GameTavern - The "War" on Drugs

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Happy Hour (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - The "War" on Drugs (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18879)

The "War" on Drugs

Seems like it's time for our next political discussion. I thought we could discuss the legalization or criminalization of drugs.

Personally, I don't have a solid opinion on this subject, but I would like to submit an essay written by William F. Buckley to begin our discussion, in which he argues for the legalization of drugs (except to minors):

Quote:

"WE ARE speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen -- yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect.

Perhaps you, ladies and gentlemen of the Bar, will understand it if I chronicle my own itinerary on the subject of drugs and public policy. When I ran for mayor of New York, the political race was jocular, but the thought given to municipal problems was entirely serious, and in my paper on drugs and in my post-election book I advocated their continued embargo, but on unusual grounds. I had read -- and I think the evidence continues to affirm it -- that drug-taking is a gregarious activity. What this means, I said, is that an addict is in pursuit of company and therefore attempts to entice others to share with him his habit. Under the circumstances, I said, it can reasonably be held that drug-taking is a contagious disease and, accordingly, subject to the conventional restrictions employed to shield the innocent from Typhoid Mary. Some sport was made of my position by libertarians, including Professor Milton Friedman, who asked whether the police might legitimately be summoned if it were established that keeping company with me was a contagious activity.

I recall all of this in search of philosophical perspective. Back in 1965 I sought to pay conventional deference to libertarian presumptions against outlawing any activity potentially harmful only to the person who engages in that activity. I cited John Stuart Mill and, while at it, opined that there was no warrant for requiring motorcyclists to wear a helmet. I was seeking, and I thought I had found, a reason to override the presumption against intercession by the state.

About ten years later, I deferred to a different allegiance, this one not the presumptive opposition to state intervention, but a different order of priorities. A conservative should evaluate the practicality of a legal constriction, as for instance in those states whose statute books continue to outlaw sodomy, which interdiction is unenforceable, making the law nothing more than print-on-paper. I came to the conclusion that the so-called war against drugs was not working, that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we are accustomed and to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony. And that therefore if that war against drugs is not working, we should look into what effects the war has, a canvass of the casualties consequent on its failure to work. That consideration encouraged me to weigh utilitarian principles: the Benthamite calculus of pain and pleasure introduced by the illegalization of drugs.

A YEAR or so ago I thought to calculate a ratio, however roughly arrived at, toward the elaboration of which I would need to place a dollar figure on deprivations that do not lend themselves to quantification. Yet the law, lacking any other recourse, every day countenances such quantifications, as when asking a jury to put a dollar figure on the damage done by the loss of a plaintiff's right arm, amputated by defective machinery at the factory. My enterprise became allegorical in character -- I couldn't do the arithmetic -- but the model, I think, proves useful in sharpening perspectives.

Professor Steven Duke of Yale Law School, in his valuable book, America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade against Drugs, and scholarly essay, ``Drug Prohibition: An Unnatural Disaster,'' reminds us that it isn't the use of illegal drugs that we have any business complaining about, it is the abuse of such drugs. It is acknowledged that tens of millions of Americans (I have seen the figure 85 million) have at one time or another consumed, or exposed themselves to, an illegal drug. But the estimate authorized by the federal agency charged with such explorations is that there are not more than 1 million regular cocaine users, defined as those who have used the drug at least once in the preceding week. There are (again, an informed estimate) 5 million Americans who regularly use marijuana; and again, an estimated 70 million who once upon a time, or even twice upon a time, inhaled marijuana. From the above we reasonably deduce that Americans who abuse a drug, here defined as Americans who become addicted to it or even habituated to it, are a very small percentage of those who have experimented with a drug, or who continue to use a drug without any observable distraction in their lives or careers. About such users one might say that they are the equivalent of those Americans who drink liquor but do not become alcoholics, or those Americans who smoke cigarettes but do not suffer a shortened lifespan as a result.

