Why the "War On Drugs" is so successful.

[nw_hunter]

The question is: can you legislate behavior through force?
The answer is NO.

 
 
 
Well, by that thinking, all laws should just be abolished.  Bring on the anarchy.   

Not what he's saying at all!Or what Duk is saying.

The US government spent over 15 billion dollars in 2010 on the war on drugs. (Source is the National drug control policy)
States and local agency's spent another 25 Billion.

Of the nearly one million arrested for Cannabis violations.........89% were charged with possession only.

Since 1995, US prisons have seen an increase of 43,000 per year. 25% are sentenced for drug use violations. NOT crimes against others! Law enforcement makes more arrests for drug use, than any other offense.  Source--- The US Dept. Of Justice.

No telling the cost of the war on drugs to the families of these people.
I remember a story several years ago on 60 Minutes. An owner of a small air carrier business in Texas had his private jet seized by the Feds, after he flew a client to Canada. The client had drugs in his luggage, and the Feds had been following him for sometime.
The owner of the plane was released (Not charged) but his plane was taken from him and later auctioned off. He bought his own plane back at auction.

The war on drugs is a total failure, and has devastated the lives of some people in the process, with no benefit to society.

[yellowtail3]

The war on drugs is a total failure, and has devastated the lives of some people in the process, with no benefit to society.

No, but the War on (some) Drugs has greatly benefited many individuals and certain... professions. Rice Bowl, Gravy Train fiefdom & Pension Builder.

[gypsyman]

Unfortunatley, on some levels of govt. hard drugs are put in the same catagory as marajuana. It is clearly much different than crack,meth,heroin and the rest. Somebody sitting in their living room smoking a joint, much different than a crack head out robbing,stealing, or prostituting. Putting a person in jail for a baggie of pot, costs taxpayers how many 10's of thousands a dollar a year, where if it was legal and taxed, would make money for the govt, and farmers. As is, just more money for govt. agency's that could be more productive doing something else, or eliminated. More money for drug dealers bringing it in to the country. gypsyman

[SHOOTALL]

The war on drugs dosen't seem cost effective unless you are a dealer . But then with police keeping part of the booty ..............

[magooch]

Fellas, we've plowed this ground before and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone to change their mind.  All I know is that illicit drugs have done nothing to enhance ours, or anyone elses society.  There is no model anywhere that indicates that mind altering drugs are a benefit to the general welfare of any country, or society.  It is an evil that cannot be ignored and to think otherwise is to ignore reality.
 
To believe that the only laws that are valid are those that are directed at regulating intercourse between individuals is a bit simplistic.  There will always be a delicate balance between which laws are necessary and which laws are overkill and detrimental and it isn't static and never will be.
 
Dukkiller, it may be a fine point, but nonetheless, alcohlic beverages can be consumed responsibly with little to no affect on others.  Illegal mind altering drugs are virtually always going to have some adverse effect on the user and those around them.  That may be splitting a hair, but it seems to be the concensus of society at this time.  When I grew up, alcohol was the only substance that was of any concern and that was bad enough.  Adding all sorts of drugs to the mix hasn't made anything better.
 
If I were to design an anti-drug war, it would be brutal as war should be.

[SHOOTALL]

No one says drugs are good , Its the cost in taxes . Pot can be used as responsible as booze if either can really. As far as effect on the user I have seen both drug and booze destory lives .

[Matt]

What I can't figure out is where the hell some of you get off telling me or anyone else what we can and cant do in the privacy of our own homes. Next thing you know you are going to be trying to tell me when I can and can't have coitus.
Matt

[SHOOTALL]

 For us to change to socialist the church needs to be replaced by govt. telling you what you can and cannot do in your home is just part of it ..........

[mdwest]

What I can't figure out is where the hell some of you get off telling me or anyone else what we can and cant do in the privacy of our own homes. Next thing you know you are going to be trying to tell me when I can and can't have coitus.
Matt

The problem isnt what you do in the privacy of your own home.. Thats what the 4th ammendment is for.. stay in your house, do whatever you like, and dont bother anyone else in the process..
 
