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.

[Dominique]

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.

Why? Greater threat to whom? What conotates an average citizen? Are illegal narcotics a greater threat to drug addicts? To drug pushers? To cops who enforce anti-drug laws? To bystanders caught in the middle? Do you think that drug users are being forced to use the drugs and to buy them? Where in the above post is your question?

Did you mean to ask:

What should be done about it?

For my opinion (I actually just finished writing about it) see My Webpage.

[ex_banana-eater]

No, our only moral answer is to legalize drugs. Government does not exist for regulation on peaceful acts, but to maintain the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. When a government initiates force, it isn't acting qua proper government, which are designed for living man qua man.

Prohibition leads to increases in violent crime and theft. By creating a black market through prohibition, the gangsters and hoodlums who sell drugs control billions in trade to prop up their organized crime syndicates. If we were to pull the rug out from underneath them, organized crime would be much less of a problem.

When a black market is created, black market prices are the result. The drug addict bums who live on the streets likely do so because of black market prices. These are the same people who often commit property crimes like breaking into cars and houses to steal cash for their habit.

Al Queda and other enemies rely on much of their funding from the illicit drug trade. What if legitimate businessmen, who had to obey the law, began to produce these drugs rather than Al Queda? Just like the domestic criminals, their funds would largely decrease (although militant Islamic groups do have state sponsorship from countries like Iran and Syria too).

Black market drugs can be very unsafe. Often, they're mixed with stronger drugs, or have harmful chemicals in them left over from "bathtub breweries." Legitimate companies on the other hand have to maintain the quality of their product, and cannot put a harmful chemical inside that can kill a person immediately. In my general area, there was a batch of heroin going around killing people with one use because it contained cleaner products.

When drugs are legal, the addict may be more open to consulting his doctor for help. Additionally, there are other medical problems that are created by prohibition: It is harder for researchers to obtain approval to study illicit drugs, especially if they are private researchers rather than the government ones. If we saw less regulatory restrictions, I wouldn’t be surprised if medical companies came up with new means to shutting off the physical withdrawal effects of illegal drugs. We have transdermal patches, inhalers (new), nasal insufflators, and gum for tobacco users—I would hope for the same thing for other addicts. Some expect HIV and hepatitis infections to reduce too, since clean needles would be available to drug users.

You already mentioned a fairly apparent benefit: The billions upon billions spent on the war on drugs could either go back to taxpayers, or to fund police, the criminal justice system, and the military. There are about 20 billion dollars spent on the war on drugs each year. The casualties? 700,000 people arrested for drug related crime, 45% of them with cannabis charges.

Think for just a moment about the “moral” argument to keep prohibition in place. Those who support it say the government implicitly sanctions drug use. Therefore, we can determine that when something is legal to do, the government (whose purpose is not to spread ideas anyway, but to use retaliatory force) sanctions it. Do you consider it moral to treat random people like crap—flailing insults at one another? It’s legal to do this you know, but no one in their right mind would think the government’s “Official Morality Meter for the Populus” would say so.

Here is the site on Capitalism http://www.capitalism.org/ Visit it, take “The Tour” and learn the Objectivist approach to government.

[BurgessLau]

Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.

Laws prohibiting the ownership or sale or use of certain "drugs" violate the rights to property and liberty. They are immoral, for that reason.

How would you "balance" immoral solutions and moral solutions?

The solution to the "problem" of adult drug addiction is complete and immediate abolition of all anti-drug laws.

By the way, what is your philosophy, particularly the principles of your political philosophy?

[JOEBIALEK]

Illegal narcotics are yet another symptom of this country imploding as opposed to exploding (terrorists). We must urgently find the answer with a proper balance otherwise there won't be a country worth defending.

[DavidOdden]

Illegal narcotics are yet another symptom of this country imploding as opposed to exploding (terrorists).  We must urgently find the answer with a proper balance otherwise there won't be a country worth defending.

Hey, Joe. You're quite a prolific poster, although you seem to post the same thing to lots of boards. Do you intend to reply, at some point in the future, in a manner than suggests that you actually read replies, and that you are not a 'bot? A clever 'bot, but a 'bot nonetheless. I loved your "My name is Joe Bialek and I was born on September 12, 1963" post. All 200 or so copies.

[Iakeo]

No, our only moral answer is to legalize drugs.

Wow,.. capitalism has it's own PayPal account..!