Curiosity naturally flows to ask, next, How many users of illegal drugs in fact die from the use of them? The answer is complicated in part because marijuana finds itself lumped together with cocaine and heroin, and nobody has ever been found dead from marijuana. The question of deaths from cocaine is complicated by the factor of impurity. It would not be useful to draw any conclusions about alcohol consumption, for instance, by observing that, in 1931, one thousand Americans died from alcohol consumption if it happened that half of those deaths, or more than half, were the result of drinking alcohol with toxic ingredients extrinsic to the drug as conventionally used. When alcohol was illegal, the consumer could never know whether he had been given relatively harmless alcohol to drink -- such alcoholic beverages as we find today in the liquor store -- or whether the bootlegger had come up with paralyzing rotgut. By the same token, purchasers of illegal cocaine and heroin cannot know whether they are consuming a drug that would qualify for regulated consumption after clinical analysis.

But we do know this, and I approach the nexus of my inquiry, which is that more people die every year as a result of the war against drugs than die from what we call, generically, overdosing. These fatalities include, perhaps most prominently, drug merchants who compete for commercial territory, but include also people who are robbed and killed by those desperate for money to buy the drug to which they have become addicted.

This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs. Since a cocaine addict can spend as much as $1,000 per week to sustain his habit, he would need to come up with that $1,000. The approximate fencing cost of stolen goods is 80 per cent, so that to come up with $1,000 can require stealing $5,000 worth of jewels, cars, whatever. We can see that at free-market rates, $20 per week would provide the addict with the cocaine which, in this wartime drug situation, requires of him $1,000.

My mind turned, then, to auxiliary expenses -- auxiliary pains, if you wish. The crime rate, whatever one made of its modest curtsy last year toward diminution, continues its secular rise. Serious crime is 480 per cent higher than in 1965. The correlation is not absolute, but it is suggestive: crime is reduced by the number of available enforcers of law and order, namely policemen. The heralded new crime legislation, passed last year and acclaimed by President Clinton, provides for 100,000 extra policemen, even if only for a limited amount of time. But 400,000 policemen would be freed to pursue criminals engaged in activity other than the sale and distribution of drugs if such sale and distribution, at a price at which there was no profit, were to be done by, say, a federal drugstore.

So then we attempt to put a value on the goods stolen by addicts. The figure arrived at by Professor Duke is $10 billion. But we need to add to this pain of stolen property, surely, the extra-material pain suffered by victims of robbers. If someone breaks into your house at night, perhaps holding you at gunpoint while taking your money and your jewelry and whatever, it is reasonable to assign a higher ``cost'' to the episode than the commercial value of the stolen money and jewelry. If we were modest, we might reasonably, however arbitrarily, put at $1,000 the ``value'' of the victim's pain. But then the hurt, the psychological trauma, might be evaluated by a jury at ten times, or one hundred times, that sum.

But we must consider other factors, not readily quantifiable, but no less tangible. Fifty years ago, to walk at night across Central Park was no more adventurous than to walk down Fifth Avenue. But walking across the park is no longer done, save by the kind of people who climb the Matterhorn. Is it fair to put a value on a lost amenity? If the Metropolitan Museum were to close, mightn't we, without fear of distortion, judge that we had been deprived of something valuable? What value might we assign to confidence that, at night, one can sleep without fear of intrusion by criminals seeking money or goods exchangeable for drugs?

Pursuing utilitarian analysis, we ask: What are the relative costs, on the one hand, of medical and psychological treatment for addicts and, on the other, incarceration for drug offenses? It transpires that treatment is seven times more cost-effective. By this is meant that one dollar spent on the treatment of an addict reduces the probability of continued addiction seven times more than one dollar spent on incarceration. Looked at another way: Treatment is not now available for almost half of those who would benefit from it. Yet we are willing to build more and more jails in which to isolate drug users even though at one-seventh the cost of building and maintaining jail space and pursuing, detaining, and prosecuting the drug user, we could subsidize commensurately effective medical care and psychological treatment.