The problem is that some people think the right to do whatever they please also gives them the right to infringe on other peoples rights... they dont stay in their homes.. they get high on powder and then go run their car into someone elses kids car and injure them.. they shoot up some bad herion and then do the kickin chicken out in the middle of main street for all the world to watch and then later want the rest of us foot the bill for the ambulance call and the hospital stay.. they smoke a crack rock, then so desperately need another hit at 2AM that they go out and start stealing window unit air conditioners to pawn in the morning to pay for the next high.. they crank up their meth lab in their garage, where their kids play with toys, who end up with brain damage from sucking in the fumes.. or even worse, they crank up their meth lab in their own basement and end up blowing up the house and catching the neighbors house on fire in the process.. or how about the guy that drops a couple of tabs of acid, then heads into the local night club and starts knifing everyone on the dance floor because he thought they were hippopotumus that were attacking him?
 
and the list goes on, and on, and on...
 
All of the examples are REAL WORLD situations that I personally worked by the way (along with hundreds others) a million years ago when I was cop.. none of the above is made up or hypothetical..
 
I could care less what you do in the privacy of your own home.. you could be into midget porn and personal scarification for all I care.. you can smoke out 20 hours a day and sit on the couch playing xbox wasting away.. doesnt bother me a bit... Im actually all for it...
 
the problem is we all know that the vast majority of people that choose to do drugs, do not choose to do it strictly in the privacy of their own home.. and often times their drug abuse effects everyone else around them and infringes on the rights of others...
 
 
from your own signature line:
 
Alabama Constitution - 1901
SECTION 35:
Objective of government,

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
 
 
So.. when a doper is stealing my car, running over my child, stabbing people in a night club, flopping around on the sidewalk like a fish, etc... all as a direct result of public drug abuse.. is it not the role of government to protect me in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property?
 
 

[dukkillr]

So.. when a doper is stealing my car, running over my child, stabbing people in a night club, flopping around on the sidewalk like a fish, etc... all as a direct result of public drug abuse.. is it not the role of government to protect me in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property?

I have about 3 hours of experience with Alabama law so I am in no way an expert, but...
Is there not a law against stealing cars?
Is there not a law against running over children?
Is there not a law against stabbing people?
Is there not a law against "flopping around"?
 
Are those things legal if one has been drinking in Alabama?  Are they legal if one is entirely substance free?

[Matt]

mdwest,
You being ex-LEO should understand that we have laws on the books that cover:
Traffic Violations and we have Civil court to sue for damages. We also have insurance to cover if others do not.
There are already Public Intoxication laws on the books in most towns.
Also do away with entitlements then we the people do not have to pay the hospital stay for anyone else either.
I know there are laws against theft in every town.
Also there are laws to cover just about anything I can do to you that is a violation of your rights.


Now you say you are fine with me doing it at home but yet you push the war that prevents it and even takes away everything I have for it.


Yeah like my signature says...
That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression


EDIT: you beat me to it duk

Matt

[mdwest]

so by your theory, the right way to handle the problem is to simply allow people to do whatever they want, even if we know what the cause is, and deal with the aftermath later?
 
you would rather treat the symptoms instead of the disease?
 
do you have any idea what percentage of violent crime is directly associated with drug use?
 
Try some of these statistics on for size:
 
26% of federal offendors (violent) were under the influence of drugs when committing their crimes
 
44% of state felony offendors are under the influence of drugs when committing their crimes
 
Among federal offenders, 18% admit that they were committing their crimes specifically to obtain money for drugs
 
Among state offenders, the number is 17%...
 
 
Again.. if I am understanding you correctly.. what you are saying is you would prefer to go on any let the crime be committed, and then deal with the aftermath.. even if that crime is being commited against you..
 
rather than go for the root cause of the problem...
 
is that right?
 