Cool. Weird,.. but cool.

As to the question on the table, which I didn't actually see posted AS a question,..

What does a society do about things that facilitate the habitual and addictive use

of "reality evasion" (my restatement of the non-question implicit in the original

posting of this thread).

Individuals are free to be as evil (reality evasive) as they wish, but if that evil

causes them to break the "trade" principle (trade-like [mutually beneficial value

for value] transactions are permitted while "force" transactions are not), then they

are to be dealt with by the government, in it's only moral function, as defender of

and enforcer for the "forced upon".

So, individuals should be allowed to trade for whatever they like, and use

whatever thing they like, but if because of using or "getting funds to supply" an

individual's habitual evil-producing (reallity evading) thing a "forced transaction"

(crime) is commited, the fact that the individual has a known habitual addiction

to "doing evil" (reality evading via drugs) should be taken into account to protect

other individuals (in society) from the druggy's addictive habitual behavior

(commiting crime [improper trade transaction] to support their addictive habitual

need for something for which they must commit a crime].

( Incarcerated individuals should ALWAYS be given the option of suicide

to "escape" their "torment". )

( Any addict that can support their addiction without commiting a crime [an

improper trade transaction] can not be charged with commiting a crime

[obviously] so they are safe to allow to remain un-incarcerated, as they do no one

harm.

( Any addict that commits a crime MUST be incarcerated as they've shown

themselves to be addicted to something that has, and therefore will, cause them

to commit more crimes to support their addiction. That is the nature of addiction.

It compells behavior, and until the addiction is conquered it will compell the addict

to commit crime. )

The government, who's only function is to protect and defend those who trade

properly from those who don't, should ensure that addicts are either de-

addictified, or kept from all other individuals permanently.

( Recommiting a "drug related" crime equals "you're an addict, and even more so

now as you've been 'warned' and didn't heed, and therefore get X times more of a

sentence than a first offender. If you do this Y times [recommit crime] you remain

incarcerated permanently. )

The prospect of being incarcerated forever (without access to any reality-evasion

producing drugs) might act as a hefty deterent to use of said substances.

It might also have an interesting side-effect of getting pushers driven from local

communities on the proverbial rail for DARING to put things in the hands

of "vulnerable individuals" that could get them incarcerated forever.

If the government, acting only as a government should, in defense of individuals

that trade properly, acts to rid the populace of those who have proven that they

are incapable of proper trade practices, the "drug problem", and several other

problems as well, no doubt, will simply evaporate.

Just some thoughts.

-Iakeo

[Removed long quote -GC]

Edited April 16, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[konerko14]

I know drug use can be dangerous to the individual who uses it and others who are intentionally involved, but doesnt it increase gang violence and puts innocent bystanders at risk as well? However, if drugs were made legal and sold safely through pharmacies or stores, than that would dramatically decrease the violence, wouldnt it?

What about drunk driving though? That seems to be very similar to how the drug scene is today. The drunk driver puts himself at risk but will also probably endanger others too. Just like how drug users and sellers put themselves at risk, they also increase violence on the streets and will probably endanger others who arent involved. So if drugs should be legalized then drunk driving should be legalized too? Why is this not true?

[DavidOdden]

So if drugs should be legalized then drunk driving should be legalized too? Why is this not true?

Bad analogy. The correct analogies are legalising alcohol or legalizing drugs; and driving drunk or drihing on drugs. Making drugs legal does not mean that all destructive behaviors that result from taking drugs becomes legal. Drunk driving should be legal on drunk-driving roads -- enter at your own risk. You're complicating the issue, too, by assuming that the government should be running a system of roads, which it shouldn't.

[Qwertz]

Even more so, those persons who did sell or buy drugs would have access to the justice system should they be victimized. Right now, drug dealers have no legal recourse when a rival steals their smack, and prostitutes have no legal recourse against johns who beat them up, or pimps who take their money. Drugs and prostitution (and most other vices) are dangerous because they're illegal, not illegal because they're dangerous.

As for drunk driving, it's completely different. It's more like the drug user, not the drug dealer. Use of alcohol and use of drugs should both be legal. Killing someone while your high or drunk, or engaging in behavior that endangers others is not. Remember, drug dealers only increase violence because dealing drugs is illegal. Drunk drivers do violence to people regardless of the legality of drunk driving.