I HAVE spared you, even as I spared myself, an arithmetical consummation of my inquiry, but the data here cited instruct us that the cost of the drug war is many times more painful, in all its manifestations, than would be the licensing of drugs combined with intensive education of non-users and intensive education designed to warn those who experiment with drugs. We have seen a substantial reduction in the use of tobacco over the last thirty years, and this is not because tobacco became illegal but because a sentient community began, in substantial numbers, to apprehend the high cost of tobacco to human health, even as, we can assume, a growing number of Americans desist from practicing unsafe sex and using polluted needles in this age of AIDS. If 80 million Americans can experiment with drugs and resist addiction using information publicly available, we can reasonably hope that approximately the same number would resist the temptation to purchase such drugs even if they were available at a federal drugstore at the mere cost of production.

And added to the above is the point of civil justice. Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs sought after by the minority.

I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Legalize it, tax the hell out of it like cigarettes are, and be done. Will underground operations still exist? Yeah. At least it'll shut the gov't up and take more of our money.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Eh, I disagree. I dont think anything should be legalized. I do think the government needs to do more to fight the Drug problem though. At least around here, the cops need to stop worring about busting underage drinking parties and go after the many many high schoolers doing cocaine. I swear in my town the cops get a hard on when they bust an underage drinking party.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Marijuana and all psychedelics should be legal. A hell of a lot safer than alcohol.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

I have yet to hear a decent argument as to why to make them legal, and considering I don't do them, nor care to be around people who do them, my vote is to keep them illegal.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

It's more of an freedom issue. Doesn't seem fair to throw someone in jail for possession of marijuana when the only harm they'll cause is to a bag of chips. All those arrests translates into a huge waste of money that could be much better spent.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason1 (Post 237560)

That's because, statistically, underage drinking results in more DUIs and "accidents" than some kids doing coke. At least when you OD on cocaine you only drag yourself down. Besides, I can only imagine cocaine use is isolated amongst the teenage crowd, but what do I know I was never "hip" with the drugs. I would imagine proving that someone is high on cocaine is difficult as well. They can't breathalyze you, and anyone who has the slightest sense of their basic rights would deny taking a blood or urine test. Underage drinking party = good night for cops. Trust me, I'm sure the town I grew up in was worse than yours. If you got caught at a party with alcohol and you were underage they would publish your name in the paper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gekko (Post 237577)

I have yet to hear a decent argument as to why to make them legal, and considering I don't do them, nor care to be around people who do them, my vote is to keep them illegal.

Prohibition doesn't work. I did a whole research paper on prohibition of alcohol, it was a giant failure. Actually, that's not entirely true. Chicago's economy saw an influx. There was an exponential growth of crime, and gangsters (like the famous Al Capone) took over the city. It was a profitable time for Chicago and there was massive growth in the city. Of course, it was at the expense of high crime rates, gang wars, and deaths, but never mind that. In the end alcohol still became legal.

Realistically, we can't and shouldn't legalize all drugs. And maybe this is where we agree. I think we should decriminalize drugs like Marijuana, which has been shown to be a very safe drug to use. But throwing billions of dollars at this "war on drugs" is not working. There is a very profitable black market making tons of money off the prohibition of drugs. Just like there was back when alcohol was banned.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Yeah, I think decriminalizing Marijuana makes the most sense and that's coming from someone who has never used it but know many who do. It's certainly less dangerous to use than alcohol and would be less expensive to deal with. How much money has been spent and how many lives have been lost due to drunk driving? And how many lives have been ruined due to Alcoholism? Far too many from my own experience. I feel like Marijuana is fairly harmless and legalizing it would give the taxing and economic power back to the government and not to drug dealers. I'd probably keep the harder drugs illegal...

Re: The "War" on Drugs

I somehow don't think legalizing any drugs will make the black market go away and give our government a boost of money. Somehow I'm not too optimistic that by putting tarifs on drugs, everyone will want to legally import them into the country. I'd imagine they would continue their current successful ways of sneaking it in, and selling it for a lower price.

Even if we did legalize it, I still think much funding would go towards forcing the legal trade of drugs, which doesn't help solve anything.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

I tend to agree, because I could never see legalizing cocaine or heroin or meth. What I can see is decriminalizing marijuana....if Joe Businessman gets busted for having some pot in his possession, and he has no previous criminal record....let the guy go. He's not hurting anyone. Obviously, what the pro-legalization people do not mention is that many people who go to prison on minor drug offenses also have prior offenses or are violating parole. But it's sad when some people go to jail for 20 years over large possession charges and someone who rapes a girl gets paroled out of prison in 2 to 5 years.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Maybe it's because I'm from BC, maybe not - but I think weed should be legalized.

