Drug War

[ddmoit]

I haven't opened this can of worms in a while...

http://www.mises.org/story/2495

The prosecution of the War on Drugs is one of the dumbest things our government does - and believe me, there is a lot of competition for that distinction. :shake:

[Sponsored Links]

[Davestone]

So what's the answer?

[ddmoit]

The answer is to decriminalize the whole thing.

Most people have some powerful misconceptions about what that would look like. They envision crack houses on every block in every neighborhood. Instead, the crack and meth houses would disappear overnight. No mom & pop, basement meth lab would be able to compete with a legitimate meth producer. You don't see aspirin houses right now, do you? The demand for aspirin is pretty high, but it's being met by efficient mass producers.

[Jeremy]

I am yet to meet ONE kid whose life has been destroyed by aspirin.

[Theold--scottyb]

bwahahahahhaa..

[ddmoit]

Jeremy, the drug prohibition has done nothing to stop the destruction of lives due to drugs. It's actually made things worse.

I have yet to meet ONE innocent kid who was killed in the crossfire of warring rival aspirin makers.

[jjwq8]

Great Idea.
Put LSD in the beverages of everyone on the Hill.
They are away with the fairies anyway.
Will we be able to tell the difference?

[Hamilton]

Alchohol is legal and people home brew beer for a better kick and flavor.
I dont think legalization would stop anything. Plenty of pot smokers getting
their "card" here in cali just to get the "medical" and alot of these folks
have no real ailment to qualify them. I could only imagine what a crack
head would do to pay for a medical quality fix of dope.

[ddmoit]

Sure, people home-brew, but I'm certain they are a tiny minority of beer drinkers. And, I doubt any one of them is living off the profits of their home brew.

The price of drugs would plummet, and the quality (consistency of dosage and potency, purity, etc.) of the product would be raised if it was no longer a black market.

Home meth labs would be put out of business by the Wal*Mart of meth manufacturing, whoever that turns out to be.

Would our drug problem go away in the free market? Absolutely not. But why do so many hold this solution to a standard of perfection when what we're doing now is an utter failure - worse than doing nothing at all?

[cx]

I am yet to meet ONE kid whose life has been destroyed by aspirin.How 'bout by alcohol, Jeremy? The most abused, with the possible exception of nicotine, drug in our society. And the one that, by its use, causes more deaths and injuries than all the others, but still remains the most socially acceptable.

And is perfectly legal, and your hypothetical "kid" has easy access to it and, if caught with it while underage, gets a bit of a slap on the wrist and is told not to use it until he is older and more responsible, eh?

The problem isn't the drugs, it's the "drug war."

The thing that really makes the current drug war even more irrational is that it's the second time we've been collectively this stupid. The first time we even went so far as to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning the manufacture, sale, and use of the drug, causing the alcohol "war." Dozen or so years later we at least realized that, bad as that drug was, the "war" was far more harmful than the drug and we passed another Constitutional Amendment to stop the "war."

So now we're not only stupid enough to pretend we're doing some great good by incarcerating hundreds of thousands of our citizens, not for using drugs, but for their choice of drugs to use. And for keeping the cost of the "other" drugs, the ones we don't use, so high by their prohibition that it becomes worth killing and dieing for a part of the market.

And while the killing and dieing and jailing and wasting of obscene amounts of money go on, we have our "legal drug" parties on a daily basis and pretend we're actually doing good by supporting the "war" on those other drugs. And almost always we'll say we're "doing it for the children." And we see no hypocrisy.

It would seem at times that we, as a society, are actually incapable of learning anything from our collective mistakes.

[ddmoit]

Many people support the war on drugs because it feels like we are doing something to oppose the drug problem in our society. But they are either ignorant or don’t care about the horrible unintended consequences of our government’s prosecution of this war.

The war on drugs has not eliminated the market for drugs. Instead, it has created a black market, where prices are artificially high due to the supply pressures of the drug laws, and the dangerous nature of the business due to the fact that participants have no legal recourse to settle their disputes. Drug sellers’ profits must account for the risk of being jailed by the government or killed by rivals.

We’re less wealthy, on the whole, as a society because we must pay to prosecute the war on drugs and incarcerate its offenders. This expense produces no goods as it would if it were to be spent on other things like cars, or cable TV.

More intangibly, we pay in the form of being victimized by violent criminals for whom there is no room in our overcrowded jails. We pay as the innocent bystanders, caught in the crossfire of street justice meted out by drug marketers with no legal recourse to settle disputes. We pay in the form of international ill will from citizens of countries whose governments are forced to participate in our government’s drug war.