-Q

(Mod's note: I have split off subsequent posts about substance abuse being a violation of other people's rights -- as in drunken driving -- into a separate thread. - sN)

Edited August 18, 2006 by softwareNerd

[DarkWaters]

I stumbled upon this disturbing article on the other forum.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Late last month, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the death of the Kathryn Johnston, the 92-year-old Atlanta woman killed by police during a November 2006 drug raid on her home.

Johnston died when she mistook a team of narcotics officers for criminal intruders. When the police broke down her door, she met them with an old pistol. They opened fire, and killed her.

A subsequent investigation revealed that the entire chain of events up to and shortly after Johnston's death were beset with lies, planted evidence, and cover-up on the part of the narcotics cops. They fabricated an imaginary informant to get the search warrant for Ms. Johnston's home. They planted evidence on a convicted felon, arrested him, then let him off in exchange for his tip—which he made up from whole cloth—that they'd find drugs in Ms. Johnston's house.

When they realized their mistake, they then tried to portray an innocent old woman as a drug dealer. They planted marijuana in Ms. Johnston's basement while she lay handcuffed and bleeding on the floor.

More investigation revealed that this kind of behavior wasn't aberrant, but common among narcotics officers in the Atlanta Police Department. Police Chief Richard Pennington eventually dismissed or reassigned the entire narcotics division of the APD.

I recommend reading the entire article. Here is another particularly frightening paragraph:

Jarrell Bray, a longtime informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration's Cleveland field office, admitted that with the cooperation of DEA agent Lee Lucas, he had repeatedly lied in court to secure the convictions of innocent people. Bray said he and Lucas fabricated evidence, falsely accused people who had done nothing wrong, then concocted bogus testimony to secure their convictions.

The emphasis is mine. That last sentence is so outrageous it is almost unbelievable.

[softwareNerd]

That's indeed a shocking case. Almost makes one want to send a donation to the ACLU. According to one professor, testifying before a Congressional committee, the informant system has few checks and controls. Such a system, used against anything, is bound to spin out of control somewhere.

Legalizing drugs is such a no-brainer!

[KendallJ]

Andrew Napolitano's book Constitutional Chaos cites this flagrant abuse by the police as one of the main reasons he turned from conservative to libertarian while sitting as a federal judge. This kind of stuff is stunning, and the drug war is one of the places this stuff shows up so commonly, and the majority of people abide by it because we're "getting drug dealers" off the streets.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I probably advocate the gradual legalization of drugs beginning with Marijuana. We knew how government creates black markets and about the violence surrounding them way back in the day of Al Capone. The government bureaucrats become the real gangsters. The point would be eloquently illustrated with the legalization of aspects of organized crime such as prostitution and drugs (which should not be illegal in the first place), because it would be legalized in an environment of gross taxation. The legalization of those things would make the government the grand pimps and the grand kingpins. The populace wold never support tax breaks for kingpin and pimps. They got in the mess when they outlawed such practices as prositution and drugs. And now, today, it would be the grand irony for them to get out of the mess by legalizing drugs and prostitution, because they would have to get a cut through taxation of a practice that was formerly illegal.

There is a 'legitimate" black market, i.e., theft. When thieves get organized and sell stolen goods to ignorant citizens (or not). Fighting this is legitimate and the proper role of government. There will always be organized crime because all you need is more than one criminal. The essense of organized crime is not pyramid scheme. It is the effectiveness of being organized. Without the artificial crimes such as gambling, prostitution, and drugs, the archetypical mafiosi has to rely on crimes originating in force, such as extortion, contract murder, and theft. This is much easier to fight. Then you add the other stuff and the government creates a mess that they can never stop, because men will always find a way to do what they want. Before these artificial crimes, prostitution, for example, was in the open, and so it was easier to spot the abusive pimp, and get him for the brute force that he initiates, not for arranging a meeting between his "client" and his "employee". (When in history there was ever an environment such as this I do not know, but I can imagine such a time, and guess it is sometime in the late nineteenth century). Or the drug dealer would have a shop, and there would be protesters outside, and articles warning people against it, and warnings from parents and teachers. And there would be the medical researcher and psychologist who could test the popular drug and suggest to people healthier alternatives that have a similar effect. Or you could send non-religious missionaries to talk to the Johns walking out of the brothels and persuade them to feel shame and to change their ways.

And then there's the economic issues involved where such things are cheaper on a free market.

