Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[straightShot]

Worth it?

Make drugs worthless, and crime will go away.

Does anyone here think that Capone would have made his mark if booze was legal? It's only by making the stuff illegal that it gains worth.

You can't make it go away. That's actually a funny thought.

Make it worthless, and the elderly lady who goes to church every Sunday doesn't get knocked down for her purse. Make it worthless, and she doesn't die because some scumbag knocks her down, breaking her hip, for the measly $3 in her purse.

Is it worth it? Until we change our laws, we must abide by them. We must also accept the fact that robberies, burglarlies, killings and more all will continue to occur if drugs are illegal.

Do I know folks who've overdosed and died? You betcha.

Do I feel sorry for them? Not at all.

If I could have stopped them, I would have. A needle, a pipe, or whatever is asinine.

Do we need to spend billions attempting to stop what we cannot? Do we need to continue to provide a reason for commiting crime? I think not.

Make it worthless, and crime goes away.

Does making it available save the user? No, but it saves rest of us. A user will use no matter what the rest of us do. It's his choice.

 

[Michigander]

Most of you you support the use of so-called "recreational drugs" probably have not seen enough of the misery and tragedy they can produce.

[SARCASM] Most of you who support the use of so-called "prescription drugs" (those supposibly restricted and regulated by the gubmint) probably have not seen enough of the misery and tragedy thay can produce either! [/SARCASM]

Have you ever seen anyone ride the roller-coaster, life-altering, life-shattering ride called "prescription drug abuse" culminating in numerous overdoses and eventually one from which she never wakes up, leaving two children parentless?

I have. But just because she chose a prescription drug does not mean I am calling for a ban on vicadin, tylenol, or somas. She could have ruined her life countless ways. She had issues and she would have done what she did one way or the other. No warning, restriction, regulation or law was going to stop her.

 

[gm]

Unfortunately, the drug warriors can't seem to accept that a great many people oppose the War for reasons other than personal use. I'm not completely sure why, but I would be interested in hearing other's opinions on this.

I oppose it because of all the insanity it has created..the no-knocks..the property seizures...the (woops)wrong address...the innocent lives lost in fighting it....and the huge amount of tax dollars thats dumped into it every single year with little to no results which breeds more desperation,more gangs,more violance and more new drugs...and We inevitably have to pay for it,ALL of it.This is why I dispise it.



its not working in the direction its going.

 

[spartacus2002]

The War on Drugs is not worth the toll it has taken on the Bill of Rights via no-knock raids, asset forfeiture, etc. It is the classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.

 

[Old Dog]

Make drugs worthless, and crime will go away.

Hmm ... how would you propose doing that? By legalization?

Make it worthless, and the elderly lady who goes to church every Sunday doesn't get knocked down for her purse. Make it worthless, and she doesn't die because some scumbag knocks her down, breaking her hip, for the measly $3 in her purse.

And you don't think legalization would create additional drug addicts, many of whom would somehow still have to pay for their drugs?

 

[Strings]

>And you don't think legalization would create additional drug addicts, many of whom would somehow still have to pay for their drugs?<

You mean like the repeal of Prohibition created additional alchoholics? Or the sunset of the AWB created more shootings with those "Eeeevil black rifles"?

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

And you don't think legalization would create additional drug addicts, many of whom would somehow still have to pay for their drugs?

Drugs would be almost free if they were legal. The cost to synthesize a dose of heroin is less than the cost of a dose of asprin. Is there anyone who can't afford asprin? Is there anyone who can't afford a $1/day heroin habbit?

There would be no need to steal or commit crimes to pay for drugs if they were legal.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Old dog? As long as someone with a high school level chemistry education can take 200$ and a chance of blowing up himself and some property, and create 4,000$ worth of methamphetamines there will be people doing it.
I say let the government do it, or contract it out, and sell those drugs for a modest profit. Supervise it and regulate it like alcohol. Remove the profit potential and these scumbags will not be standing on the corner by our grade schools handing out free samples. We have little chance of affecting the present addicts, but we can remove their profit motive in addicting the next generation.

 

[insidious_calm]

RealGun,

I understand your frustration with the thought of making drugs legal. I share it too. This problem remains, however, nothing more than an economic one. Taxing the dealers and making it more painful for the users, either financially, physically, or both. Would be far more effective. This will never happen though.