 

[mdwest]

something else to add..
 
go back and read a couple of previous posts in this thread..
 
I am NOT an advocate of the current "war on drugs"..
 
The federal and state governments are in my opinion handling the problem completely wrong..
 
Having worked narcotics cases at the federal, state, and local level.. I would tell you that chasing down the supply side of the equation will never work..
 
It looks great in the papers and makes big news when you can say you stopped a truck with 200 pounds of weed in the trunk.. or that you seized a $3,000,000 cash transfer headed back to Mexico..
 
but it does nothing to effect street level crime where the general public is at risk.. sieze one truck, and 10 more will head across the border the next day to replace it..
 
the solution is to attack the demand side of the equation..
 
that can be done a number of different ways..
 
education is part of the formula.. as is getting parents to start raising their children again instead of expecting the government to do it for them.. having effective laws on the books that actually hold people acountable for their actions is part of that equation as well..
 
I cant tell you how many "frequent flyers" I arrested during my tenure as a cop.. I would lock a guy up for crack possession (normally find this out when arresting him for stealing a bike, an air conditioner, or doing something else that leads to the initial contact), and he would litterally be back out on the street before I could finish the paperwork.. during the 2-3 month wait for trial.. he would get locked up again... sometimes two or three times.. and by the time he gets to court, the felony charge gets downgraded to a misdemeanor.. which means he pays a $500 fine, does 30 days in jail.. and he is back out on the street again.. doing exactly the same thing he was doing before.. often it took 5 or more arrests for the exact same offense before you could get a judge to actually hold to the felony and send the guy away for 1-2 years (tops)..
 
end sum, is the punishment for using crack, stealing airconditioners (while on crack), blowing up basements, burning your neighbors house, wrecking some kids car and sending them to the hospital, etc.. is negligible at best.. there is no incentive to not do it..
 
 
 
Again.. what you (or anyone) does in their own homes.. is their business in my opinion.. I could care less if you are straight or gay, an alcoholic or a tee todler, into internet porn or read your bible, smoke an oz of weed before you get out of bed in the morning, or refuse to take aspirin because you think its a drug.. that is your business..
 
But if we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that people under the influence of drugs are more likely to commit felony crimes and infringe upon my rights in the process.. and we know that a large number of violent crimes committed in this country are done by people under the influence of drugs.. then yes.. I am all for laying the smack down on those people the minute they walk out the door.. I dont think I should be forced to wait until one of them runs over my kid on the street before I am allowed to take action..
 
 

[Matt]

so by your theory, the right way to handle the problem is to simply allow people to do whatever they want, even if we know what the cause is, and deal with the aftermath later?

YES, I do not believe in "PreCrime" and have never seen any proof that it works.


 

you would rather treat the symptoms instead of the disease?

Since when did it become a disease to consume a substance? Is it also a disease to consume, Milk, eggs, butter or just the things you don't like?
 

do you have any idea what percentage of violent crime is directly associated with drug use?
 
Try some of these statistics on for size:
 
26% of federal offendors (violent) were under the influence of drugs when committing their crimes

So what you are really telling me is that 74% of federal offenders WERE NOT under the influence of drugs. That seems to indicate that the largest portion were not using drugs but still did the crime. hmmm Dont you think we need to be worrying with why the majority did what they did not the minority... after all they told us it was drugs.


 

44% of state felony offendors are under the influence of drugs when committing their crimes

56% was not.. still the minority here.
 

Among federal offenders, 18% admit that they were committing their crimes specifically to obtain money for drugs

If they were not illegal and easier to buy/make or what ever then the need to commit crime would be much less.

 

Among state offenders, the number is 17%...
 
 

Again if it was not illegal then the need for crime to procure cash would not be nearly as great as it is now.

