Time to re-think the war on drugs
My column for the West Bend Daily News ran yesterday. It’s called, “Time to re-think the war on drugs,” because, you know… it is.
This “war” on (some) drugs has both parties in a hypocritical quandary:
Republicans insist that the state has no business in health care, which should be “between a patient and their doctor” but they then empower everybody from Congress through the FDA down to the local SWAT team with paternalistic authority over our medications and their usage; and
Conversely, the Democrats (rightly) insist that their bodies are their own, but (unjustifiably) insist the rest of us pay their medical bills.
Being against this prohibitionist lunacy is a conservative position insofar as it empowers the individual and limits the scope of government interference in our lives…
-jjg
DailyScoff.comPosted by J. Gravelle on August 13, 2008 at 1240 hrs
Owen -
Are you advocating no regulation? I’m generally in favor of your position, but I get the impression you are advocating getting the government’s hands off entirely.
I would think just as prescription drugs are regulated you would have to have narcotics regulated.
Yes you would have a black market. But turning the illegal distribution of narcotics into the equivalent of selling alcohol to minors would curtail the big dollars that fuel the violent gang nature that is the real societal problem of the drug trade enough that it would be a reasonable trade-off in my mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 1312 hrs
I agree with nearly all your points, but I’m not so sure that drugs would all of a sudden be dirt cheap. I see somebody with existing distribution abilities stepping in to fill the vacuum, and that would probably be people with names like Seagram, Coors, Busch, and Bronfman, etc. They’re going to want to keep the prices at roughly the current levels (that’s my guess, anyway) to ensure a healthy profit.
And you’re right, a pack of Panama Reds would have a tax stamp just like a pack of Marlboro Reds. But like lots of taxes, it could be targeted, most likely to rehab efforts, which, respectfully, is a part of the anti-drug war argument you didn’t mention. It’s more of a health care problem than it is a law enforcement problem.
Yes, there’ll still be a black market. Hell, there’s a black market for everything, cigarettes, booze, probably beanie babies and Dublin Dr Pepper, too, but all in all, I think it’s much better to get it out in the open.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 1339 hrs
Many reasonable people agree that the war on drugs being fought in it’s present form is counter productive. Reformation of our drug policies should be a non-partisan issue, but why doesn’t it have any traction in either party? The only time I hear any mention of drug decriminalization it seems to come from liberal democrats or libertarians. What would it take to get the libertarian end of the Republican party behind the issue?
I assume they would have to be convinced that decriminalizing drugs could save money. I am not sure that case can be made. Whatever money you would save in policing and incarceration would likely have to be spent on regulators and rehabilitators.
This nation needs to have a couple of different pilot programs to test out what policy works best. We have been trying the prohibition policy and it doesn’t seem to work. I wish our government would try a couple of different decriminalization efforts in a couple of different regions to see if we can come up with something better.
This is a big country. If people in a certain area want to try out different radical policies our government should take advantage of the nations diversity of viewpoints and treat areas as “policy test markets”. If it turns out that lax decriminilization in Seattle is disastrous that policy should be abandoned. But if tightly controlled decriminalization in Detroit yields positive results then the federal government should adjust their policies towards ideas that work better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 1438 hrs
In the last 60 years all of these approaches have been tried with bad results. There simply are some problems for which there are no good solutions. Read the history of some of the middle eastern and other Oriental societies and drugs. They tried all of that and it hasn’t worked.
Do some research, I’ve been there. In 1964 after graduating from Pharmacy school in Wisconsin I was a drug counselor for several years working with courts and other groups. After two years of worthless work we concluded that most junkies, probably 98%, simply did not want to get off of drugs, or alcohol or other drugs like caffeine, nicotine. They have addictive perosnalities and find one thing after another to get addicted to. Some, but not many, change, the rest slowly die off.
The only real solution would be for us to put all of the druggies in a place and give them all of the drugs they want till they either die or decide to quit.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 1800 hrs
Humph.
I would think that your Pastor will want to speak with you.
Posted by dad29 on August 13, 2008 at 1801 hrs
Lefty,
No, I am not arguing complete deregulation, merely decriminalization.
Posted by Owen on August 13, 2008 at 1808 hrs
Dad29,
Probably…
Posted by Owen on August 13, 2008 at 1810 hrs
In one of the last scenes in Amercian Gangster Denzell Washington offers the cop $1,000,000 and says: “you might as well take it and walk away and let me go”. “No matter what we do the hookers, pimps, addicts and crooks will still be out there as long as there is a market”. Nothing we do will stop that.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 1911 hrs
I am surprised somewhat to see this written on your blog. I believe that the same argument could be made for many of societys’ most divisive issues. There will never be a complete end to many actions that are considered criminal but do not necessarily hurt another being. The rule should be that if you want to hurt yourself, have a field day but when you step over the line to hurting another being then you need to get some psychological help.
The fact that it cannot be stopped and is expensive to continue trying and also expensive to house these people in our prisons.
A big question to think about is the abortion issue. Would abortions stop if they were made illegal? Isn’t that the reasoning that it was made legal because there were too many being performed that it was impossible to stop them?
I am not condoning abortions, just wondering if that is the same argument. I realize that the abortion is hurting another human.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 2244 hrs
I think that you nailed the difference. With drugs, you are directly hurting yourself. With abortion, you are killing another person. While the former can be acceptable, the latter can’t.
Posted by Owen on August 13, 2008 at 2254 hrs
The dismal fact of both is that you can’t realistically stop either ine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 2304 hrs
-
Posted by DJK on August 14, 2008 at 1024 hrs
Finally agreeing with William F Buckley? That’s three today Owen. :^)
Posted by Mpeterson on August 14, 2008 at 1523 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:38 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).