Stop to think for a moment about the BILLIONS of dollars in the drug industry. Not just money spent on drugs and their manufacture, but on the war on drugs itself. If the war on drugs were actually won then where do all the "warriors" go and what do they do? The war on drugs is a huge financial boon to both State and federal governments. Not only as a poster child for taxation but also through things like asset forfeiture. The local PD here is rather astute at re-appropriating things like cars and cash for everything from bicycles for patrol to bullet proof vests.

Like any source of government income, the government will do whatever it takes to maintain it. That means fighting a perpetual war with just enough "show & tell" to satisfy the sheeple. Does anyone here honestly believe if the WoD was won tommorrow the .gov would lay off a few thousand drug warriors? No chance.


I.C.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Old Dog,

Just like right before the end of the Clinton Gun Grab(aka. AWB) liberals, Democrats, the Brady Bunch, and ALL MAJOR new outlets cried,"Blood in the streets", or ," This will create millions of new Assault Weapons with No Sporting Purpose", or my personal favorite, " The Clinton Gun Grab was an effective tool in fighting crime if you look at the statistics"(even though crime was on a steady decline since before it started ...We saw only a slight increase in previously banned weapons because all the people that wanted them had them. The drug issue would be the same, most people that use or want to, already do! We would have the same user now probably playing,"musical drugs", switching as tolerances change/build up. Talk to your kids if you haven't guys, but this is not the way in a,"Free", society....

Everybody thinks they are Miss Cleo, until reality sinks in and none of the things these self-appointed clarvoyants have predicted what the stupid, lazy, drug loving, gun loving sodomites of the US of A will do in response to a politically motivated ideological shift based in and on NOTHING BUT THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS...It scares them too much.

The problem with freedom is, you don't have the right to decide if I screw up my life, kill myself, kill someone else, take steroids, take a hammer and smash all my toes, or which type of sex I prefer( hetero or homo)...You see, in a free nation, based on a Free market, the government should regulate industries, inform the public of Credible Dangers, and baby sit criminals and and let the People decide what choices, products, or services they desire to engage in.

But that would require some people(purist hypocrites for the most part) to mind thier own DAMN business, while the guy/people next door do(insert hot button issue of choice). As long as it does not become and industry/business or criminal enterprise in the sense of hurting an innocent(physically or finacncially), why should anyone care? I say get a hobby(preferably shooting ) to all the busy bodies...

 

[White Horseradish]

If the war on drugs were actually won then where do all the "warriors" go and what do they do?

You know, we do have a border or two that could use guarding. Oh, and Osama Bin Laden hasn't been found yet.

Would those two things not be a much better use of the drug warriors?

 

[Zundfolge]

If the war on drugs were actually won then where do all the "warriors" go and what do they do?

That was exactly the problem at the end of prohibition ... the answer was the NFA and the ATF.

 

[oldfart]

I guess most of us think the WOD should be ended one way or another.

But it ain't gonna happen!

As others have pointed out, our government has grown too fat on a rich diet of dollars to allow such a thing to happen. How many police officers would be out of work? How many prison guards would suffer the same fate? How many judges and court employees have been hired because of the WOD? How many towns (I can think of three in California alone) would dry up and blow away if their local prison were to close down?
No, the WOD is here to stay. In time though, it will have to branch out to cover other pesky little things like the freedom to speak or to assemble or worship... or own a gun. No politician in his right mind would admit he was aiming at such an end, and in fact, he may not be consciously thinking along those lines, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design...."
Haven't we seen this before?

 

[DMF]

That was exactly the problem at the end of prohibition ... the answer was the NFA and the ATF.

NFA passed in 1934. The ATF was created in 1972. 38 years apart. I don't see a direct connection.

 

[Flyboy]

I understand your frustration with the thought of making drugs legal. I share it too. This problem remains, however, nothing more than an economic one. Taxing the dealers and making it more painful for the users, either financially, physically, or both. Would be far more effective.

No, no, NO! You're missing the point.

The crime--and there's a lot of it--is a result of the artificially-inflated price. Legalization will decrease the risks, so the price will fall. Taxing it enough to "make it more painful for the users" is putting that artificial price inflation right back on it. Sure, it'll be cheap for Pfizer, Merck, etc. to make the stuff, but there will still be an incentive for Joe Crackhead to rob little old ladies to get the $100 for his fix, and there will be a new incentive for Carlos Dealer to break into and rob Merck to steal the stuff, then sell it on the street for $90.

