Drug Wars: Deterioration Turns to Demoralization
by Gary A. “Rusty” Fleming Jr.In times past there was a prevailing wisdom that the violence stemming from the drug war equated to just one drug dealer killing another and after they finished killing each other off, things would go back to being peaceful and all would be well— this theory is no longer valid. The escalated violence and corruption the cartels are exhibiting today are quickly eroding Mexico and its democratic institutions to the point that they have caused a serious shift in the entire geopolitical landscape and represent the greatest threat to national security to both the U.S. and Mexico.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the narco-insurgency in North America is the effect it is having on the free press in Mexico. Our own history has proven that exposing the truth in a free press has done more for positive change in government and corporate accountability in our nation than perhaps any other single component, but that simply does not fit in the world of terror that the narcos create and perpetuate. Hardly a single Mexican media outlet in the country operates freely and without fear when it comes to reporting on the narcos and their activities.
The narcos have succeeded in removing nearly all investigative reporting in the Mexican media. Even if reporters are allowed to, or brave enough to, they often remove their bylines, reveal very few facts and almost never name the perpetrators. There are numerous reported cases of media intimidation in the U.S. as well. Newspapers from San Antonio and Dallas have pulled reporters back to as far as New York to get them away from the threats made on them for reporting on cartel activity.
So the question becomes how do you fight against an enemy if you don’t even know who he is? Can you imagine going after the Gambino crime family having never mentioned John Gotti’s name? So what comes out in the press is essentially body counts and highlights of the brutality prominently displayed by the warring groups that wish to send their messages of fear to authorities, rival gangs and the public at large.
By killing rivals in barbaric fashion—beheading, burning alive and torture, the message is—“This is what happens when you are with the wrong gang”— by killing law enforcement agents the message is—“This will happen to anyone who opposes us” and by killing top government officials, the message is—“We can get to anybody” and to the public who sees the decapitated, burned and tortured remains, the message is— “No one is safe.”
The crimes are often not reported and if they are, they are almost never investigated and of the few that are investigated, the guilty are almost never caught, and of those few who are caught, they are often either set free by a corrupt judge or broke out of jail by their fellow soldiers. But in any case, once the word is out that someone is reporting or investigating the crime, the cartels dispatch the hit squads to retaliate against whomever they have to. Multiply this by 6000 times in one year and it becomes demoralizing to the most optimistic patriots in any society.
For more, please visit: www.drugwarsthemovie.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
118 Comments
It is my understanding in the last eight years the death count in drug related murders has actually gone down 40% in Mexico. Now news reports have increased by 400%. Could this actually be true or are my news sources just distorted?
Reminds me of the violence that plagued Chicago in the 1920s.
All that alcohol violence.
The alcos were killing each other, killing cops, even killing civilians, all caused by alcohol.
Wait a minute, it wasn't alcohol that cause the violence, it was Prohibition.
History shmistory, who needs that crap.
John's hit the nail on the head. Time to end Prohibition. Tax the crap out of the junk, and pay for Nobama's deficit.
I just don't like government subsidized drug abusers. Addicts can't hold down jobs and pay for their habits. We get to hold down jobs and pay for the entitlements that pay for their habits.
And when alcohol was made legal did those who traffic in the violence and crime previously associated with the illegal drink, end their criminal ways and open legal businesses? No, they moved on to anything that would get them what they wanted when they wanted it. Laws be damned. And alcohol use did go up after the end of Prohibition. Is this an argument to make alcohol illegal? Of course not. But try to think things through.
The drug legalizers ignore two important things. 1. Ending a substances prohibition will mean that use of that substance will go up. The end of Prohibition proves that. 2. The people who engage in an illegal activity today, will not become model citizens partaking in the free market just because the product they used to sell on the street illegally is now legal.
Drug cartels are made up of people who want as much as they can get and they will get it by any means necessary. If that means cutting off someone's head or burning them alive, then so be it. How will making pot or cocaine or heroin legal change that kind of sick mentality?
Do I know what to do? No. But I do know that neither the the "War on Drugs" proponents and opponents have a magic wand on this issue.
