Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ The "War on Drugs", a fight that should continue?

[snowblink]

Okay, I'll throw out a firecracker

I think it's high time we end this prohibition. Senseless waste of money and resources on a problem that will never go away. I've seen this from many different angles and I can't understand why it continues to be fought.

First, I'm at a loss as to why the Federal Government continues to believe it has any constitutional power to enforce "drug prohibition". Having thumbed through the document a number of times I just can't find where this right was ever granted to the US Govt...

That should get things started...

[bob_TCC]

I'd say that this was more than a firecracker.

Are you entirely serious though?

-Bob

[snowblink]

Well, I'm waiting to see what possible reasons could be given for continuing the status quo for sure. As always, I keep an open position on issues.

[KHarmon]

First of all...like alcohol, drugs are responsible for numerous violent crimes, mostly those who are under the influence of drugs committing crimes against their family. And just like alcohol, treatment programs are NOT effective when the addict or alcoholic don't want the help....a person has to want help in order to receive it. Illegal narcotics, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, as well as all the others are far more addictive than alcohol. Crack cocaine is a "one hit" addiction, you take one puff on a crack pipe and you're addicted. When I used to work for a gang task force, and later with a drug task force, most of our drive by shootings were the result of one drug gang shooting at a dealer from another. As a result, I've worked homicide scenes involving a 9 year old, an 11 year old, and a 12 year old victim whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In order for us to effectively control illegal drugs, we HAVE to tighten security on our borders between the US and Mexico. The drug problem has become increasingly worse ever since NAFTA went into effect. The drug war is very much worth fighting....I've got an older brother who has been an addict for his entire adult life and I've seen the effects first hand that it has had on my family and on him. He has a job making $22.00 an hour as a licensed plumber and he doesn't own a vehicle, he lives in a two bedroom mobile home, half of which burned down last year, and he has lied, begged, borrowed, stolen, and fought with everyone in our family at one point. His first drug, marijuana of course, and by his own admission, marijuana was what opened the flood gates for everything else he has ever done. Marijuana to coke, coke to LSD, LSD back to coke, and coke to meth which has remained his drug of choice for the last 21 years. We have the right to prohibit illegal drugs. I recently did a study for the police department when I was writing the proposal for the K-9 program. In that study I learned that 93% of those who were involved in burglaries also had a history of drug use, and over 75% of the assaults, sexual assaults, and sex crimes against children were committed by those who were either under the influence of, or had a history of drug abuse. It is definately worth the fight!!!!

[bob_TCC]

I figured Officer Harmon would have an opinion on this one.

I also agree that a needed change to the past policies is to really get serious about our borders. This is one of the biggest issues that I see both parties avoiding and it's disappointing. There are just so many things that could improve with a serious effort in this area.

-Bob

[snowblink]

I have no issue with the federal government intercepting narcotics/people/other goods when they are being smuggled across the US international border. But I do question the right of the US Govt to dictate a "war on drugs policy" within the borders of the United States. There is no constitutional power granted to do this.

To address your points:
I don't dispute some people have a personality which makes them suseptable to addiction. However, to say all narcotics are addictive simplifies the complex variety of human beings and their individual tolerances.

Violence/gang activity related to "illicit drugs":
Drugs are related to violence, because prohibition increases the dollar value of drugs, thus persons in the drug trade are protecting an investment. IF the dollar value of drugs drops significantly due to ending prohibition, there will be no value to protect. Net result: drastic "illicit drug" related violence decrease.

Anectdotal personal experiences:
I don't dispute some people have a problem with "illicit drugs" and their effects. Some people have a problem with non-prohibition goods such as alcohol and sugar, however, we see no "war on sugar" to combat this.

Marijuana as a "gateway drug":
just as likely alcohol or tobacco, marijuana has not been proven to have addictive qualities (since the government refuses to put their claims to an impartial scientific test), alcohol and tobacco have. (Addictive personality disorders are not indicative of effects of a substance)

Studies related to percentages of drug users to other forms of crime:
None of your percentages are 100%, thus there is no absolute correlation. While a mental health problem which predisposed people to crime may also make them use drugs, your study does not ask, "which came first?"

I'm not disputing we need to address the problem of "illicit drug abuse", just the way in which it is being addressed as a criminal offense. I agree you can't help those who aren't ready to be helped. But how has prohibition stopped these problems?


A couple simple questions:
1) Is the reason you do not use "illicit drugs" because they are illegal?
2) Do you know that the volume of "illicit drugs" successfully smuggled into the country after the "war on drugs" was declared has increased?
3) Where does the power for the US Govt. to enforce a "war on drugs" come from? Be specific.

Be aware I do not advocate the use of illicit drugs, one look at a meth addict should convince anyone, but I think this continued prohibition is not the solution. Overcrowded prisons, drug violence, bystanders being caught in the crossfire, over what...someone wanting to get high in their own home?