The solution to the U.S. war on drugs

[Sinsaba]

... I could support the legalization of drugs as long as strong property rights rules were inforced. People could manufacture, use, and distribute drugs as long as it stayed entirely on the private property of those that approve. ...

What about commercial distributition (wish I could spell)?

 

[Pafrmu]

What about commercial distributition (wish I could spell)?

Thats fine as long as it stayed on private property from manufacture to the effects wearing off on the user.

The same rules would apply if the public voted for allowing drugs and their effects on public property.

 

[neoncowboy]

Public property is decided upon by majority vote. If the majority decides to allow drugs on public property then so be it. If they do not, then so be it.
Drug laws should be ammended as such.

How does that sound to everyone?

I'm glad my freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to keep and bear arms don't stop at the edge of my private property! I also can't see any reason why any of my other liberties/rights should.

I am pleased to see you willing to change your mind instead of just stubbornly adhering to what you'd always thought...way to keep an open mind!

 

[Sindawe]

Pafrmu: Your proposal sounds reasonable and something I could support, PROVIDED those same conditions extend to ethanol or tobacco. OR we treat the other recreational chemicals in the same fashion we treat ETOH and tobacco.

Sinsaba: http://www.fornada.com/html/quickspell.html Is what I use on all my machines. I suk at spelin.

 

[Pafrmu]

I'm glad my freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to keep and bear arms don't stop at the edge of my private property! I also can't see any reason why any of my other liberties/rights should.

Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Pafrmu]

Pafrmu: Your proposal sounds reasonable and something I could support, PROVIDED those same conditions extend to ethanol or tobacco.

I could not agree more.

 

[White Horseradish]

Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

Doesn't it fall under "pursuit of happiness"? Or other rights not explicitly stated?

 

[neoncowboy]

Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

But Paul, the 10th amendment says what? Basically, that just because it isn't enumerated in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The bill of rights doesn't make any mention of my right to have more than 2 children...but you can bet I'd consider it an offensive intrusion of government into my life if they passed a law mandating a 2 child limit per household!

The reason that drug prohibition/regulation depends on the commerce clause is because congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate it. They justify the controlled substance act by calling it a regulation of 'interstate commerce'.

 

[Pafrmu]

But Paul, the 10th amendment says what? Basically, that just because it isn't enumerated in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The bill of rights doesn't make any mention of my right to have more than 2 children...but you can bet I'd consider it an offensive intrusion of government into my life if they passed a law mandating a 2 child limit per household!

The reason that drug prohibition/regulation depends on the commerce clause is because congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate it. They justify the controlled substance act by calling it a regulation of 'interstate commerce'.

Congress has the power to regulate the Militia. Most adult males are part of the Militia. Congress could regulate on these grounds although this has virtually no precendence, although that hasn't stopped anyone before.

Secondly they use the commerce clause because it is easier to prove, not because of 10th amendment. Al Capone was a known murderer but no one could prove it legally. They could prove that he didn't pay his taxes and engaged in fraud.

 

[Manedwolf]

Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

Nor does it recognize a right to drink alcohol. Want to go back to THOSE days?

 

[neoncowboy]

Good grief, are you now arguing for congress' authority to regulate what Americans can and can't do? Arguing for the state having a say in all of our behaviors and actions!?

 

[Pafrmu]

Nor does it recognize a right to drink alcohol. Want to go back to THOSE days?

Nor does it recognize rape or murder or bestiality, yet those are illegal.

 

[Pafrmu]

Good grief, are you now arguing for congress' authority to regulate what Americans can and can't do? Arguing for the state having a say in all of our behaviors and actions!?

Not arguing for it just stating what the Constitution says. Hate to say it but government has its appropiate place.

 

[Pafrmu]

Guys,

I am going to close this one for myself.

(I love having discussions on the internet, but unfortunately I will waste all my time on it.)

See you at the range.

 

[bowfin]

/*Look at what happened to the price of booze. Care to rethink that statement? */

I would, but the outcome would be the same. Otherwise, why do people bootleg untaxed cigarettes when everyone can buy them legally?

/*(ME) If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step.

(YOU) Do you have a nuts and bolts plan on successfully making prohibition work?*/

I take that as a "No, I don't".

