Comments (8)

• Bruce Koerber

  In a classical liberalism civilization (it is never static but always advancing) the mere thought of a crime would be so shameful that it will serve as enough of a punishment to correct that thought. There is no government intervention in this scenario.

  Do you see any congruency between the hypocrisy and ignorance in the current approach and the potency of human advancement that comes in an environment of liberty?

  The current system demonstrates archaic thinking just like the neocon approach to peace by belligerence. Instead it creates war and suffering just like the punishment regime of the ego-driven interventionists (devoid of the knowledge that humans have a subjective 'operating system') creates and perpetuates criminality.

  Published: September 5, 2008 7:58 PM

• Steve Hogan

  I refuse to believe that drug warriors are that dense. A century of failure is simply too obvious to ignore.

  No, these people are not interested in a safer society, nor is it a futile moralistic crusade to save individuals from their own folly. Recall the Latin phrase, "Cui bono?" Look at who benefits from the status quo: hypocritical politicians, prison guards, the court system, lawyers, the police.

  Who loses? Everyone else, not the least of whom are the poor suckers caught in the dragnet and thrown into the state's modern day dungeons. Impoverished, raped, and strung out on drugs, with little chance of rehabilitation and virtually no future, the victims of this assault on their liberties necessarily become criminals. The rest of us have the privilege of funding this gulag at gunpoint.

  Ending this insanity would require clear thinking and a little common sense from the people, which is another way of saying that the war will last indefinitely.

  Published: September 6, 2008 12:40 AM

• Adam Stewart

  This issue is really an outcropping of the nature of our current governmental system (or any other governmental system for that matter)... The state thrives on this sort of policy, as not only does the black market enable them to spend their way to a "solution" (thus increasing their budget as well as their ability to control the population), but it also creates jobs and thus helps to give the appearance of prosperity (there are new prisons being constructed almost everywhere in the US, not to mention the other benefactors already mentioned by Mr. Hogan). What's more, keeping almost 1 percent of our population locked up like this also crates holes in the economy, as I'm sure many (if not most) drug offenders had some sort of legal occupation as well, and thus must be replaced when removed from the economy...

  Ultimately it all boils down to the fact that from the governmental standpoint there is NO downside to the drug war. It helps increase control, increase government size and budget, as well as the economic "benefits".

  This will end eventually... Governments in general are rarely capable of going any direction but forward once they've chosen a policy to pursue (just look at how long the prohibition of alcohol lasted). This particular direction of control and confinement will end when injustice finally reaches a threshold the bulk of the population simply can't tolerate. Where that threshold is, who knows... my guess is that threshold will be crossed when either enforcement becomes more effective (a very large portion of the population is believed to occasionally or frequently use illegal drugs... http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ ) and thus a much larger percentage of drug users are caught and jailed, or the end will come when other, more common non-violent crimes are also punished disproportionately (i.e. 20 year mandatory jail sentence for traffic infractions).

  It's my hope that the growing success of organizations like this will help to put this fire out, rather than letting it burn to exhaustion.

  Published: September 6, 2008 3:31 AM

• Byzantine

  What's more, keeping almost 1 percent of our population locked up like this also crates holes in the economy, as I'm sure many (if not most) drug offenders had some sort of legal occupation as well, and thus must be replaced when removed from the economy.

  That is a shaky assumption. Since the drug trade is criminalized, then generally only criminals, i.e., people unable to earn income through peacable means, will engage in it. Obviously this is not the case for most marijuana users and dealers, but people producing and consuming methamphetamine, heroin, and crack are often not very employable folks. This is not an argument for keeping drugs illegal. Rather, legalizing drugs would deprive criminals of income--a good result.

  I also believe demand for the more toxic, refined drugs (already a very small part of the drug trade) would greatly diminish if drugs were legalized.

  Published: September 6, 2008 1:06 PM

• Adam Stewart

  I suppose I did make a broad assumption there, I think you are right IF we assume that most people in jail for drug offenses are producers or distributors of the "hard" drugs... My assumption was based on what I know of the arrest statistics, and from what I've seen most people being arrested are actually users rather than dealers / producers... For instance, In 2006, 43.9 percent of total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana, of those, 738,916 people (out of 829,627 total marijuana arrests) were arrested for marijuana possession alone. ( http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm )

  Obviously this is just an example of one drug, but I would argue that even though my assumption was too broad the point I was trying to make is still valid... a large number of normally productive people are being removed from the economy, and that benefits the state as their removal creates employment opportunities (both by their removal and by their confinement) and thus give the superficial appearance of economic growth. However, I must concede that you do have a valid point, my statement was far too broad as a large portion of those jailed may not be very economically productive people.

  I do absolutely agree with your other statement, as I also believe demand for most of "the hard stuff" would go down with legalization, for a myriad of reasons. Regardless, I still maintain that until the great bulk of the population demands an end to this policy, the drug war will remain and probably escalate.

  Published: September 7, 2008 4:11 AM

• nick gray

  One man's terrible government policy is another man's opportunity! Now would be a good time for a libertarian to preach and practice, by setting up drug cartels to flood the streets with cheap drugs, so the government will officially end the War as the loser! If you made millions, you could then buy up land, and establish a libertarian community!
  The Mobs were just interested in making money from alcohol Prohibition. A libertarian gangster might end up freeing up the whole country!

  Published: September 8, 2008 2:17 AM

• Derrell

  Without a doubt, pot, alcohol, and tobacco should be legalized and age limits repealed. It is the willingness of people to pay for the healthcare of others that makes a strong case for criminalizing various drugs. I don't want to pay for the long-term medical care of a person with emphysema, COPD, and congestive heart failure. So I tell them they can't smoke. Can't fix one part without the other parts being overhauled.

  Published: September 8, 2008 3:40 AM

• Byzantine

  Adam,

  Thanks for the link, which brings up another point: given their druthers, cops would rather bust down the door of some poor schelp with a stash of weed or some hopeless meth addict than an actual criminal sociopath. Risk-averse bureaucrats with guns.

  Published: September 8, 2008 8:47 AM