Often, people are drawn to support the drug war out of emotions caused by the loss of a loved one due to drugs. I respectfully remind those people that their loss occurred despite the war on drugs.

I have an anecdote of my own to offer. I have an uncle (my dad’s youngest brother) who died in his early 40s. He was murdered. His charred body was found in the burned out remains of his car alongside a rural road in Missouri. By all accounts, he may have been the brightest of all his siblings (and my dad is a chemical engineer). And, he was ambitious – especially for someone who smoked pot. At a fairly young age, he realized that the quickest way to wealth in his depressed area of the country was the drug trade. This fact was a direct result of the economics of the war on drugs described above.

Ultimately, he was responsible for his choice. But I have to wonder what might have became of him had he not been tempted by the artificial economic opportunity created by the war on drugs.

[ddmoit]

This fresh article speaks to the points about billions of wasted dollars and the formation of ill will abroad...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/kidnapped_americans_2

[John Bridge]

"No prohibition, no law enforcement, no government distribution centers, no regulation, no controls, just abandon government drug control like we abandoned Vietnam — completely and in disgrace for what we had done. Vietnam was a complete basket case when we left and has improved a great deal in many ways, including abandoning communist economics and allowing some freedom of religion."

While I agree that the war on drugs is a waste of time and money, I take exception to the statement above. I wonder if the author has ever been in Vietnam, then or now.

Also, Dan, every article you post is by someone connected to the von Mises outfit. How do you round out your reading? ;)

[Scooter]

I will respectfully disagree with John on Viet Nam. We wrecked that country.

After the war, (the big one, WWII) it was agreed that the country would have free and fair elections and they were scheduled for 1954. When it became apparent that the election would probably result in a Ho Chi Minh victory, we quickly cancelled elections and started sending the South aid in the form of bombs and guns.

In the late 1960's, bombs and guns weren't enough and they sent me. :yipee:

We bombed the poor country back into the stone age, destroyed harbors, cities, spread toxic chemicals and agent orange everywhere, and impregnated women. Our presence fostered corruption and ethnic clensing (Cathoic v. Buddist) and a civil war. They fought like cowards and made booby traps and crude IED's. It took close to 20 years for the country to actually come back.

I have this awful feeling that had we let Uncle Ho have his way in 1954, he would have loved the USA. He was mainly a nationalist first, and we drove him into the arms of the communists.

I will also say that in 1969, I sampled some of the best drugs I ever had in Viet Nam. Man-O-Man, they could grow good stuff. I've never been the same since.

[ddmoit]

While I tend to agree :wtf: with Scooter's account of our impact on Viet Nam, I will also agree that the author could have made his point without the distraction of inflammatory remarks about Viet Nam.

As for my frequent references to Mises material, If I don't do it, who will? I'm a bit of a disciple for the Austrian school of economic thought. We're pretty ignorant as a society on the subject of economics and we're worse off for it. An understanding of economics leads to better decision-making in a wide range of fields. Mass economic ignorance is one of the reasons our government has grown into the monstrosity that it is - right under our noses - with hardly a concern from a significant number of people at any time.

[John K]

Dan,

The economic effect of what your proposing, would be disastrous! It would kill the sale of the Caddilac Escalade with 22's. :laugh2:

[flatfloor]

I have yet to meet ONE innocent kid who was killed in the crossfire of warring rival aspirin makers

Really, how about new drugs that are brought to market prematurely or are approved for one purpose and then sold for another? Thalidomide comes to mind.

[ddmoit]

Jim, it's easy to see when the FDA does something right. It's not so clear, however, when the FDA does something wrong. Untold thousands of people have become sicker, or died waiting for the FDA to approve drugs.

Life is a risky proposition. We should all be free to assume the level of risks that we as individuals are most comfortable with.

Surely you're not suggesting that only a government body like the FDA can protect us from bad drugs.

[flatfloor]

I was referring to the warring drug companies. Watched any TV commercials lately? :)

[ddmoit]

OK. There's a pretty big difference between a metaphorical war in the market place, and actual shots being fired though.:)

[flatfloor]

As luck would have it ABC news ran a snippet tonight about drugs approved by the FDA for a specific purpose but being pushed by the drug companies for multiple applications. What's the difference if you die from incorrect usage of a drug or get shot?

I would post a link to the story but couldn't find it on their site.

[ddmoit]

I think I have a much better chance at avoiding a drug aimed at me than a bullet shot at me.