 

Again.. if I am understanding you correctly.. what you are saying is you would prefer to go on any let the crime be committed, and then deal with the aftermath.. even if that crime is being commited against you..
 
rather than go for the root cause of the problem...
 
is that right?
 
 

Again YES THAT IS RIGHT! I am no better than anyone else is and I sure as hell do not want to be charged for something just because I might do something that might hurt someone else. If I do hurt them then CHARGE ME and so NO I DO NOT want people going to jail because of something that might happen or that they might do but I take it you do. So should every gun owner be locked up because there is always a chance they might shoot someone?


Matt

[Gary G]

Robbing someone is a crime against another's property. There is a victim. Punish them according to the law.
Stabbing someone is a crime against someones life. There is a victim. Punish them according to the law.
Common law protects us against violation of our life, liberty, or property.


Smoking a joint. Where is the victim? Do you believe in victim-less crimes? Maybe some people should be arrested for the way they look or what they say. Real ugly people might hurt someones eyes.


Some say they rob to get money for more drugs. Without the "war on drugs" they wouldn't need to steal. It would be cheap. If they rob, then punish them for the crime. How do you know who is going to rob? Do we arrest people for some activity that we do not agree with because it might possible lead to something else.


Is liberty forsaken for remote possibilities? Does the government own our bodies?
---------------------------------------------------------------


Does anyone see a connection between TSA goons porno-scanning, groping us and the war on drugs? (Just curious about this last question.)

[mdwest]

one last thing to add...
 
I actually am for the legalization of marijuana...
 
and then holding people INSANELY accountable when they step outside the boundaries of the law..
 
want to smoke weed.. cool.. go do it..
 
want to smoke weed and then drive a car.. loose your license for the rest of your life, and go to jail for 5 years... get caught driving again without a license (revoked because of weed).. no problem.. enjoy the next 5 years in the state pen...
 
My guess is if you make the penalty strong enough.. and stand behind it.. you wont have people trying to color outside the lines..
 
I do separate weed from "hard" drugs such as meth, coke, etc.. however that bring with them an abundance of additional problems..
 
 

[mdwest]

we're all typing at the same time..
 
 
symptoms vs disease is an analogy.. no one is saying that consuming anything is a disease..
 
you also need to understand the difference between state and federal felonies.. the vast majority of violent crimes are punished under state law, not federal.. 44% of state felonies are drug related.. thats almost half..
 
legalization of drugs and a price drop will have little effect on the typical crackhead who has no money in the first place.. crack rocks are still less than $20 each today (they were less than $10 each when I worked the streets).. a guy with no job, and no desire to have a job (largely due to his drug habit) will still have to steal to buy his drugs (legal or illegal) whether they are $10 or $20 to obtain them..
 
smoking a joint.. I agree.. victimless crime... sit in your house and smoke weed all day.. the only person effected is you..
 
smoke a joint and go drive down the road.. suddenly there are hundreds of thousands of potential victims.. your irresponsibility has now put me at risk..
 
ill use your gun example.. no.. I dont think every RESPONSIBLE gun owner should be locked up because of what they might do.. but I do think the minute you become IRRESPONSIBLE that there should be consequences... want to keep your gun on your hip everywhere you go.. cool.. Im all for that.. want to take your gun out and show it to everyone in the bar while gently stroking the trigger? take the gun away from that guy, never let him have another one, and throw him in jail for a month to let him think about it.. no one got hurt.. the gun never went off.. but he certainly just put everyone else at risk by being a clown..
 
dope's the same way as far as I am concerned..
 
 
 

[Casull]

Since when did it become a disease to consume a substance? Is it also a disease to consume, Milk, eggs, butter or just the things you don't like?

 
 
Addiction is a disease.  Don't believe me, just ask a doctor.  BTW, I've never eaten an egg and then rammed my car into someone because I couldn't see straight.
 
 
 

So what you are really telling me is that 74% of federal offenders WERE NOT under the influence of drugs.

 
 
So you have no interest in reducing violent crime by 26% because it won't get rid of the other 74%?
 
