Happy 100th Anniversary, War on Drugs!

[BigBoxaJunk]

You missed my point. Please re-read.

Sorry, I'm just trying to make up for 88GT not being here.

 

[steveh_131]

Your "what about" argument of illegitimate children -- there is no law forbidding it and women are having them anyway--and we're still paying for all of the issues surrounding it. Maybe if they and their fathers had to face those consequences instead of leaving it up to the states, that probable would go away too.

I agree. So why do you support a law forbidding drugs but not a law forbidding illegitimate children? The tax impacts of both would likely be largely resolved by abolishing entitlements, something we both agree on.

I do believe, as an opinion, to not be accepting that others have opinions that differ than your own and, as long as those opinions are OWNED by that individual, it is "anti-freedom" to not be respectful to those opinions. If you are simply regurgitating talking points than you can get bent.

If you draw an imaginary line and say that "my opinions about things are the most supportive of freedom" and accuse others who, by virtue of morals, values, life experience, education, simply hold a different belief, then you become the person you say your against in the first place.

This is a very strange, irrational, and emotionally-charged argument.

Freedom has a definition. According to webster:
[h=2]Definition of FREEDOM[/h]1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

Locking a person in a cage because of a plant in their pocket is the opposite of this definition. Or 'anti-freedom' as you called it. It involves both coercion and constraint.

Being 'disrespectful' of someone's opinion is not. Your choices or actions are not being hindered in any way.

 

[Twangbanger]

This discussion seems to have run the usual, familiar course. "My dad supports freedom more than your dad," lol.

Here's the crux: many of us who frequent this forum are probably of the opinion that freedom requires no cost-benefit analysis; its value is self-evident, and needs no further justification. The problem is, voters in general absolutely do NOT agree with us about this. Freedom per-se is not a winning argument; if it was, we'd have thrown the two parties away long ago and installed Libertarians in power. We haven't. The reason is not that people _reject_ freedom; it's that they're afraid it can't be made to work; that too much of it, implemented in too-unconsidered a fashion, will actually make society a _worse_ place to live. They see their neighbors, and they just don't trust them. (Thank heavens for the Second Amendment; if not for that, I suspect guns, put to a vote of citizens, would have been gone long ago).

People need reassurance that freedom will "work." Hard as it is for us to accept, it's true: people need justification for how untrammeled freedom won't ultimately make us worse off. To win this argument, we have to actually make a case for how it will turn out - because in America, nothing is more familiar to us than great ideas that don't work in practice. We don't live on an island. We have to show that it will work, in a society where people get half their income taken away before they see it, and where cost-benefit analyses have to be performed on EVERYTHING to figure out how it all gets administered without mucking it all up. It's not enough to say you're "for freedom." Hard as it is to accept, you also have to prove that it will make society better, with an acceptably low amount of offsetting negative effects.

Fighting that is pointless.

Ram & Steve, here is your adversary, summarized in a nutshell: "If I have to stay drug-free as a condition of employment, I'll be G*d-damned if I'm going to pay for someone else to take the stuff while being supported by me." If you cannot address that - you lose. If your only response is, "you're already supporting blah-blah-blah," you lose. Because the citizen is fed up and wants no part of anything that has any chance of increasing the problem, even if it is advanced under the banner of Liberty. They increasingly see society as "Liberty for deadbeats - slavery for the rest of us working hacks." And they're sick and tired of it, and aren't having it. "You and your little drug-freedom First World Problems can go hang," they say.

It's the same as the Flat-Tax argument that went round and round, a few years ago. "Flat Tax will make you more free," they said. And John Q. Citizen said, "Fine, repeal the 16th Amendment allowing .Gov to collect income taxes, then we'll talk...otherwise, we'll just end up with BOTH a Flat Sales Tax AND an Income Tax."

The average person feels exactly the same about Drug Legalization. "Repeal the Welfare State - then we'll talk." Because they know they'll wind up with half their income gone, AND supporting someone else's laziness. "But you're already supporting it," you'll say. And they will respond, "Yeah, but at least I'm not supporting the ones whom fear of prosecution prevents from doing it."

(And as an aside, if having illegitimate children were already historically illegal, many would be in favor of leaving that in place, too...so there goes your shining little gem of an argument, because there's no hypocrisy there. But if you simply cannot leave your clumsy attempt at a reductio-ad-absurdum alone, I'm sure the maker of Norplant has lobbyists who'd love to get this sort of discussion going again, if you're feeling up for it).