[Jeremy]

This is a crock. I am watching my little brother slowly kill himself with some of your "legal" drugs. Methadone for one. We just buried a boy a couple of weeks ago, a lifelong friend of his, 20 years old, dead from an overdose. Dont give me the comparison of alcohol to narcotics. Thats a lame analogy at best. Alcohol and crack are NOT the same, for those of you living in a bubble.


For those of you saying this sh!t should be legal, do me a favor. Lay a few rocks of crack on the table, and tell your children that you CONDONE having it readily available to them, with NO PENALTY for its possesion. And THEN tell them how much you LOVE them.

:smash:

[ddmoit]

Jeremy, I'm sorry to hear that substance abuse has been detrimental to your family.

I can assure you, however, that the illegality of crack is not the reason my children are not users. And despite its illegality, it IS readily available.

It is a logical error to confuse condoning the legality of drugs with condoning drugs.

[cx]

While it saddens me to hear about your brother and his friend, I suggest that both are suffering not from any particular drug(s), but from bad decisions.

Nothing at all I can do about that decision making, apparently nothing you could or were willing to do, and certainly not the business of our federal government to try to make such decisions for any of its citizens.

Had I any children I would certainly not tempt them with Crack as you suggest, and nor would I do the same with alcohol or any other substance I thought harmful to them. I would do the best I could to discourage their use of any such substances and hope it was enough. If they made poor choices later and began abusing any such substances, I would do my very best to help them and change the situation, but I would certainly not look to the federal government to do anything about it.

It's not about drugs at all, its about liberty and the proper role of government. Some of us recognize that role is strictly limited in our country by the Constitution (or should be) and think that their authority should never spill over into matters of personal responsibility.

Nothing the federal government has done in the matter of criminalization of substances or regulation of substances or even classification of substances has done your brother a bit of good, nor will it ever.

One of the greatest of liberties is the freedom to make individual decisions and choices, including very bad ones.

[Tom Tee]

Don't know of any silver bullet for substance abuse problems legal or illegal. But two concepts do impress me.

1.- Quality family structure with parental love and limits.

2.- Being content wherein you are found.

One Columbian supplier comment that sticks w/ me. "Do not blame us for your drug problem. If you did not buy it and use it we would have no reason to ship it."

There is a lot of unhealthy distractions in this world and if we as parents do not carefully lead the next generation they will find leaders in their own generations amoral mirth and music.

Due to their generations enormity of disposable cash and unwarrented CC leverage, they are the target of slick advertising which will offer them significance by acquiring some seemingly wonderful bling.

tt

[ddmoit]

Two black labs, cherished by their innocent owners, are the latest victims...:shake:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_us/marijuana_packages_3

Calvo insisted the couple's two black Labradors were gentle creatures and said police apparently killed them "for sport," gunning down one of them as it was running away.

"Our dogs were our children," said the 37-year-old Calvo. "They were the reason we bought this house because it had a big yard for them to run in."

[HS345]

If these allegations are true. Heads should roll.:shake:

What a waste.:mad:

[jjtib86]

So, let me get this straight...your theory is that we don't have enough highly addictive and dangerous substances legal right now and for some reason need more drugs more readily available? Well...that may be the single worst idea I have ever heard. And I've met people who belong to the communist party.

[ddmoit]

So, let me get this straight...your theory is that we don't have enough highly addictive and dangerous substances legal right now and for some reason need more drugs more readily available?Dan, I'm not sure who you are addressing here, but if you got this from anything I have said, then I am afraid that you have missed the point entirely.

[ddmoit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_colombia_killing_a_brother_1
BOGOTA, Colombia – The soldiers in Antelope Company's Third Platoon hadn't registered a guerrilla kill in months. And without results, they feared they wouldn't be let off base for Mother's Day.

So they hatched a plan, according to Pvt. Luis Esteban Montes: Lure a civilian to their camp, murder him and register him as a rebel slain in combat.

Montes, 24, didn't object — until he met the quarry. It was Leonardo, the older brother he hadn't seen since he was 9.

Montes said he tried to dissuade his commander, who responded with threats. He slipped his brother out of the camp, he says, only to see him show up dead a week later, a "guerrilla kill" with three bullets in his torso and a gaping facial wound likely caused by a knife.Happy Mother's Day, Mrs. Montes. One of your sons is dead. Another is a United States funded criminal with no regard for innocent life.

While we are surrounded by economic calamity, we apparently have plenty of money to fund our war against drugs.