Quagmire Calling
By Mitch Berg
The editors of the National Review break the ice and reach the decision that for three generations dared not speak its name; the “War on Drugs is Lost”:
We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs. But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed.
Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that “NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.” We don’t; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.
The NR’s current editors- Buckley Jr, Szosz et al – weigh in on the subject.
The big point: the War costs us more in terms of lives, civil liberties and diversion of effort from dealing with addiction than it could ever be worth. In the past forty years, more people have died in the War on Drugs – 90-odd deaths from turf wars and habit-feeding robberies for every one to overdose – than died in Vietnam and Korea, and we’re farther from “victory” now than ever. The “war” has taken much of Central America down with it; the turf wars for those feeding America’s jones kill many more people in Mexico than are dying in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. And the worst part is, allof that sacrifice – every neighborhood destroyed, everyone killed in every botched drug-mugging, every cop caught in every gang-war crossfire, every broke dealer murdered for falling behind on his payments or tripping his capo’s suspicions – is in vain. Every one. None of them will lead to anything better.
It’s time to look into ending this particular “war”.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Took ’em long enough.
The sainted patron and founder of their magazine, William F. Buckley, Jr., said the same thing years ago, back when I was a subscriber.
Drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition are price supports for gangsters. Forfeiture and immunity laws give incentive to storm troopers.
The real issue is stride. People have to get tough enough to step over drunks and druggies laying in the gutter. And that day is coming.
In a prosperous capitalist society, we could afford high taxes to provide professional care for widows, orphans, drunks, stoners, malingers, the incontinent and womyn’s studies majors.
After the Obama administration completes its remake of society to the FDR paradise of 1938, it’ll be every family for itself. Those who can’t make it, tough luck, and maybe that’ll decrease the surplus population to help reduce global warming.
.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Back in the olden days, before WWI, pot and cocaine were legal.
If you were middle class and you became an addict you were ruined. You would lose your family, your friends, your money and your career. That is not true today to the same extent it was in 1910.
If we go part of the way towards ending the drug prohibition and legalize possession of drugs, but keep trafficking in narcotics illegal we may find that we are worse off than we were with the war on drugs.
The people with the fewest family and financial resources are those that suffer the most from drug abuse. It’s a shame that they would pay the price so the middle and upper classes can freely engage in recreational drug use.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Artificial time-tables for a drug war surrender will only embolden the drug cartels.
Fight them in Mexico, so we don’t have to fight ’em here.
Support the DEA Drug War Troops!
/jc
April 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I resay my argument that I proposed for WFB. Mitch, if you will take meth daily, for 3 straight weeks, and say you had no ill affects and just stopped the days after your three week are up, then I would maybe consider changing my position.
Two groups that seem to want narcotics legalized; Those who never take them (Mitch Berg), and those who take them every day (Angry Clown). Those addicts who are trying to recover will say something different.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I wonder if anyone really understands just how much this “war on drugs” has cost us.
“No knock” search warrants.
Presumptive “drug and alcohol check point” stops.
Confiscation of personal property without a conviction.
Covert thermal image inspections of homes.
Incredibly intrusive pre and post employment drug testing.
Shadow, quasi-criminal, civil court proceedings in which a finding of driving while under the influence not only results in the loss of a drivers license, but puts a pro forma “conviction” on record that can, and is used as a prior offense to enhance future sentencing in criminal court.
It’s no surprise that the most heinous, most damaging new police powers were extended during the Bubba Clinton years. Any lefty can see how useful these insults on our personal sovereignty would be when they finally mount their full court press on our liberty.
Chuck, if a meth addict’s recovery necessitates my civil rights, I say “tough”. Unfortunately, the horse has already left the barn and we’ll never get him back.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Mitch: Amem. Obama will need real pressure from the right on this to overcome Dems who have bought into the drug war.
Terry: “The people with the fewest family and financial resources are those that suffer the most from drug abuse.” Fair enough. Which provides a good reason to take some of the police/prison money we will be saving and investing in more drug rehab and treatment programs.
Chuck “Those addicts who are trying to recover will say something different.” I would think they would be more happy to not go to jail and to have more treatment options.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
Terry says:
“The people with the fewest family and financial resources are those that suffer the most from drug abuse. It’s a shame that they would pay the price so the middle and upper classes can freely engage in recreational drug use. ”
And Chuck says:
“Those addicts who are trying to recover will say something different.”
I’m in the ‘Mitch group’ that Chuck describes, who does not indulge in illegal drugs. Rather than investing in treatment alone, it would be worthwhile to invest in whatever it takes for people to make the choice not to indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals in the first place. I dont’ think we have pursued enough of an understanding of how to do that, while our knowledge of treatment is comparatively advanced. Prevention is nearly always cheaper than dealing with a problem after the fact.
The excellent book Freakenomics by Levitt and Dubner has an interesting analysis of the economics of the lower levels of criminal drug distribution. It is amazing how little the people are paid who take the greatest risks and who are on the receiving end of some of the worst violence. Drug traffic is only lucrative for those at the top; I suspect the same is true of piracy.
An understanding of the realities of drug traffic likely holds the best answers to changing who ends up with the money, the power, and the drug problem. This country would certainly be better off without illegal drugs, and the same can be said for a lot of third world countries like Afghanistan as well. Opposing the opium trade looks like it might be the best common ground for coming to a meeting of the minds with Iran; politics and economics makes for strange bed fellows….
April 21st, 2009 at 10:23 am
Finally some sanity. When has prohibition worked? As someone who has *never* used illegal drugs I can say that this “War” has been badly thought out and poorly fought. It’s always struck me as poor tactic to concentrate on “dealers” and not “users” if the real objective was to prevent illicit drug use.
I’d favor taxing and regulating the less damaging drugs and using the income to provide facilities to help the inevitable addicts. And for making the use of various drugs illegal for certain classes of employees — high truck drivers don’t strike me as a good idea, for example.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Mitch quoted: “We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs.”
That’s a misspelling, Mitch. The article meant to reference Dr. Gazzinya. Dr. Dick Gazzinya.
April 21st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
. . . it would be worthwhile to invest in whatever it takes for people to make the choice not to indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals in the first place. I dont’ think we have pursued enough of an understanding of how to do that, while our knowledge of treatment is comparatively advanced.
Bring back the social taboo, I say. A kid will always convince himself that he won’t become an addict. The penalty for violating a social taboo is loss of social status. A social taboo based purely on drug use, rather than addiction, would keep kids from touching the stuff.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Terry:
“Bring back the social taboo”. Yes more anti-drug commercials, please.
“A kid will always convince himself that he won’t become an addict.”
The kid is probably right. “Of the persons aged 12 or older who first used marijuana 13 to 24 months prior to the survey interview, 5.8% were dependent on marijuana in the past year.” Rates are a little higher for cocaine and heroin.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm
Why not just present clear evidence of the harm caused to a person by drug use and let them make up their own mind?
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
RickDFL said:
“Yes more anti-drug commercials, please.”
Opinion twisted into something dumb, then attacked? Check.
“Why not just present clear evidence of the harm caused to a person by drug use and let them make up their own mind?”
I would agree, but it would take some changes on the part of Public Health agencies. It seems they’ve found it easier to push prohibition style laws recently than communicate. Not that communicating complicated subjects isn’t difficult, and with children even more so. *shrug*
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
RickDFL says a lot of stupid things:
“If found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” – DickheadDFL