The War on Drugs

A more apt title for this post may well be "The Republican Version of the Progressive Liberals' position of 'It is not working, therefore we need to do more if it'."

Yesterday, I was again drawn into a conversation concerning farce that is the so-called war on drugs. Literally billions spent, thousands lives ruined, and even the most ardent supporter can not honestly claim this "war" has been any sort of success.

With the legalization of drugs, there are many possible outcomes and only ONE certainty. That organized crime will no longer be part of the equation. Mind you, I don't speak for any party, rather I am a Libertarian stating my take on the matter. Interesting side thought though, is that after all these billions, the percentage of "non-functioning" addicts has remained relatively unchanged compared to the percentage before this charade called the war on drugs started.

The fellow I was speaking with was a classical conservative Republican. He said: @Scott - we have prison overcrowding and we have just shut down one of our county jails due to lack of funding. I would have to believe by shutting that capacity down we are already releasing those non-violent offenders. I say we ship all of them to an island dump some drugs there and make it a free-for-all and the toughest win. We'll send some seeds and they can grow their own. We'll park a war-ship off of the coast and if anyone tries to leave we blow them out of the water.

As far as the existing problem in my area, specifically one house on my street? I m going to speak to my friend at Crime Stoppers on Wednesday and see what he thinks. We have called the police so many times and have turned in pictures of the license plates that are in and out at all hours of the day and night. Unpleasant aromas and odd trash and substances being flushed down the street, but the police do nothing about it. I guess I am going to have to make a stand and get something juicy on this person(s.)

I don't know what the best answer is to defeat the drug problem, but I am can't agree in making it legal would be of a benefit other than reducing the gangs, which mostly kill off one another anyway. - End Quote

My take on that is that his view is similar with the Progressive Liberals', it is just about a different issue. A government program is proven not to work, so let's keep doing it. I think the flaw in his thinking on this issue is that if drugs were legalized, use would automatically increase. Let's not forget, (and you can check this for yourself if you find it too incredible to believe), about 50 years ago, you could buy heroin, complete with a syringe, 3 needles, and a shiny carrying case from the Sears & Robuck catalog. Even with that convenience, there were no more non-functioning addicts than there are now. Now, compare the alcohol prohibition years and discover similar results. The obvious conclusion is that people who are inclined to use drugs are going to do so. The law does not stop them. The question then becomes, what do we do about it? There are many theories I have heard, and I will not waste space with mine, but again, the certainty is that prohibition has introduced the hard-core criminal element into the equation, much as it did during alcohol prohibition.

Much of what I learned about the "war on drugs" was gained from Daniel Williams' book, "The Naked Truth About Drugs". I have met Daniel, and he is a contributor to this blog, a GREAT friend and a fantastic source of real information. For your reference, here is a link to his book:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+naked+truth+about+drugs&x=15&y=14

Back to the point, there is drug use in your community and you are worried that legalization would result in an increase. The question still remains, what to do about the existing problem in your area. We know the current strategy is not working, because he (the repub) says there are currently drugs being used in his neighborhood.

To use loose numbers from memory, the number of non-functioning drug addicts is at almost 3% of the population. Almost exactly the same as it was before prohibition. By non-functioning, I mean people who live only to get high. Don't work, don't have social lives, etc. Only the drugs. Now introduce the "functioning addict", very similar, if not identical, to the functioning alcoholic. Goes to work, has friends, etc. I only mention him to clarify what I mean by non-functioning addict.

It is proven through surveys of non-functioning addicts that if they could do nothing but get high, but had to do so at the cost of loosing their freedom, the vast majority (over 90% if memory serves) would do so.

My solution: Release those who are serving time for simple possession. Use those now emptied prison cells to house addicts and let them have at it. This would
a) get the criminals out of the equation,
b) ensure those addicts were taking "pure drugs", without the "cut" that is so often responsible for the overdoses, and
c) ensure that there was adequate help available for any that would later decide they no longer wanted to do the drugs.

As a side benefit, the cost would be no more than it currently is housing users who are in prison, while providing several benefits that I just mentioned. Plus, the criminals and gangs are removed from the equation, as there is no longer profit to be made for them.

I know, I said I wasn't going to state my theory, but I'm on a roll now.

So to the Conservative Republican's ideas, I'll conclude: "Okay then. Victory at the barrel of a gun." The problem as I see it, it that after untold money being spent, untold bullets being used, and untold lives being ruined, "victory" still has not been achieved. The concept that the gangsters are going to kill one another off is ridiculous. As long as the profits are there to be made, there will always be another to step in the dearly departed's shoes. The local jail shutting down because of over crowding is largely the result of government created "criminals" over crowding the system.

I apologize to the Republicans who share this man's views, but in my humble opinion, his reasoning is flawed on several levels. Perhaps we ought to agree to disagree, because I can not buy into the idea of "what we're doing doesn't work, so let's do more of it".