 
 

56% was not.. still the minority here.

 
 
So you have not interest in reducing serious crime by 44% becasue it won't get rid of the other 56%?
 
 
 

If they were not illegal and easier to buy/make or what ever then the need to commit crime would be much less.

 
 
Maybe, maybe not.  They still wouldn't be free, and if there were no hurdles to overcome in getting them, maybe the dopers would do a lot more and some of the other problems would increase greatly.

[Matt]

Oh yeah and you was talking about having to pay the hospital stay... umm how much do you think it will cost to house these bad folks for 5 years like you want? 
I know it is hard to do but sooner or later some of you folks are going to have to understand people are going to do things, some good and others bad but until they do them there is no reason to punish them.


Matt

[Casull]

Oh, and for the record, I've kind of moved toward agreeing with the decriminalization of weed.  But, I do think this will increase public use, and therefore like mdwest's idea about really slapping those that screw up while on it.

[mdwest]

Oh yeah and you was talking about having to pay the hospital stay... umm how much do you think it will cost to house these bad folks for 5 years like you want? 
I know it is hard to do but sooner or later some of you folks are going to have to understand people are going to do things, some good and others bad but until they do them there is no reason to punish them.


Matt

How much 5 years in prison should cost is a whole different argument.. personally I think the "rights" of prisoners have gotten out of control.. its a shame when prisoners have more legal rights to space, food, and entertainment that soldiers do.. (litterally.. check out the regulations on what the military is legally bound to provide to our privates.. and then look at what the federal prisons are legally bound to provide to our inmates).. run a prison the way it should be run, and the cost is significantly reduced..
 
 
and you miss the entire point...
 
a 5 year prison sentance in this country.. ISNT.. a life sentance isnt even 20 years in some jurisdictions..
 
the penalties for committing crimes in this country are not significant enough to convince many people not to commit crimes.. the rewards outweigh the risk..
 
actually start putting people in prison for life for murder.. actually start putting people behind bars for 20 years for armed robbery.. and people might start thinking twice before committing their crimes..
 
when you know you can go get snot slinging drunk, race your car down the interstate at 100 miles an hour, and put everyone around you at risk.. and the absolute worst thing that is going to happen to you is you are going to pay a couple of grand in attornies fees and fines as long as you dont kill someone in the process.. and there are plenty of people out there willing to take their chances..
 
take away the reward.. increase the risk.. and crime will reduce.. (you will never get rid of all of it however)... which means less people are spending 5 years in prison.. which means less cost..
 
 
 

[mdwest]

something else to consider here that is specific to smoking/drinking while driving.. but has little or nothing to do with any of the other offenses..
 
driving is a privledge in this country.. it is not a protected right..
 
wanna be a criminal? Im all about taking away every privledge afforded you.. for long, long, periods of time..
 
I dont buy into the whole "cant integrate back into society if we dont let them be like the rest of us" baloney.. we have grown into a society that believes in reward for being good, but no punishment for being bad..
 
Im a believer in less carrot.. and a whole lot more stick... for those that choose to infringe upon the protected rights of others for their own self gain..
 
probably couldnt tell how I feel about these issues based on previous posts, so I thought I would clarify 
 

[blind ear]

something else to consider here that is specific to smoking/drinking while driving.. but has little or nothing to do with any of the other offenses..
 
driving is a privledge in this country.. it is not a protected right..
 
wanna be a criminal? Im all about taking away every privledge afforded you.. for long, long, periods of time..
 
I dont buy into the whole "cant integrate back into society if we dont let them be like the rest of us" baloney.. we have grown into a society that believes in reward for being good, but no punishment for being bad..
 
Im a believer in less carrot.. and a whole lot more stick... for those that choose to infringe upon the protected rights of others for their own self gain..
 
probably couldnt tell how I feel about these issues based on previous posts, so I thought I would clarify 
 

Don't let the state support them if they can't pass a drug test. The drug use will be thier concious decision.
 