Your argument seems to say that if the present system doesn't work well, then any other system WOULD work well, just by virtue of it being different than the present one.

You are also going on the premise that the "Drug War" has failed. What is your criteria for calling it a failure? Would you dismantle all fire departments because our war against fire could be labelled a failure, since houses still burn down and people still burn up? How about poverty, should we give up helping the poor, and label charity as a failure?

I think law enforcement against illegal drugs is much like a bilge pump in a leaking ship. It can't keep us dry, but it can keep our heads above water. What would happen if we say the bilge pump isn't keeping us dry enough, it is time to tear it out, and just move everything up one deck to where it is dry?

 

[publius]

I've owned lots of boats, but never had a bilge pump that missed 90% of the water coming into the boat. I'd chuck the thing if I ever did have one.

 

[Crosshair]

Nor does it recognize rape or murder or bestiality, yet those are illegal.

Bad comparison. Murder and rape are illegal because they infringe on the rights of others. Beastiality, meh, if that is your thing, go for it. As long as you are not doing it on my front lawn I could care less. I should be able to get hammered, stoned, flying high, etc in my own house without worrying about Mr. Fed comming to get me.

 

[beerslurpy]

The constitution doesnt need to recognize a "right to do crack" because people have ALL rights and powers not explictly granted to congress or taken by the state goernments. Since the constitution is silent on the issue of crack smoking, the issue is up to the states or if they decline, up to the individual.

This thread has gotten sidetracked by a couple of posters that fundamentally misunderstand the structure of our government and its laws. The federal government is forbidden to exercise any power not expclitly granted to it by the constitution. Congress was emphatically not granted the power to regulate medicine, narcotics or alcohol. Despite the extensive interstate trafficking of liquor, the US had to pass the 18th amendment. Yet they resorted to no such amendment for all of the post-Wickard regulations. What changed in the constitution to permit this? Answer: absolutely nothing, it is an illegitmiate exercise of power.

If you read the federalist papers and take an intellectually honest look at the constitution you will see:
-the commerce clause only grants the power to create uniform rules on commerce, not to regulate all things that are even tangentially related to interstate activity. This was a check on the state's economic powers that were heavily abused during the articles of confederation.
-the general welfare clause is NOT a grant of power. Not in the preamble and not in the section granting the ability to levy and collect taxes. General welfare was a goal towards which congress could work using only the powers enumerated elsewhere in the constitution. This was plainly stated by those that wrote the constitution.
-the constitution creates a limited goverment and gives almost unlimited liberty to the people. You cannot make value judgments about whether or not people should be allowed to exercise their liberty. Their right to exercise it is beyond such questions. The place for such questions is in the state legislatures.

 

[IndianaDean]

Cocaine and marijuana were both originally outlawed on racial grounds. And at the time, Congress acknowledged that alcohol is a WORSE drug than either cocaine or marijuana. Yet it was brought back and the other two stayed illegal.

Gun control and illegal drugs are both rooted in racist ideas. Marijuana was made illegal in the early 20th century based on reports that illegal Mexicans (there's that illegal immigrant issue again) were coming into Arizona, smoking pot and committing crimes.

Cocaine was made illegal when Southern politicians went to Congress and said Blacks were getting high on cocaine and raping white women.

The History Channel recently did programs on the histories of these drugs and why they were outlawed.

The point is, the drug trade, just like criminals getting guns, will never be stopped because the bad guys don't care that the stuff they're selling is illegal.
It would be logical to me to legalize the two.
Cocaine is still used as anesthesia for eye surgery.

 

[Firethorn]

Not so. Drug dealers are not drug dealers because they like dealing drugs. They don't have a passion for on time and reliable deliveries of high quality pot and meth at competitive prices. They deal drugs because they like getting lots of tax free cash money for very little work involved and not having to follow any rules.

Agreed. Legalize the drugs however and they'll loose the money.

If you make drugs legal, the current drug dealers aren't going to put on a tie and become an assistant manager at "Bongs-R-Us", clocking in precisely at 8:30 A.M., working every other Saturday. They won't be studying at the Community College to work their way up to Manager. They are going to move black market drugs across the border, or find another line of work with the same pay/workload/independence model they are accustomed to having, which is something else illegal. Drug dealers won't go away with legalized drugs, they become some other type of criminal.