Alcohol, legal or illegal, didn't cause the violence. The criminals propensity for violence caused the violence.
There is no argument in favor of keeping drugs illegal that cannot be used as an argument to reinstate alcohol Prohibition.
The simple truth is the prohibition doesn't work.
Laws do not curb demand, and invite the lowest dregs of society to step in and fill that demand.
Punish druggies for crimes that they commit either under the influence or in effort to feed their habit, but not for the habit itself.
It was/is the fight over the profits which fueled/fuels the violence.
There is a insidious backstory to all this- namely the NORML crowd. They see a perfect opportunity to push for drug legalization using the trumped up hysteria of these killings, which are almost exclusively bad guy v. bad guy- one suspects that will sort itself out. Prohibition was a terrible idea because culturally alcohol has a place in western civilzation. Marijuana and cocaine are different animals altogether and any law enforcement or health care specialist will tell you about the deleterious effects these substances have on you,and the gateway drug thing is real.
Soros and his bunch, the so-called 'Open Borders Society' (certainly not the borders to his estate in NY) are big advocates of this, and have many believers in the media. That is why this story is so hyped. Listen, we have a situation down there, no doubt. But we owe it to the innocents we are intrusted with to lead by example, and caving in to the legalization lobby would be a betrayal, plain and simple. De-criminalization of small amounts has already happened and it needs to end there.
You're saying that legalizing drugs, taking away these peoples' income, would have no effect on the violence that is happening on the border?
Are you serious?
I love this argument, especially when it comes from conservatives or libertarians: Make drugs legal so the government can tax it. So I guess small, limited government is not actually a good thing then? Hmmm …
BTW, Russ, I added Dead & Nowhere to my Netflix list.
"Prohibition was a terrible idea because culturally alcohol has a place in western civilzation."
Translation: White people use alcohol, minorities use other chemicals. Keep the other chemicals illegal because it doesn't affect white people.
The solution is to elimanate the demand for intoxicants by debunking the notion that intoxication is a superior state of being.
I'm saying that taking away the income of someone who would cut off your head in order to keep the money flowing, will not make that person respectable, contributing member of society. I would hazard a guess that taking away the income of someone who would burn you alive would probably make that person kind of upset. Isn't that why most of these folks work very hard at not going to jail, where their income will be drastically reduced?
Do seriously think these thugs and murderers will stop their violent ways and open a tobacco shop in order to sell their now legal wares?
what does that have to do with the price of coffee? bad chemicals do bad things to all peoples brains regardless of color… wise up, sir.
I had heard somewhere that cocaine had a higher use among white middle and upper-middle class because it cost more. And crack cocaine had a higher use among minorities because it was a relatively cheaper high. I may be wrong on that, though.
I say keep drugs illegal just to piss people off.
These prolegalization (pot anyway) are so predictable. "DID YOU KNOW the constitution was written on hemp, with hemp ink, in a hemp pen, by a guy who grew hemp and wore a hemp shirt and a hemp wig, and rode to the convention on a magic hemp carpet?"
No but they wouldn't be lining their pockets with blood money and increasing their power (both on the streets and politically).
The reason we have President Obama is because prohibition provided the mafia with TONS of money with which they bought power and entrenched themselves in Chicago politics, thus creating the "Chicago Machine". I contend that had prohibition of alcohol never happened Chicago politics would to this day be significantly cleaner … and the unions wouldn't be a wing of the Mafia.
Furthermore, by eliminating the criminal element and the black market for drugs, those that use the drugs wouldn't have to consort with criminals in order to access the drugs they want.
As long as we as a society and government let people that get involved in drugs suffer on their own (no subsidized rehab, etc) then I think the good done by dismantling the police state apparatus that has grown up to fight the "war" on drugs and dismantling the violence prone black market in drugs would be much greater than the harm of a few stoners ruining their lives on drugs (which they're going to do anyway).
once upon a time even the hippies embraced 'being high on life'; you can find bliss in all forms of worship or, if you prefer, meditation. Artificially producing endorphins by chemical interaction is addiction by proxy…
once upon a time even the hippies embraced 'being high on life'; you can find bliss in all forms of worship or, if you prefer, meditation. Artificially producing endorphins by chemical interaction is addiction by proxy…
While the drug legalizers will undoubtedly use this crisis to push their agenda, I think it is a mistake to say this is just "bad guy vs. bad guy". The men and women serving in the DEA, the cops on the border, the government bureaucrats (who may be idiots but that's another discussion), and the civilians caught in the cross-fire are definitely not bad guys. When these untrained thugs and murderers open fire with an AK-47 or grenade launchers or what-not, everyone is going to suffer and many, besides the pushers, are going to die.
