Skip to main content

The US poors billions of dollars each year into a fight that seems more futile as time goes on. Not to mnetion, millions of non-violent drug offenders are thrown into prison, creating a class of convicts that represents little other threat to people than that they have been convicted.

Is the War on Drugs worth these costs?
"Most economic fallacies derive ... from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another" - Milton Friedman "The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit." –- Samuel Gompers Ron Paul for President
Original Post
Do not the majority of 'violent' offenders have histories of drug and alcohol abuse as well? What is the cost of allowing drugs to saturate society must be determined before conclusions can be drawn regarding the 'costs'.

For example, what is the cost to society right now in both lives and treasure, from alcohol abuse alone? Does society need more of the same from legalizing all drugs?
quote:
Originally posted by DeltaJ:

What is the cost of allowing drugs to saturate society must be determined before conclusions can be drawn regarding the 'costs'.



I don't think that anyone is recommending giving up on fighting drug use/abuse. Most that argue against the "War on Drugs" do so on the basis of tactics or approach. The current strategy to eliminating drug use has clearly failed, hence decriminalizing drugs and fighting it as a public health issue is another way to look at achieving the same objective. In fact, those who consider decriminalization (like former Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke) do so out of an interest in increasing the effectiveness of anti-drug efforts.

A major positive by-product from this approach is that by decriminalizing drugs you instantly remove huge amounts of crime associated with the drug economy. As we all know this crime and violence mostly affects non-drug users, the innocent people that just happen to be "in the line of fire". You also can regulate and tax drug sales as a means of funding treatment and public health efforts as well.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by DeltaJ:

What is the cost of allowing drugs to saturate society must be determined before conclusions can be drawn regarding the 'costs'.



I don't think that anyone is recommending giving up on fighting drug use/abuse. Most that argue against the "War on Drugs" do so on the basis of tactics or approach. The current strategy to eliminating drug use has clearly failed, hence decriminalizing drugs and fighting it as a public health issue is another way to look at achieving the same objective. In fact, those who consider decriminalization (like former Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke) do so out of an interest in increasing the effectiveness of anti-drug efforts.

A major positive by-product from this approach is that by decriminalizing drugs you instantly remove huge amounts of crime associated with the drug economy. As we all know this crime and violence mostly affects non-drug users, the innocent people that just happen to be "in the line of fire". You also can regulate and tax drug sales as a means of funding treatment and public health efforts as well.


This is true. What we have to remember in this is that people aren't going to go off and do something just because it's legal. And, if they are an adult and do it anyway, that's on them.

There should be restrictions of course, as there are on alcohol. But criminialization overall is a net loss.
Decriminalization;
Stop discriminatory sentences;
Stop policing forces from only looking for drugs/drug activity only on Blacks/African American Community, while looking the other way or not keep any other communities under constant surveillance;

The majority of African American offenders in prisons in America are non-violent offenders

Stop confusing the word "Felon" to automatically mean violent offender; the majority of felonies have nothing to do with violence;

It is unrealistic to believe that the three-strikes deters any crime--because most people that are so violent and callus as to commit grossly violent crimes more than once are not likely to have any fear of prison or death----further, some people have lived such a hard life that a clean prison cell with three guaranteed meals per day and health care is a step up;

Most drug use is really self-medicating practiced by people that cannot handle problems in their life/mental illness that is unaddressed professionally;

Our policing forces would be better used to actually stop the influx of drugs into this country in the first place rather than waiting until the drugs have passed through the multiple chains of protocol util it reaches the hands of a young black male or poor white male, and THEN all of a sudden they want to make a drug bust

The majority of people serving drug sentences are addicts that had less than a hundred or less than fifty or less than 40 dollars worth of drug in their possession at the time of being busted;

All people that due drugs or sell drugs are not violent---this is a media propaganda induced myth

There are just as many people that do not do drugs that are just as or far more violent than people that do drugs

A drug addict that has been caught with twenty dollars worth of crack on him for the third time is eligible for the "three-strikes" sentencing---also, since it is crack and not powder cocaine, he will the first time and/or any other time be mandatorily sentenced to far more time than the person caught with 500 time more powder cocaine---also, the judges have descretion in sentencing habitual powder cocain users, but not have any descretion in sentencing crack cocaine users because of the madatory minimum sentencing laws of crack cocaine;

THE WAR ON DRUS IS A HOAX
ALL IT REALLY IS, IS AN AVENUE OF JOB CREATION AND CAREER MAKER FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS REALLY THE WAR ON THE BLACK MALE-THE THE BLACK FEMALE IN THIS COUNTRY

NEXT TO ABSTINENCE, PRISON SENTENCES ARE THE BEST FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL AND POPULATION CONTROL
Take away the profit kills the business. That's business ad 101.