Then you throw them into prison for that. However, criminal markets tend to work alot like standard legal markets. The 'flood' of now-unemployedrolleyes: ) drug dealers looking for alternate work would lower the profit potential for other criminal industries, such that at least some would find getting a legal job now easier and more profitable. Heck, they'd flood the 'illegal' job categories so bad that they'd drive out the ones currently in it. There's only so many illegal immigrant runners you can have, gun running is a penny ante business comparitivly speaking, and most of the demand is by *gasp* drug dealers(now unemployed). Other things don't have near the profit potential, and it takes a special kink to be a child pornographer(and you're back to the limited marked). As it is it takes careful planning to make an 'job' involving illegal drugs more profitable than working many legal semi-skilled jobs. Oh, and we'd legalize prostitution, so *Pimp* ain't a great job anymore. Wanna pull robberies or rackets? Well, we've found a use for all those DEA agents... One business owner drops a line and they'll be all over the crooks...

Second, if Asbestos, Silicone, Tobacco, Firearms, and Fast Food makers are getting their pants sued off, how is a product like black tar heroin going to be a profitable product, free from litigation? How do you word the disclaimer for meth to "use responsibly", that will hold up in the courts? Which drugs are safer than Red Food Dye #2 or Nutra Sweet? Drugs are not a viable product if legalized.

Fast food makers are NOT getting 'their pants sued off'. DuPont and other makers of Asbestos lost alot of money over concerns, but they're getting aid.

As for lawsuits involving the traditional drugs, it's simple. You treat it like alchohol and tobacco. Both have been sued. Thing is, the reason tobacco lost and had to pay so much money was that they decieved the public, deliberately hid the addictivness and danger of their products.

As a seller of Mary Jane, cocaine, heroine, etc... I'd have warnings plastered all over them. Every box would include 'suggested safe dosages'. I'd still be liable if contaminated product reached the shelves, but that's the same for any medicine or food product.

It would be impossible to make methamphtamine a "legalized" drug. It would be impossible to make Crack cocaine a "legalized" drug.

Oddly enough, both of those drugs were developed in response to the drug war. Meth was developed and is produced because it can be made from legal chemicals obtained here in the USA and doesn't have to be shipped long distances or across borders. Crack cocaine was produced in an effort to 'stretch' the sale potential of cocaine. A little bit of cocaine makes alot of crack.

If they became legal, safer alternatives like the traditional Cocaine, Opium and Marijuana would probably outsell crack and meth to the point that nobody would bother carrying or using them.

If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step. Let me know how it gets FDA approval, how it survives lawsuits, who and where would let you open up a storefront, and how it is manufactured, stored, shipped, and sold with an end price any cheaper than what it is right now. How does the company survive boycotts by umpteen jillion groups?

FDA approval: Either through a new category, to a 'safest reasonable standard' that doesn't let the FDA ban it or require dilution to the point that it's not usable. For example, Heroin, when legal, was traditionaly sold in a 10% solution.
Lawsuits: Like the new gun immunity, people suing would have to prove that the substance was contaminated in some way to cause damage. Misuse of product wouldn't be a valid excuse, as would side effects from the usage. IE people who start smoking today get no money if they get lung cancer from it. That's been the case since they put the warning labels on it.
Storefront: Drugstores are my existing business choice, they already handle potentially dangerous drugs. Besides that, various 'Dens' or specialty shops. There were Opium dens where it was almost like a hotel, you went in got high, and stayed there until you came down. Security was provided.
Locations: Where zoning allows it. I can see it being easy to get approval in many of the more liberal areas. Heck, I'm in a solidly conservative area and there's at least three strip joints and two adult product stores.
Cheaper Production: Most drugs are plant products. Just as an example, Heroin costs the same to produce in quantity as Aspirin. The reason that it costs so much now is Black market pricing(and profits), ~50% loss of product before reaching point of sale, various expensive, low quantity shipping methods such as small planes, boats, on the body, in passanger cars, and basic homegrown manual refining of the product using makeshift chemicals obtained from retail products not intended for that purpose. Get some proper chemical engineers and equipment, use proper medical quality pre-curser chemicals, and use proper cargo shipping methods and it gets cheaper(and safer!) at every step of the way. Renting retail space is cheap in comparison.
Company Survival: Free market economics! If a business can't make it, it's likely that a black marketeer wouldn't either.
Boycotts: Would only be effective if it's a company branching off into the drug business. Normally speaking nobody notices the transport company. Retail joints will call boycotters 'non customers'. It could prevent someplace like Costco or Walgreens from stocking the stuff, but that'd just encourage dedicated sellers. The production side of the house would work like normal.