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Here's the crux: many of us who frequent this forum are probably of the opinion that freedom requires no cost-benefit analysis; its value is self-evident, and needs no further justification. The problem is, voters in general absolutely do NOT agree with us about this. Freedom per-se is not a winning argument; if it was, we'd have thrown the two parties away long ago and installed Libertarians in power. We haven't. The reason is not that people _reject_ freedom; it's that they're afraid it can't be made to work; that too much of it, implemented in too-unconsidered a fashion, will actually make society a _worse_ place to live. They see their neighbors, and they just don't trust them. (Thank heavens for the Second Amendment; if not for that, I suspect guns, put to a vote of citizens, would have been gone long ago).

I'm not very politically savy and I don't follow a lot of these kinds of threads as well as I would like. For what it's worth, I think that post, and especially the first part, might be one of the most "clarifying" things I've read in a long time.

 

[steveh_131]

Here's the crux: many of us who frequent this forum are probably of the opinion that freedom requires no cost-benefit analysis; its value is self-evident, and needs no further justification. The problem is, voters in general absolutely do NOT agree with us about this. Freedom per-se is not a winning argument; if it was, we'd have thrown the two parties away long ago and installed Libertarians in power. We haven't. The reason is not that people _reject_ freedom; it's that they're afraid it can't be made to work; that too much of it, implemented in too-unconsidered a fashion, will actually make society a _worse_ place to live. They see their neighbors, and they just don't trust them. (Thank heavens for the Second Amendment; if not for that, I suspect guns, put to a vote of citizens, would have been gone long ago).

I agree with this 100%.

Ram & Steve, here is your adversary, summarized in a nutshell: "If I have to stay drug-free as a condition of employment, I'll be G*d-damned if I'm going to pay for someone else to take the stuff while being supported by me." If you cannot address that - you lose. If your only response is, "you're already supporting blah-blah-blah," you lose. Because the citizen is fed up and wants no part of anything that has any chance of increasing the problem, even if it is advanced under the banner of Liberty. They increasingly see society as "Liberty for deadbeats - slavery for the rest of us working hacks." And they're sick and tired of it, and aren't having it. "You and your little drug-freedom First World Problems can go hang," they say.

I also agree that this is the viewpoint that I am fighting against. It is as irrational and emotional as Gun Control arguments. People are pissed off at having to support deadbeats and I don't blame them. I imagine that they achieve some sort of emotional satisfaction by seeing one of these deadbeats rot in prison, even if it means a higher tax bill for themselves and a violent tyrannical police-state for their children.

People are welcome to support this sort of policy to gain this emotional satisfaction. Their vote counts just as much as mine. But I want to make it clear that this satisfaction is gained at the expense of liberty. Make your choice, but if you're willing to sacrifice liberty for it then you need to own that position.

 

[Twangbanger]

...I also agree that this is the viewpoint that I am fighting against. It is as irrational and emotional as Gun Control arguments. People are pissed off at having to support deadbeats and I don't blame them. I imagine that they achieve some sort of emotional satisfaction by seeing one of these deadbeats rot in prison, even if it means a higher tax bill for themselves and a violent tyrannical police-state for their children.

People are welcome to support this sort of policy to gain this emotional satisfaction. Their vote counts just as much as mine. But I want to make it clear that this satisfaction is gained at the expense of liberty. Make your choice, but if you're willing to sacrifice liberty for it then you need to own that position.

But see, Steve, I don't think you can simplify their position to that degree. It isn't all just emotional satisfaction at seeing somebody rot. There is a substantive case out there to be made that legalization could actually _increase_ the social-cost overhang. It's based on the belief that what's already lost is lost, and cannot be regained...but many young people may be choosing to stay off that path due to fear of prosecution. The case that legalization will reduce social costs cannot just be asserted; it needs to be fleshed-out and have the details and evidence filled in convincingly. It seems logical to people that legalizing it will encourage more people to do it, and that collecting taxes off it will be "Military Complex - Part 2," and that the addiction counseling of these additional people will be "Great Society - Part 3," and on, and on, and on-and-on-and-on-and-on. This is not founded in silly, evil emotion. This is founded in hard-won experience with everything the government touches. People have given up hope of eliminating those evils, have accepted that evil is endemic to Government, and are now concerned with assessing which evils they do and don't want to exchange for other ones, since that seems to be the only choice they have.