We have known that since we "initiated" the "war" on drugs.

The drug industry was created by the U. S. government. "Let's see what happens when you introduce hallucinogenics into to an otherwise normal population." they said. They gave Dr. Timothy Leery money and drugs, and said "Find out." He liked it. The rest is history.

And for some reason the U.S. government can't figure out how to stop it.

Everybody is "gettin' fat."

PEACE

Jim Chester
Just to add to the discussion I'm giving an excerpt from an article written a few years ago on the subject. The complete article is available online. Don't wanna take up too much space with the article in the middle of the thread.

War on Drugs Costs Americans Lives and Liberties by Deroy Murdock

Patrick Dorismond is the latest casualty in the War on Drugs. The 26-year-old security guard and father of two rose to national prominence on March 16 when he and a friend stepped out of the Wakamba Bar on Manhattan's Eighth Avenue. Dorismond apparently felt insulted after a stranger asked him where he could find marijuana. A dispute reportedly erupted. When the would-be pot buyer yelled for help, one of his associates stepped forward and allegedly shot Dorismond fatally in the chest.

Of course, the supposed drug buyers really were undercover NYPD officers. Their effort to entrap an innocent, unarmed man in a narcotics sting operation caused his violent, untimely death. Eric Adams of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement laments that Dorismond could "be killed for saying no to drugs." ...
Why not outlaw alcohol then? Like prohibition?

Don't know. Everyone knows the harm. The point is that I doubt society needs MORE of the same. Rather than give in to mind altering substances that kill hundreds of thousands, and create chaos, why NOT push to make alcohol illegal? If people are our concern, do we wish to give them MORE tools to self destruct with, or less?
quote:
Originally posted by DeltaJ:
_Why not outlaw alcohol then? Like prohibition?_

Don't know. Everyone knows the harm. The point is that I doubt society needs MORE of the same. Rather than give in to mind altering substances that kill hundreds of thousands, and create chaos, why NOT push to make alcohol illegal? If people are our concern, do we wish to give them MORE tools to self destruct with, or less?


I'm not in favor of drugs in anyway, nor am I in favor of alcoholism. However, these are people's personal choices. The only way I would apply legislation to this issue is in the cases of driving under the influece or pregnancy, or usage by minors.

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. To say that it is would give them arbitrary control over all different aspects of our lives. Do you really think we need the nanny state telling us "no no you can't do that. it's not good for you." regarding the things we ingest?

People need to excercise their personal responsibility with regard to these matters. And, for the most part, people do excercise this, with other mind altering substances such as alcohol. People don't get drunk all the time just because its legal. They know the implications of what they are doing.
It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. To say that it is would give them arbitrary control over all different aspects of our lives. --- toussaint

I agree. But the federal government does have the responsibility to protect/assure public safety and welfare.

I say, "Let those who would damage themselves do so." When the behavior of those persons impact the well-being of others, however, a control must be put into place.

I think the reasonable answer is to take away the profit of the system that personal desire. This can be done by making the object of their desire available through legal channels.

Public safety is restored. Those who want to do injury to themselves can do so.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. To say that it is would give them arbitrary control over all different aspects of our lives. --- toussaint

I agree. But the federal government does have the responsibility to protect/assure public safety and welfare.

I say, "Let those who would damage themselves do so." When the behavior of those persons impact the well-being of others, however, a control must be put into place.

I think the reasonable answer is to take away the profit of the system that personal desire. This can be done by making the object of their desire available through legal channels.

Public safety is restored. Those who want to do injury to themselves can do so.


I pretty much agree with you. I think that the regulations should be around actions such as driving under the influence, just like alcohol. I am of the opinion that public safety is addressed in this way better than the current criminalization which prompts violence.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×