But really I can't say that I advocate the legalization of drugs right now because of the horrific war that would ensue between the criminal organizations and the entrepreneur who wants to start a legitimate business. The government would still have to support this entrepreneur and protect him. Otherwise the market would again be taken over by the criminal elements.

This topic interests me. I would love to be able to sort through the mess and the blind alleys that confront us today.

It seems to me that the real solution is the solution to everything. When a rational philosophy penetrates the schools, from pre-school to the universities. When men develop a love for learning and identifying reality akin to that of Leonardo Da Vinci.

[softwareNerd]

But really I can't say that I advocate the legalization of drugs right now because of the horrific war that would ensue between the criminal organizations and the entrepreneur who wants to start a legitimate business.

Did this happen when prohibition was repealed? Any such reaction is bound to be short-lived as the price-premium is eroded by legal availabilty.

Separately, here's another news-story, related to drug laws. This guy was sent to jail for 25 years because he was caught with 100 pills of drugs that he was using for his pain (he never sold/dealt). Now, in prison, they allow him to be on a government-provided morphine pump! (Fortunately, it seems that his appeal will come through.) (HT: SC Thinker)

[AMERICONORMAN]

Can you elaborate on the first part. I think there is something for me to learn here.

However, I imagine it will still be violent though short lived as you say. But so would, I guess, the sudden moratorium on welfare payments?

There is a clear difference between the legalization of alcohol and cocaine. The majority of people wanted to drink; it was clearly an unfair law. With cocaine, however, most people are afraid of it. Cocaine would be hard to market. But let's take Marijuana, which even famous people admit to doing; here, you would have a non-criminal explaining to people through mass marketing the joys to be found in smoking marijuana, a whole culture would be builit around it, whole new products would come into place, like "laced cigarettes", or teas, chocolate, pastries, food recipes, etc. It is easy for me to predict the envious "mafiosi" (mafiosi is my term for any organized gangster with a certain criminal philosophy), this mafiosi would make life very difficult for the legitimate business man.

Yes, the police would have to protect the businessman. My point is that I don't think there will be enough police to do it, or competent police. I'm not attacking the police officers who do exist. I'm attacking the government who prefer to fund the whims of lobbyists as opposed to the core functions of government.

What else do you think, Nerd?

[softwareNerd]

It's really hard to speculate about what would happen, but I don't think there is precedent to indicate that criminals will hit out against businesses in a situation like this. Take the situation with gambling that is done illegally and then becomes legal. I've heard of criminal gangs that once ran illegal gambling, becoming "respectable" owners of legal casinos. In the process, though, they "de-criminalize" significantly.

The essential economic fact is that the criminals are in the business because it is illegal. This means the whole supply chain requires a different type of "skill" along each step of the way (viz. the skill of avoiding cops). This also entails large extra costs at each step of the way. By removing the requirement for this extra "skill", legalization converts the trade into just another business. The only reason criminals have to stay in such a business is the fact that they are already in it. This precedent alone cannot be a driving force for long. Even if they intimidate some newcomers in some areas, there will definitely be some areas where law enforcement controls them. Over time, the newcomers here and there will grow large and more widespread.

It's particularly likely that some kingpins, being the "practical men" they are, will simply switch to being legitimate dealers. They'll simply ditch their suppliers and their armies of low-level pushers, and move on. Possibly many businesses will be reluctant to go into the trade in the beginning, even if it is legalized. One cannot imagine WalMart selling marijuana, when they don't sell books and songs that customers may find objectionable. Existing dealers will have no such qualms.

Even if the retailing were to stay in control of seedy folk, why would they go to Columbia for their supply. They could simply set up farms and labs in the U.S. They would still have to protect themselves from rival gangs, but their arch-enemy -- the cops -- would be gone! The existing supply chain would likely be hit. The implications of this are far-reaching. The politics of some Latin American countries could be affected; the politics in Afghanistan may be impacted as well.

All this is speculative; but, I think there's very little chance that things will be bad -- and definitely no worse than they are. OTOH, there's a large likelihood that benefits will be widespread.

I think most of this is really something that even the proponents of drug-control would not debate. The real argument revolves around whether legalization will encourage more drug-use, particularly among kids.