Government would cease to function for years as every Senator and Congressman weighs in with his working model of how to tax and regulate it, where the money is gathered and how it is spent. How many agencies, bureaus, commissions, and Departments would line up for a piece of the pie?

They manage to hammer out a budget each year, this wouldn't be any different.

The laughable statement "...and if we legalize it, the price would come down" ignores what goes into the price of cigarettes currently sold for over the counter. How much of that price consists of taxes and lawsuit liability? How much is tobacco and rolling paper?

And tobacco smuggling is how prevalent? Do we still have a moonshine problem?

As long as congress doesn't go too crazy with setting the tax rate, it'll work out. I personally think that anything under 500% would work for most drugs except Marijuana.

 

[Spiphel Rike]

"Legalize it" is a ridiculous solution IMO. Who wants to fly on an airplane that's been worked on by a recreational crack user. Who here would trust a cop who is a heroine user on his free time?

Perhaps some "relevent organisations" could still have a "no drugs" policy, rather than law. Have cops, soldiers e.t.c sign that they agree to random and targeted testing (like they do now) and just expand that program to any other job involving sensitive or dangerous equipment.

 

[Kim]

I will agree with the Libertarian utopia idea of drugs on one condition. You must get rid of the welfare state first and the person using drugs will have to be held morally,and legally responsible for any other crime commented while under the influence and for all the medical bills,rehab they decide they want, and support of themselves and their dependents. I do not want to take care of any more druggies problems that they bring on themselves and others ie society. Get rid of the Welfare State then I will vote with you on this. Otherwise you are dreaming. I see way to much harm done as it is now to children, parents, spouses and my check book. Plus I am tired of getting up at 2 am taking care of a vomiting, violent, cussing person who is drugged out of their minds.

 

[Sindawe]

You must get rid of the welfare state first and the person using drugs will have to be held morally,and legally responsible for any other crime commented while under the influence and for all the medical bills,rehab they decide they want, and support of themselves and their dependents.

You are so heartless and cruel Kim, wanting to take away the safety-net for those poor benighted souls who've trashed their lives via chemical excess.

I like that in a person. I agree completely. Eliminate the welfare state and stop stealing MY earnings to support those who chose not to support themselves.

 

[bowfin]

So Firethorn, what "safe dose" of crack cocaine or methamphetamine or even regular cocaine would you be willing to defend in court as a "safe dosage", if many people become addicted with their first use?

Also, illegal business ventures DO NOT act as legal ones. Crooks don't branch out or turn legal when business is bad, they start fighting with the competition. Of course, we could turn a blind eye to murder also, in your scheme of things.

Do you remember what happened this very day (St. Valentine's day) in 1929 when illegal business got too crowded in Chicago? Yes, you are right, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. It still happens every day in L.A. No, the Crips don't have a price war with the Bloods when business gets tight, they just have a plain old war.

There is also a mistaken idea that addicts would respond to sensible prices and limits. They don't. They want all they can get and then some. If the prices are cheaper, they buy more and use more. If you give them free drugs, they use them and use their own money to buy more.

 

[bowfin]

I've owned lots of boats, but never had a bilge pump that missed 90% of the water coming into the boat. I'd chuck the thing if I ever did have one.

Then you have never been in a boat that was in danger of sinking, because no one throws the bilge pump overboard when the boat's leaking, you would just sink faster. You WOULD try to get it to work better, get a bigger one, similar, you wouldn't give up and drown. Correct?

Leaving the analogies, if the present law enforcement tactics aren't making a difference, then you try new methods of law enforcement, such as tightening the borders, cracking down on the money source. That would be the users, take them out of circulation by imprisonment or rehab.