People do not necessarily see the legalization position as an increase in Liberty, even to the extent they believe Liberty is the primary goal to be achieved. They may well see it as a trading-card exercise, where they're trying to assess the merits of "Drug War Evil" against "Addiction War Evil," with the understanding that whatever choice gets made, is forever, and the social-values Genie can't be put back in the bottle once it's out. They see the prospect of aimless, out-of-control youth with no legal consequences to hold them in line, no moral concept of family to hold them in line, and with both these factors replaced by a long, gray line of probably-leftist social workers and addiction counselors who want the state to expand endlessly, who have their fingers in the till, and who have no more stake in seeing the problem "go away" under the new scenario, than the jack-booted thugs did under the old one. So, they think, maybe staying with the status quo isn't so bad for now.

And I have to admit, I'm not sure on this one myself. I like to think I'm a proponent of Liberty. But hard experience tells me it's not so simple as running up a flag, demonizing the opposition as owning a silly, evil, emotional position, and holing up in the bunker with my ammo cases, congratulating myself on being so open-minded and rational while the other side is so intolerant and hateful. There are a lot of knowledgeable people who care deeply about society and freedom, who are not convinced legalization is the answer. I wouldn't be quick to reduce that position to hatred and emotion.

There's nothing like letting State and Local governments be the "laboratory." We got to see how things like Romneycare worked out in Massachusetts. CCW represents the vigilante Wild West of scary untrammeled individual freedom to many; yet, it has not resulted in such a scenario, after all. People have to be sold on freedom. Let's see how places like Colorado do with the "soft" drugs. I have a feeling one way or the other, evidence will be forthcoming. What I suspect, is that many have already formulated their position, and will have no interest in seeing the evidence, and will simply seek out their favorite news-pandering websites and seek to interpret every molecule of the available evidence in keeping with their already-formed position on the subject.

 

[steveh_131]

The case that legalization will reduce social costs cannot just be asserted; it needs to be fleshed-out and have the details and evidence filled in convincingly. It seems logical to people that legalizing it will encourage more people to do it, and that collecting taxes off it will be "Military Complex - Part 2," and that the addiction counseling of these additional people will be "Great Society - Part 3," and on, and on, and on-and-on-and-on-and-on.

I've been around this merry-go-round many, many times. There is overwhelming evidence that the social costs of prohibition are enormous. I have presented them before, but I fully believe the argument in favor of the emotional satisfaction wins out each and every time.

We got to see how things like Romneycare worked out in Massachusetts. Let's see how places like Colorado do with the "soft" drugs. I have a feeling one way or the other, evidence will be forthcoming.

We don't have to wait and see - we can simply look to history to see what happens when a drug is prohibited and then legalized a few years later: Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

The facts:

The use of this drug dropped temporarily and then immediately rose back to the usual levels.
Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.

The use of the harder, more dangerous forms of this drug skyrocketed.
Total Expenditure on Distilled Spirts as a Percentage of Total Alcohol Sales (1890-1960)

More people died from the use of this drug.

"the death rate from poisoned liquor was appallingly high throughout the country. In 1925 the national toll was 4,154 as compared to 1,064 in 1920. And the increasing number of deaths created a public relations problem for . . . the drys because they weren't exactly accidental."

More people began to abuse medicinal forms of this drug.

Prohibition also led many people to drink more "legitimate" alcohol, such as patent medicines (which contained high concentrations of alcohol), medicinal alcohol, and sacramental alcohol.[SUP][21][/SUP] The amount of alcoholic liquors sold by physicians and hospitals doubled between 1923 and 1931. The amount of medicinal alcohol (95 percent pure alcohol) sold increased by 400 percent during the same time.[SUP][22][/SUP] Those increases occurred despite rigorous new regulations.

More people were incarcerated.
Figure 3 Inmates at Sing Sing Prison: 1917-22

More murders took place.
Figure 4 Homicide Rate: 1910-44

The government expanded.

Prohibition not only created the Bureau of Prohibition, it gave rise to a dramatic increase in the size and power of other government agencies as well. Between 1920 and 1930 employment at the Customs Service increased 45 percent, and the service's annual budget increased 123 percent. Personnel of the Coast Guard increased 188 percent during the 1920s, and its budget increased more than 500 percent between 1915 and 1932.

And all of these problems were quickly alleviated when prohibition was repealed.

The parallels to today's drug war are undeniable to any thinking person.

Would you consider any of this to be an increase in liberty? Or a decrease in tax expenditures? It takes a very emotional outlook to draw any conclusions from this that support drug prohibition.

 

[Destro]

I

This is a very strange, irrational, and emotionally-charged argument.

indeed

 

[Twangbanger]

Issues of emotion, liberty, and taxes are present in every political discussion. The problem here is that your countrymen don't seem to think your Prohibition argument is game-set-match. They seem to think we're talking about something more dangerous, they seem to think the times are different, they seem to think peoples underlying values and moral character are different, and they seem to think the prevalence of the Welfare State is very different...all of which make this issue, well, different.