[RationalBiker]

sNerd identifies the key difference. The drug trade is dangerous because it is illegal not because of the nature or marketability of the product. In addition to what he said, there are some other issues. Because drug dealing is illegal, dealers are not afforded the normal recourses one might have in civil disagreements. You can't sue a supplier for not delivering a product that's paid for or a "clerk" who is skimming money or product off the top. There is no legal recourse for settling disputes as to who has the right to sell their product at a given location so you have "turf wars". Drug dealers rob other drug dealers because you can't go to the police and tell them your cocaine got ripped off. Sure, they try to make up some BS story about being robbed of cash or something, but almost invariably these stories are so transparent that they don't lead to prosecution.

[softwareNerd]

Because drug dealing is illegal, dealers are not afforded the normal recourses one might have in civil disagreements.

Great point RB. This is probably one reason many drug dealers form some type of heirarchical gang: everyone needs a "government" (a.k.a. credible force-wielding agency) of some type!

[Ishinho]

sNerd identifies the key difference. The drug trade is dangerous because it is illegal not because of the nature or marketability of the product. In addition to what he said, there are some other issues. Because drug dealing is illegal, dealers are not afforded the normal recourses one might have in civil disagreements. You can't sue a supplier for not delivering a product that's paid for or a "clerk" who is skimming money or product off the top. There is no legal recourse for settling disputes as to who has the right to sell their product at a given location so you have "turf wars". Drug dealers rob other drug dealers because you can't go to the police and tell them your cocaine got ripped off. Sure, they try to make up some BS story about being robbed of cash or something, but almost invariably these stories are so transparent that they don't lead to prosecution.

I think you and SoftwareNerd are giving drug dealers WAY too much credit. Drug dealers do not resort to illegal means of maintaining their business because they cannot claim protection from police and the courts. They do so because that is how they live their lives. Do you really think drug dealers would sue each other for breach of contract (or some other civil cause of action) if only the courts would protect them? I highly doubt it. They would much rather simply dispense justice at the end of their 9mm.

If drugs were legalized, my guess is that the vast majority of the current drug dealers would not begin to run lawful businesses because they have no desire to play by the rules of lawful society. They would have no idea how to run a legitimate business and would fail miserably. They know only physical force, intimidation, and fear tactics. I am guessing they would instead turn to some other illegal trade, such as prostitution, black market gun sales, etc.

The response of drug dealers to legalizing drugs has no bearing on my belief that drugs should be legalized and people should be allowed to make their own choice about drug use. If someone wants to ruin their life shooting heroin - have at it - but don't ask me to pay for the rehab and other costs associated with "getting clean".

[DavidOdden]

If drugs were legalized, my guess is that the vast majority of the current drug dealers would not begin to run lawful businesses because they have no desire to play by the rules of lawful society. They would have no idea how to run a legitimate business and would fail miserably.

Probably true: some might reform, but most of the non-herbal would be operated by reputable businessmen. I don't see any credit being given to the violent drug dealers. Maybe an elaboration of RBs point would help (not that I speak for him, but if I were him, I would say...). The failure to aford ordinary legal protections to drug sales causes the situation where a number of immoral people pursue that as their business. Drug killings are caused by killers; such people are attracted to the business because it is lucrative, because of government violation of the law of supply and demand.

[RationalBiker]

If drugs were legalized, my guess is that the vast majority of the current drug dealers would not begin to run lawful businesses because they have no desire to play by the rules of lawful society. They would have no idea how to run a legitimate business and would fail miserably. They know only physical force, intimidation, and fear tactics. I am guessing they would instead turn to some other illegal trade, such as prostitution, black market gun sales, etc.

I think you are missing the point. For one, I think there are more kinds of drug dealers out there than you are aware of. As David points it out, but in my words; it may be true that a certain type of person is drawn to dealing drugs (though there are some smarter people out there dealing than you give credit), but only because it's illegal to begin with. Whoever you think might continue their illegal operations (which would be hard to do if drugs were no longer illegal) would be rapidly taken out of business by other folks who would run their business differently. For instance, you simply do not see gang wars over alcohol sales, but there are "nip joints" that sell alcohol "illegally".

But make no mistake, I have met some very savvy self-employed recreational drug salesman who knew how to run a business. Many, many of these guys are smarter than you think. I only give them the credit that years of law enforcement exposure to them warrants. Some are dumb as bricks and others are smart as foxes.

[Tenure]

It might be just me, but I'd like to hear more about the drug dealers you've encountered, the smart ones, in your time.