So I think the bad-guy vs. bad-guy argument is a non-starter.
If you look at the history of drug prohibition you'll find that most of it was rooted in racism. After alcohol Prohibition ended there were a lot of powerful government folks who wanted to keep their jobs, so they went after other chemicals. Marijuana and cocaine were used primarily by blacks and Latinos, while Asians used opiates. It wasn't until the 60s and 70s that white folks started using those particular chemicals.
Besides, what business is it of the government to dictate what chemicals a person can put in their body?
By that argument we should have diet police going door to door checking the fridge and exercise police making sure people are fit.
There's no limit once you take that attitude.
You touch on a subject that might get to the heart of the problem: Treatment vs. punishment.
What if judges had the ability to "sentence" someone to drug treatment and rehabilitation instead of being forced by the State to send the user to prison, where the poor soul is more likely to fall deeper into a criminal life then get further away from it?
Mandatory sentencing for drug crimes is a wretched thing. Sending someone who is caught with a few ounces of pot or cocaine in their pocket to jail and prison is not something we of which we should be proud.
I was reading Mr. Fleming's bio and I notice he got out of his addiction with help and treatment, not imprisonment. This ridiculous idea of mandatory sentencing for drug offenses needs to be revisited and revised.
Crack Cocaine was invented LONG after Cocaine was made illegal.
I contend that both Crack and Meth would not exist were it not for the fact that Cocaine is illegal (since both are bargain basement replacements for Coke).
As a Chicagoan that is an interesting and provocative take- indeed, Chicago machine politics does have it's roots deeply in the Irish-Italian mob wars of the 30's; like the moonshiners down south they moved into more 'mainsteam' activities, namely politics. We have always liked the Daley's for their humble take on community service and selflessness. However, the climate of corruption has been tolerated for so long it has invaded the city's 'soul'.
And thus sprang 'the One'. Good post,sir…
In other words the only way to defeat the evils of drugs is in the free market.
I agree, mandatory sentencing (along with Zero Tolerance laws) for ANY offense is foolish. Judges need to have the flexibility to take extenuating circumstances into account (of course then that can lead to stupid activist judges doing stupid things, so there is no perfect solution).
You are philosophically all over the place. No one wants door to door raids for anything. The business government, and a responsible moral one as well can have with this is leadership.
If you take a laissez faire attitude to people using psychotronic substances that can negatively
impact individuals and in turn society, it is a de-facto endorsement.
Surely you see that?
A common misunderstanding is thinking that those who want to end prohibition think that drugs are good.
That's not the case. Rather prohibition is worse.
The untrained thugs and murderers you speak of would have no reason to open fire with an AK-47 or grenade launcher without prohibition. We're talking about billions of dollars here.
Would you kill for a billion dollars?
you are correct. Crack is more addictive, and easily on of the most evil substances mankind has ever encountered.
It is not a mistake, it is a fact. So one must accept the reality that this is a 'Scarface' scenario where many rivals are 'saying hello to my little friend'- a stolen govt issue M-203. Doesn't make it better. it just is…
John, have you ever even talked to a former heroin addict? Ask them what they think about hard drugs being legal, otherwise shut up.
Your example of the Mafia, Chicago and the Unions helps make my original point. The violent thugs and criminals didn't stop their violent ways, they just redirected their activity in order to keep their pockets lined with blood money and to maintain the power they had acquired.
Making drugs legal, will mean we will just have to fight these people on a different front. After alcohol was made legal, law enforcement then had to fight the Mafia infiltration of the Unions.
