War On Drugs

[JOEBIALEK]

According to the State Department's annual drug-trafficking report,  a federal law took effect in 1985 authorizing the United States to penalize countries that do not control illicit narcotics production.   Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs,   Furthermore,  three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state.   Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin.  Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering the United States.    The report also listed Mexico as a major producer of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana destined for U.S. markets.  Source: New York Times and Associated Press.
 
Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs.   By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc.  Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments.  The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable.  Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling.   Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly.   The counter argument is that this solution is cost prohibitive and will only result in replacing one problem with another.  Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production.  If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production.  This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet.    The counter argument, however, is that this policy would prevent farmers from switching to other crops in order to earn a legitimate living.   I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today.  Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.
 

[John Dibble]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

[angus]

"Columbia is a pretty cool place to hang out.  I've been there and I plan to go back."
  --angus

The thing is, the government should not be in the business of legislating morality.  If drugs are illegal, it is presumably because of some economic reason.  I cannot imagine that the economic disadvantages of decriminalization outweigh its advantages, and so I think we should seriously consider it.  The biggest economic advantages are that we free up prison space, and thus dollars, and that the revenue generated by taxing coke and weed and presciption drugs will help alleviate the debt.  Are there any real disadvantages?  Assuming you're not one of those Leftists types who buy into the hype that certain racial groups are, either by evolution or by intelligent design, given to poverty and greater incidence of drug use a priori then it becomes hard to argue that there are any real economic disadvantages to any group. 

"...if an individual is counceled and medicated..."

Counceled?   And Medicated?!  Please, this is an orwellian wet-dream.  Or nightmare.  Somewhere in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave!

[dazzleman]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

and the War on Drugs isn't solving these problems. Common sense dictates that when your current policy isn't working, you change it.

I agree simply blanket legalizing all hard drugs is not a good idea, but our current policy needs serious revisions. I'm not including pot under hard drugs though of course.

[John Dibble]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

I support legalizing drugs - not legalizing child abuse. It is my opinion that anyone who commits a criminal act under the influence of any intoxicating substance should be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they were not intoxicated. Abuse, negligence, DUI, ect would all still be illegal, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[dazzleman]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

I support legalizing drugs - not legalizing child abuse. It is my opinion that anyone who commits a criminal act under the influence of any intoxicating substance should be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they were not intoxicated. Abuse, negligence, DUI, ect would all still be illegal, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But don't you understand, these are caused by "diseases" and therefore the person committing these terrible acts is not responsible.  Drug abuse is defined as a disease, and one for which a person has no responsibility to seek treatment.

[John Dibble]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

I support legalizing drugs - not legalizing child abuse. It is my opinion that anyone who commits a criminal act under the influence of any intoxicating substance should be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they were not intoxicated. Abuse, negligence, DUI, ect would all still be illegal, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But don't you understand, these are caused by "diseases" and therefore the person committing these terrible acts is not responsible.  Drug abuse is defined as a disease, and one for which a person has no responsibility to seek treatment.

Using drugs is a choice - and like any choice you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If I choose to put a mind altering drug in my body, how is it not my fault that I did something in that state?

[David S]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

You could make the same comment for alcohol. But when government banned alcohol, the murder rate skyrocketed as bootleggers started shooting each other and innocent people as well. The murder rate plummeted when prohibition was repealled. Much of our murder rate today is due to black market drug traffic. Make it legal and maybe the murder rate would drop again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

[dazzleman]

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree, but do you think the liberals would ever allow that?  Get serious.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

I agree, but do you think the liberals would ever allow that?  Get serious.

Liberals don't all think exactly the same - they key is to get enough of them on your side for this issue in order for you to have a majority. So, if you said "Those on drugs shouldn't receive welfare" then you are not outright damning welfare - you're just saying a particular group shouldn't receive it because they are wasting the money they are being given. There would be those among the liberal population who would agree with you.

[dazzleman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

I agree, but do you think the liberals would ever allow that?  Get serious.

Liberals don't all think exactly the same - they key is to get enough of them on your side for this issue in order for you to have a majority. So, if you said "Those on drugs shouldn't receive welfare" then you are not outright damning welfare - you're just saying a particular group shouldn't receive it because they are wasting the money they are being given. There would be those among the liberal population who would agree with you.

I doubt it.  There is a remarkable group-think among liberals on certain issues.  It's as if they're afraid to think even a little bit, or their whole philosophy will come crashing down.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

I agree, but do you think the liberals would ever allow that?  Get serious.

Liberals don't all think exactly the same - they key is to get enough of them on your side for this issue in order for you to have a majority. So, if you said "Those on drugs shouldn't receive welfare" then you are not outright damning welfare - you're just saying a particular group shouldn't receive it because they are wasting the money they are being given. There would be those among the liberal population who would agree with you.

I doubt it.  There is a remarkable group-think among liberals on certain issues.  It's as if they're afraid to think even a little bit, or their whole philosophy will come crashing down.

And it's talk like this that makes them this way - insulting the other side isn't a good way to get them to respect and possibly even change to your way of thinking. Or perhaps you didn't know - I used to be a left-liberal.

[dazzleman]

And it's talk like this that makes them this way - insulting the other side isn't a good way to get them to respect and possibly even change to your way of thinking. Or perhaps you didn't know - I used to be a left-liberal.

Well, I guess you're right that insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.  I do that when I see little hope of bringing them over anyway.

SSI is a big source of income for drug addicts.  They are "diseased" and under no obligation to treat their disease, so they rely on government assistance.

Many are homeless and living in shelters.  Drug addiction is a very complex problem, devastating to those involved and their families, and I can't go in favor of anything that will increase it.