If that drug user causes injury or harm to others or breaks standing laws, let them suffer the consequences of the law. The judicial and prison system will deal with them then and that debt must be paid before any rehab program is allowed to take first priority. First serve the time earned.
 
It will still be less of a burden on the prison system. ear

MDwest, I think I agree with you here, ear

[nw_hunter]

Oh yeah and you was talking about having to pay the hospital stay... umm how much do you think it will cost to house these bad folks for 5 years like you want? 
I know it is hard to do but sooner or later some of you folks are going to have to understand people are going to do things, some good and others bad but until they do them there is no reason to punish them.


Matt

Don't count on it Matt!

(Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group.) It would appear it has worked!

Before the DEA was established and signed by Richard Nixon in 1973,the states and Fed  had enough laws and law enforcers on the books to cover every type of crime one could imagine. I think old Richard also ran on smaller government like GW did.

The DEA today has 21 field divisions with 227 field offices and 86 foreign offices.
The budget exceeds 2,415 Billion. The DEA employes 10,800 people directly.

In 2005, the DEA seized a reported $1.4 billion in drug trade related assets and $477 million worth of drugs. However, according to the White House's Office of Drug Control Policy, the total value of all of the drugs sold in the U.S. is as much as $64 billion a year, making the DEA's efforts to intercept the flow of drugs into and within the U.S. less than 1% effective..............1% and for the meager sum of two and a half billion.

The total cost of the DEA from 1972 to 2009 according to the agency website was $536,367,800,000.00 with 10,784 employees in 2009. For the data available for the years 1986 to 2009, the average cost per arrest made was $9,893.09.

[mdwest]

Before the DEA was created, the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs and Narcotics existed.. We have had a federal agency assigned to the drug trade since well before 1973...

I don't think anyone is arguing if the current design of the "war on drugs" is working.. It clearly is not..

The question is what is the right way to fix it?

[Matt]

I don't think anyone is arguing if the current design of the "war on drugs" is working.. It clearly is not..

The question is what is the right way to fix it?

And I don't understand why there is a question. The only right way to fix it is to end it and follow the Constitution. There is absolutely no authority for the Federal War on Drugs. If you want to outlaw drugs do it a a state level where by those who like that can live there and those who don't can move some where more to their liking.

[mdwest]

That we can agree on... The fed govt is too far involved in state issues...

[NWBear]

WOW!!  Preemption of crimes (taking care of the "root cause" before a crime is committed.)
 
That is the proverbial slippery slope.
 
Should the babies of Crack mothers be aborted if stats show they are more likely to grow up as criminals???   How about he stats on race should that be a factor that needs to be enforced "Before a crime is committed".  Lots of way to go with this....not sure I want to go there.

[mdwest]

Where do you get preemption? It is currently a crime to possess or sell controlled substances..

It is also a crime to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol..

In many states it is an additional charge to commit a crime while under the influence of drugs...

These are all STATE level offenses.. NOT Federal offenses...



What was stated is that use of hard drugs is tied to a large percentage of violent crime as well as felony crimes against property.. And therefore legalization of those drugs (we aren't talking weed) isn't an option many would consider..

If that fits your definition of preemption.. You already have it.. And have had it for the better part of a century in many states...

[Matt]

As to where did the preemptive come from:

Again.. if I am understanding you correctly.. what you are saying is you would prefer to go on any let the crime be committed, and then deal with the aftermath.. even if that crime is being commited against you.

It is also a crime to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol..

So we agree we have laws to cover this problems already.

In many states it is an additional charge to commit a crime while under the influence of drugs...

If the people want this then good for them. Those using drugs and committing crimes in that state should do the time.

These are all STATE level offenses.. NOT Federal offenses...

As they should be.
Now that we have both established and agreed that crimes committed while using drugs are covered under current criminal laws why is it that we need prohibition on drugs?