Prohibition was foisted upon the public by a temporary personality-cult movement, whose popularity soon waned. America woke up, realized they never wanted this, and it was over. Prohibition ended, simply, because the public didn't support it. I think today's task of educating and convincing the public is different in a lot of ways. Nobody's foisting anything upon anybody. The public is not ready. The fear of the unknown and unfamiliar is the big factor. If the people really support legalization of other recreational drugs, I suspect it will happen, eventually. And I don't think the government will frustrate the attempt because of the money and power it will lose; it will simply find a way to profit and grow under the new scenario. The difference is, here, we just don't have the advantage of a mainstream drug with a long history of legality to compare against.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think for a good portion of the pro drug war crowd, it's less about the war on drugs than it is the war on those they associate with drugs.

 

[Destro]

I think for a good portion of the pro drug war crowd, it's less about the war on drugs than it is the war on those they associate with drugs.

I think it's silly to keep calling it a war when it's clearly not

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think it's silly to keep calling it a war when it's clearly not

I agree, when they tell you to call it a war........just say no.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think it's silly to keep calling it a war when it's clearly not

Ask the people in South America if it's not a war that we've been fighting. Ask the Coast Guard and US Navy who've been involved in it. Ask the families of people killed in Mexico by the cartels if it's not a war. And ask the families of cops who've been killed fighting this non-existent war if it's a war.

 

[Destro]

Prohibition didn't work because "everybody" kept drinking anyway. Political elites and common man alike enjoyed a drink or a visit to a "speak easy." The effects of alcohol and marijuana on the majority of the population are short in duration and are of limited long term effect.

There are no "casual" crack users. There aren't "social" heroin users. Speakeasy's looked like fun, pretty sure nobody has fun at a crack house. The link between meth, crack, heroin, and the deviance that follows is not even in the same galaxy as that of alcohol and marijuana.

 

[Destro]

Ask the people in South America if it's not a war that we've been fighting. Ask the Coast Guard and US Navy who've been involved in it. Ask the families of people killed in Mexico by the cartels if it's not a war. And ask the families of cops who've been killed fighting this non-existent war if it's a war.

aren't those just "revenue generation operations"?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think for a good portion of the pro drug war crowd, it's less about the war on drugs than it is the war on those they associate with drugs.

I wonder if that's why it's more palatable for European countries to spend more on treatment and less on punitive measures.

 

[steveh_131]

Issues of emotion, liberty, and taxes are present in every political discussion. The problem here is that your countrymen don't seem to think your Prohibition argument is game-set-match. They seem to think we're talking about something more dangerous, they seem to think the times are different, they seem to think peoples underlying values and moral character are different, and they seem to think the prevalence of the Welfare State is very different...all of which make this issue, well, different.

If it is so different, why is it playing out in an identical fashion? Every consequence clearly tied to prohibition is happening now in exactly the same fashion.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Prohibition didn't work because "everybody" kept drinking anyway. Political elites and common man alike enjoyed a drink or a visit to a "speak easy." The effects of alcohol and marijuana on the majority of the population are short in duration and are of limited long term effect.

How many recent U.S. presidents smoked marijuana?

There are no "casual" crack users. There aren't "social" heroin users. Speakeasy's looked like fun, pretty sure nobody has fun at a crack house. The link between meth, crack, heroin, and the deviance that follows is not even in the same galaxy as that of alcohol and marijuana.

Crack, heroin and meth are comparable to the poisonous, dangerous moonshine that became popular during prohibition. I guess you didn't read the article that I posted.

What happened to dangerous moonshine after prohibition ended? Nobody wanted it so nobody made it. Why would you drink that crap when there are safer and better tasting alcohols available at the store?

The drugs that you're so scared of are a result of the drug war. They will go the way of ****-poor moonshine if we drop this drug war.

 

[Destro]

The drugs that you're so scared of are a result of the drug war. They will go the way of ****-poor moonshine if we drop this drug war.

How will they go away if you legalize them? Are you saying the crack will be safer?

 

[steveh_131]

How will they go away if you legalize them? Are you saying the crack will be safer?

Crack exists because better, safer drugs are unavailable or too expensive because of prohibition.

If they are legalized and mass produced, they can become as cheap as a box of wine from Costco and nobody will take a second glance at crack.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

In a justice system chock full of things that I don't understand, I totally can't get my mind around releasing people on the street who have committed terrible violent acts on others in order to make room for people whose greatest crime against humanity is growing a forbidden plant.