The legalization debate always focuses on the dealers, and the distribution system, and very seldom on the effect of increasing the number of users.

I know alcohol is trotted out and that is valid to an extent.  Addiction to alcohol is a big problem.  But alcohol is not as addictive as some illegal drugs.

It always amazes me when there are anti-smoking zealots who have a lackadaisical attitude toward drug abuse.  I hate smoking, but it never caused violent murder, never caused parents to abandon their children.

The real effects of drug addiction are devastating, and just shutting off government support for addicts, as attractive as that is, is not the solution.

[John Dibble]

It always amazes me when there are anti-smoking zealots who have a lackadaisical attitude toward drug abuse.  I hate smoking, but it never caused violent murder, never caused parents to abandon their children.

The reason for that is that they perceive a direct affect on them. Crack's not a big deal for them until their kid starts doing it.

[dazzleman]

It always amazes me when there are anti-smoking zealots who have a lackadaisical attitude toward drug abuse.  I hate smoking, but it never caused violent murder, never caused parents to abandon their children.

The reason for that is that they perceive a direct affect on them. Crack's not a big deal for them until their kid starts doing it.

I guess, but drug abuse has a terrible effect on society.  Most drug abuse and crime are tied to drug abuse.  Drug abuse also plays a big role in the mess that is urban education.

It seems that some liberals want us non-drug abusers to deal with these problems, by paying for them and forcibly having them dumped on our doorsteps, without really doing anything about the root cause.

[John Dibble]

I guess, but drug abuse has a terrible effect on society.

Not arguing against that, I just don't see the 'cure'(prohibition) doing much good to stop the problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? I wouldn't  have guessed that most drug abuse is tied to drug abuse.

Jokes aside, I'll pull out the libertarian point of view - it's the fact that drugs are illegal that causes lots of drug related crime. Not possession - that's another matter(overcrowds prisons, doesn't help in my opinion) - but the crime that results from any form of black market. If drugs were legal, regulated, and more affordable, then the black market couldn't thrive as it does now - when alcohol was prohibited, the resulting black market brought us organized crime and a doubled murder rate, and when prohibition ended the crime rate went back to it's original level. Even if full legalization of all drugs isn't possible or desireable, the system needs a major overhaul.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. But there's a whole butload of other factors that screw it up as well. I think poor parenting is the primary detriment in that department.

[The Duke]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

[John Dibble]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

I don't think anybody has ever denied this, but you know what is meant when it is said. If you don't, let me clue you in - there are essentially two types of laws. 1. What you can't do by yourself or with consenting individuals. 2. What you can't do to others.

Take a guess which one 'imposing morality' is meant to refer to.

[The Duke]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

I don't think anybody has ever denied this, but you know what is meant when it is said. If you don't, let me clue you in - there are essentially two types of laws. 1. What you can't do by yourself or with consenting individuals. 2. What you can't do to others.

Take a guess which one 'imposing morality' is meant to refer to.

So you do deny the first tenet, that no action can be isolated to those individuals that participate in it?

I think this belief is self evidently false.

[John Dibble]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

I don't think anybody has ever denied this, but you know what is meant when it is said. If you don't, let me clue you in - there are essentially two types of laws. 1. What you can't do by yourself or with consenting individuals. 2. What you can't do to others.

Take a guess which one 'imposing morality' is meant to refer to.

So you do deny the first tenet, that no action can be isolated to those individuals that participate in it?

I think this belief is self evidently false.

A guy masturbates before going to sleep - prove how this affects others.

EDIT - And the real point is that though some actions do affect others, the effects are extremely negligible in many cases. If I decide to pick up the last piece of cake from the dining hall, the fact that there's no cake left for others doesn't really harm them in any way.

[The Duke]

Do you really want to spend this thread having me prove that in some way all actions affect others?  How about I simply give a blanket answer to anything you give me- substituted effects.  Any time I do one thing, I am not doing another.  Therefore even the most private, hermit like behavior has an effect simply by my absence from society at that time.  Even if you could show me an action that had no effect on others, I could simply say that by dong this action, the person has affected society by withdrawing from it.  This is so easy its not even funny, look, there is nothing you do that isn't connected to what's around you, even if this inconvenient fact does invalidate everything you believe.

[John Dibble]

Do you really want to spend this thread having me prove that in some way all actions affect others?  How about I simply give a blanket answer to anything you give me- substituted effects.  Any time I do one thing, I am not doing another.  Therefore even the most private, hermit like behavior has an effect simply by my absence from society at that time.  Even if you could show me an action that had no effect on others, I could simply say that by dong this action, the person has affected society by withdrawing from it.  This is so easy its not even funny, look, there is nothing you do that isn't connected to what's around you, even if this inconvenient fact does invalidate everything you believe.

Hey, you're the one that brought up the notion. Don't blame it on me. Why do you care? You KNOW what is meant when people say it doesn't affect or more importantly harm others - why do you insist on nitpicking?

EDIT - my opinion on substituted effects: There are virtually infinite actions that a person could possibly take in a given day. Outside of the cases where someone is supposed to be doing something and instead they do something else(say, they are being paid to gaurd a house and they do go clubbing istead), the substituted actions are of no real relevance since they are virtually infinite.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem with the current War on Drugs is not that its goal of reducing drug use is not desirable, it's that it is not the most effective way to achieve that goal.  Even worse, it provides criminal gangs and terrorist organizations with sources of revenue that they would not have if addictive drugs were legal.

[A18]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

So prosecute the problem (child abuse) and not the cause.