The only solution is to drive the costs down enough that there's no need to commit crimes to support a habit. That, and making the cost of crime high enough to deter people from commiting one--this means keeping people locked up, instead of "$50 and time served."

 

[Art Eatman]

If what's now a $100 or $200 per day habit changes to a $1 or $2 per day habit, why would a crook take a bunch of risk? It's too easy to panhandle a couple of bucks.

At the very least, the RATE of muggings or burglaries would drop. Those people are not noted for ambition. They take the easiest possible way to get money. Once they have enough for a short period of time, they pretty much quit "working" until they need more.

If there is no profit in "owning" a particular block or street corner in order to sell drugs, why would there be any use of force to control an area? Why would there be fights or drive-by shootings in turf wars over drug-sale locations? Pointless endeavor--and again I bring up the ambition motivation.

When there is no profit, activity ceases. That's why when Florida passed its CHL laws, car-jackings of local Floridians ended. No profit in trying to steal a car from somebody who might have a gun and fight back.

If somebody can legally grow Mary Jane in his windowbox, why would he mess with crack cocaine? And if he does, what happens to those who once hauled burro loads of MJ across the Rio Grande? I'll tell ya what: They go to eating burroburgers.

Art

 

[beerslurpy]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design...."

This little bit bothers me the most and has for a while. If you view liberty as the sole competitor to the uncontested exercise of power, attacks on it seem to have a very simple and straightforward goal in mind.

I hate it when occam's razor shows us how bad the truth is. There doesnt have to be a conspiracy theory when the desired goal is so obvious. The hunger for power has motivated tyrants for untold eons. The ones we have now only tread lightly because they cannot yet compel us with raw and undisguised force.

 

[CARRY'IN]

It is all a matter of dosage and frequency. Primitive people were big into drugs but the drugs were not refined and they only did it on certain occasions. Nothing like a glass of red, a lungful of green, and a japanese sport bike on a full moon California night (or so I have heard).

 

[Justin]

You know, one argument against legalization that continues to be brought up is that if drugs are legalized then anyone and their pet monkey would be free to synthesize pot, heroin, crack, cocaine, meth or any of these other drugs in their basement or living room.

Just like how it was in the days before strong narcotics were banned, right?​

Image taken from the Wikipedia entry for heroin​

 

[gulogulo1970]

No, its a waste of lives, money, time and jail space that could go to violent criminals. It's also hypocritical how many tens of thousands are killed because of alcohol? Where's the war on beer? How many drug overdoses lead to death?

Prohibition of items people really want never works unless the government enforcing the laws is downright ruthless, example: China. I only want my government to be ruthless when they are fighting a real war.

Liberty means you can exercise your freedom as long as you actions don't hurt or infringe on anyone else's rights and/or life.

 

[CARRY'IN]

Justin, they are doing it now, what's your point? Is ome degree of difficulty in making a stronger dose going to save the world? That's what this whole thread is about- a multi decade, multi billion dollar "war" that has turned into an instrument of oppression and ushered in a police state. I hear alot about the swiss model, where everyone has an assault rifle, how about the dutch model, where people do what they want. We will gravitate to the gutter or to a decent existence by choice. If people spent more time raising their kids right instead of watching football, playing golf, or working overtime to pay for a new pick-up truck, drugs would not be a big problem.

 

[Firethorn]

I also say that the drug war is a waste. Though I have libertarian tendencies, in many ways I'm a moderate.

So, rather than just say 'all drugs should be legalized',

I say 'Let's legalize, regulate and tax them'. Why? It's still a step forward, we can work on deregulating it later. Meanwhile, we're turning a negative into a positive(spending money fighting to gaining money taxing), making the supply safer for the addicts, and defunding the organized criminal networks.

 

[beerslurpy]

There would be 2 million jail spaces available for rapists and murderers to serve some long-ass sentences if we let all the WoD offenders out tomorrow.

Imagine if someone committed a murder and actually served life in prison instead of the usual 8 years with good behavior.

 

[gulogulo1970]

Quote:
I say 'Let's legalize, regulate and tax them'. Why? It's still a step forward, we can work on deregulating it later. Meanwhile, we're turning a negative into a positive(spending money fighting to gaining money taxing), making the supply safer for the addicts, and defunding the organized criminal networks.

AMEN, Firethorn.

 

[Justin]

If people spent more time raising their kids right instead of watching football, playing golf, or working overtime to pay [strike]for a new pick-up truck[/strike] an exorbitant tax rate, drugs would not be a big problem.

I fixed it for you.