Nothing else, just weed.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that here in BC practically everyone and their mother and their mothers father smokes dope. Many kids even smoke it/get it from their parents or have open conversations about it. Many people walk down main roads during the middle of the day and just light up a joint. And these people do not needlessly and senselessly attack one another. Weed here, is seen in a better light than alcohol. Yet it remains illegal. I'm not comparing weed to booze by any means, but I'd definitely compare them to cigarettes.

I say make weed legal, same as cigarettes. Can't buy them until you're 19. Tax the hell out of it. Will there be people still growing their own? Of course. Some people grow tobacco - but if it's legal, the convenience after time will slowly kick in, and people will get used to just walking down to a store to buy a pack of joints. And if they get caught with plants in their back yard for distribution purposes, instead of being seen as a minor criminal (In Canada), the government would then view them as a citizen who is trying to shirk the government of tax dollars. And they tend to crack down on that a lot harder and more efficiently than someone who's growing some seeds.

Everyone expects a quick fix. Things rarely drastically change right away. It takes time.

I tenderly await the day that they legalize pot in Canada, if not only BC. It gets a blind eye turned to in everyday life here so much anyways, that it seems ridiculous that it's still illegal.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Quote:

Originally Posted by gekko (Post 237647)

Unfortunately, history does not agree with you. When prohibition began, organized crime skyrocketed along with the black market for illegal alcohol. It was so prevalent that it affects our culture today. Stock car racing (NASCAR) was created by RUMRUNNERS who used to try and outrun the law to get moonshine up north.

When alcohol was decriminalized, all crime related to it disintegrated and added costs of distribution were adopted by those in the trade, and in fact the taxes on alcohol have been a huge boost state funding.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S (Post 237664)

That's not exactly the same. Alcohol was being produced in America, was made illegal, and then legal again. The main difference was it was being produced here. Some of it still is. Others are made by legitimate corporations in foreign countries, like the wonderful Laphroaig Distillery in Scotland.

I'm sorry, but cocaine is not being distributed around the world by law-abiding corporations, and we don't have any inside the United States which can suddenly sell legally to its citizens. You think they'll just suddenly stop sneaking it into the US and spend some extra money creating fancy packaging to sell it at Wal-Mart and then suddenly pay all the additional fees from the tarifs? I think you're nuts.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Quote:

Originally Posted by gekko (Post 237677)

With all due espect, history still doesn't agree with your assertions. Jack Kennedy Sr. became rich smuggling booze in to the US from all over Europe. Most southern moonshine went to Chicago and then distributed west, but the North Eastern megalopolis was fed by Europe.

Now are there still moonshiners up in the hills? Sure, but not many and they don't produce anything worth considering. When black markets are made legal, the black markets for the same product basically disappear. You can make that case for anything from booze to abortion. Its just the power of free markets and choice.

Here is an example that is related to your argument: Will the cocaine farmers in other nations still want to sell their product illegally? Yes, but they aren't taking the risk. Its the distributors/dealers stateside who will demand the above board product because they will reduce their risk of being arrested and jailed from everything ranging from racketeering to tax evasion. They will accept a reduced profit potential for a greatly reduced risk, just like it happened with foreign alcohol after prohibition.

BTW, I'm not saying drugs should be legal. I'm saying that historically the case you're making doesn't hold up, thats all. I'm personally conflicted on the issue of any drugs beyone weed being legaized, and it should be, but hard drugs and halucinogens (which all have lifetime affects and an easily harm others around the user) are a far more difficult matter.

Whats not difficult to decide is whether or not our current efforts have succeeded or failed. Walk on any college campus and you'll see how great a failure our war on drugs has been. What to do about that failure is a more difficult question.

Re: The "War" on Drugs

Again, I think you're way too optimistic on the issue. I don't see drug cartels of today comparable to the alcohol industry of nearly a century ago. Blindly following history is as bad as ignoring it entirely. I just don't see it as cut and dry as you try to make it out to be.