Maybe I got this from the movies, but didn't the Mafia move out Las Vegas in order to get into some really big gambling money? And that was perfectly legal in Nevada.
It seems to me that legal or illegal has nothing to do with how the Mafia makes itself rich. I think everyone here has heard of paying for "Protection". Pay the Mafia or your perfectly legal business suffers some tragic accident.
I am very sympathetic to your position and agree that NORML and similar organizations (including the appalling Soros crowd) are probably delighted that the violence gives them a potent talking point in their favor. Three is nothing in favor of drug use. On the drug war as a matter of policy I have to disagree.____We all want political policies that can "cure" every ill associated with a particular social problem. In the case of drugs that simply isn't going to happen. To paraphrase General Buck Turgidson "We have to choose between two regrettable but distinct post-war environments…" We can continue the War on Drugs and prop up a "system" whereby we provide criminals with rivers of cash. Or we can legalize it, tax it and force it into a "business model." I would much prefer R.J. Reynolds or Squibb selling the stuff and keeping the money in the U.S. The ocean of cash we provide the cartels through the drug trade is what keeps the violence going. Yes there will be a rise in domestic drug use and we will have to deal with it. However this is preferable to continuing to pour money into organizations that help prop up guys like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.
Ha ha. Laugh at the pro-legalization folks all you want, but it's not just stoners and lefties who think the "war on drugs" is a pointless waste of tax dollars. It's also increasingly the very people fighting the war who disagree with it. Go to http://www.leap.cc (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) and try to make the argument to those folks that the drug war is necessary.
There is nothing–NOTHING–in the Constitution of the United States that allows the federal government to decide what citizens can and cannot ingest/inhale into their bodies. This should be plain as day to anyone who supposedly respects the Constitution. The fact that it is not, however, merely demonstrates the fact that today's "conservatives" only pay lip-service to supporting the Constitution. When it comes to personal behavior of which they disapprove, they're only too happy to toss the law out the window.
"Liberty" doesn't mean you get the government behind you to force your personal views on other citizens; it means you RESTRAIN the government from forcing personal views on other citizens. Incidentally, I'm a father of three, I don't use drugs of any kind, and I rarely drink alcohol–as if that should matter in this argument anyway. It's a simple question of whether one believes in liberty or statism.
John, if my first inclination was to kill to get money then what do I care if it is over drugs or over gambling or over paying me to keep your business and family from suffering some "tragedy"? Union organizing is a perfectly legal activity. Why is organized crime engaged in it? Was it John Dillinger who said, "That's where the money is." when asked, "Why do rob banks?"
Sure, today there is a lot of money in drugs. Make them legal … all of them, heroin, crack, cocaine, pot, meth, everything. Then what will the drug cartels do? Where will they direct the violence they are so prone to engage in? Those are the questions to which I would like a reasonable response. Or should we not care because it would be Mexico's problem?
BTW, I do not believe that you think drugs are good. I think we can find an area of agreement on treatment vs. punishment.
You'd never get any "conservative" or "liberal" government to sign up for it, by I firmly hold that the following two-part solution would be the best possible course for "handling" narcotics:
STEP ONE: Everything is legal. All of it. Anyone who's reached the age of 18 can put as much as they want of any chemical they want to from trans-fat to black-tar heroin into their systems if they so choose to, providing they do so only to themselves and don't endanger anyone else in the process. If they DO act to endanger anyone else (say, by DRIVING while high) they go to jail (which will now have PLENTY of room for them, btw) for the rest of their effing lives – and if someone innocent gets HURT… the offender gets executed (in states allowing it.) Unprecedented freedom must come with unprecedented responsibility.
(continued)
(continued)
STEP TWO: Nothing is 'covered.' Recreational drugs are yours to use as you see fit. But they ARE factually toxic, and everyone will know that on the packaging and in general public knowledge. Therefore, if you DO use them and become ill or injured as a result? Tough luck. You don't get ONE RED CENT of government medical aid. Nothing. If you can pay for it yourself? Good. Have at it. Got friends/familysupporters willing to help you out? Even better (and THAT's how we'd still "save" a good deal of drug-prone artists and musicians, btw) If not? You made your choice, now live (briefly) with it. This will mean that lots and LOTS of drug over-users would perish, yes. Honestly? I'm not sure that's such a bad thing: They were demonstrably weak-willed and prone to addiction – the gene pool is likely better off without them (likewise, if they over-used and DIDN'T suffer ill-effects, SUPER! The gene pool can likely BENEFIT from their superior resistance.)
