21st century conservatives? Not all Republicans are small “L” libertarian by nature, particularly those who self identify as social or national defense conservatives. And when it comes to personal responsibility, the counter-argument can quickly be made that those who choose to engage in drug abuse never really face those consequences because societal safety nets not only catch them when they fall, but spread the cost of their rescue out among the rest of us. As to the cost savings, well… that one would be pretty hard to argue with, at least in terms of the raw bills for enforcement and incarceration.
Still, it seems to me that this war has been a losing proposition for some time now and has long since passed the point of being unaffordable. If the regular readers of the Wall Street Journal begin absorbing and considering this message, maybe we can find a way to start climbing out of this hole we’ve dug for ourselves. But in the end, I agree with the basic premise… the war on drugs has been a bust.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Holder reveals: U.S. has killed four American citizens in drone strikes

Cruz: No, “I don’t trust the Republicans” with the debt ceiling







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
Yep. Unfortunately, many Repubs are praying for a messiah (e.g. Obama), instead of lifting their eys to the truth.
TitularHead on April 18, 2013 at 9:43 PM
Wow pappy. A comment that long I just skipped thinking it was ResistMuchWeeWee.
oldroy on April 18, 2013 at 9:44 PM
A merica is a terrible thing to waste.
That joke is from my former boss who fought in the South Pacific. He went to a college to tutor as a volunteer and was surprised that the kids never heard of Iwo Jima. But he was more upset by their denial of American exceptionalism and and lack of commitment.
He had stories to tell them — and me.
Don’t give up. Work with your state or local party. If it feels useless, just try to organize something.
Too few centrist and right people make friends and get involved.
Pray and ask God to lead you.
Great men suffered and died for the fragile thing we have left.
IlikedAUH2O on April 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM
Never have missed a vote. Never will vote again. Let it burn.
oldroy on April 18, 2013 at 9:48 PM
You’ll have to cut TerryE some slack. She’s a party-first kind of gal. Destroying the country is fine with her, as long as a republican wins as a result.
xblade on April 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM
“Because we are sooooo stupid” — The Rs in DC
Schadenfreude on April 18, 2013 at 9:56 PM
To hell with the Republicans.
Sarah Palin, we need you.
Zorro on April 18, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Rubio is a joke and he’s making the Tea Party look incompetent for dragging his phony azz out. He’s thinking he’ll get the Hispanic vote with this move and he’s trying to shore that base up…Mark my words he’ll leave the Republican Party and run as a demorat as soon as he gets this through, well, if he does.
Tbone McGraw on April 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM
So why cant the pubs simply agree that amnesty does not occur u til all litigation regarding border security is resolved? As long as the ACLU and the hundreds of other civil rights groups challange the agreed to framework…no amnesty will occur? If the lotigation is finally resolved against tighter border security, then the deal is dead.
rickyricardo on April 18, 2013 at 11:02 PM
We have seen in the middle-East the negative effect of tribalism and loyalty to the tribe rather than to the country so perhaps Rubio’s support of what appears to be a Chuck Schumer orchestrated amnesty bill is just expressing his loyalty to the Hispanic tribe over loyalty to the USA.
Nomas on April 19, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Illegal immigration could be enforced, we just don’t have many like sheriff Joe who will stand up and try to do what is right. You see NY can put out a bounty on American citizens who own a firearm, but you cannot question the customer or cashier in Wall-mart that doesn’t know a single word of English. If we made employers criminally liable for those they hired and made it ever Americans responsibility to report those that are clearly not American, this problem would be nipped in the bud. But in this day and age, doing what is right will brand you as being a xenophobe or a racist.
SGinNC on April 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Question for Rubio: will there be any quota on Chechnyan Islamist immigration?
Do we have enough of their “diversity” yet?
virgo on April 20, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2