I know a lot more about drugs than I'd like to admit.
Have you ever used cocaine, crack, heroin…?
If not then you are nothing but an intellectual pinhead who claims to be an expert on something with which you have zero first hand experience, and it is you who needs to shut up.
Exactly.
I agree that legalization will not automatically transform drug kingpins into legitimate business owners. We all know that they're murderous thugs. However why should we continue to let them operate in a way that only makes them richer? If you tried to create a perfect black market that would guarantee the rise of violent psychopaths into positions of power you could not do better than the "War on Drugs." I was a lousy economics student as an undergrad but even I know that if demand is high and you keep supply artificially low you will get someone illegally making up the difference.
"Then what will the drug cartels do?"
Good question. I don't know. If my memory of history serves me I'm pretty sure that the violence in the Chicago streets dropped dramatically after the end of Prohibition.
"Where will they direct the violence they are so prone to engage in?"
That's assuming that they deal in violence for violence's sake. Perhaps they're killing over money, and deprived of their source of income they may be force to find something else to do with their lives.
jhshub, you make some good points. Maybe, in order to move the discussion forward, we need to separate the drug cartel tendency toward violence and drug legality vs illegality debates.
And I have to give you credit for being one of the few on the legalize side of the discussion for actually acknowledging that drug use will go up and that is something that will have to be dealt with.
I will also have to acknowledge that this phrase "War on Drugs" comes out of the liberal fascist movement and creating the moral equivalents of war on any issues that will entrench ever more control by government over our lives.
Like taking over the unions?
I am sure you don't really mean that those who overdose deserve death. As emotionally satisfying as that may seem it is simply wrong. I certainly don't admire drug addicts (or users) but all of them have parents and families too. Could you honestly refuse to help your own child, brother, sister or loved one even if they voluntarily began to use drugs or became addicted? I agree we should legalize most drugs primarily to deny the dealers and cartels the flow of cash that fund their monstrous activities. That, in the long run, will protect American security. We should also be prepared to grit our teeth and insure that proper treatment programs are available to the addicted. It won't be pretty but it it will prove the best policy.
love your Buck Turgidson quote. This is, indeed a frustrating issue that we still see resolutely in black and white terms. We worked in this field back in the wild and wooly heydays of the 80's. The Reagan administration wanted to deny the communists the revenue of illicit narcotics. So far so good. It worked, the Medellin cartel of Ochoa was put out of biz, and the Sandinistas and Raoul Casto were denied their funds and their expansion stopped dead in it's tracks. However the Cali cartel picked up seamlessly and our country's desire for nose candy went on unabated. Since the Reds were no longer profiting we were satisfied. Then we saw firsthand what 'blow' has done to our people. It is bad stuff. Period. If you legalize it and tax it you solve one problem- but create a far larger one, namel addicting your children with your consent. Think about it…
Dan, dont' forget the health care costs from the UHC plan to get people "off' the drugs too…
wow… drug fascism. interesting concept It isn't only former addicts who can speak intelligently on these issues. You do not hide your predilection towards drugs- that is your business. It is your own life that you are/can ruin. What concerns us is not you; you've made your choice. No, it's the innocent children entrusted to our care that we owe more than this…
True, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that "allows the federal government to decide what citizens can and cannot ingest/inhale iinto their bodies". There is however the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution, rightly understood, allows any state can make any substance it wants legal or illegal if that is what the people in that state decide. If California wants to make smoking illegal (which it has done, btw) than it can do so and there is nothing in the Constitution to stop them. So you have a point about these crimes being federal, in nature. If I understand the 10th Amend. correctly then there is nothing to keep Texas, Arizona, California or any other state from keeping drugs illegal, should the federal government declare them no longer a federal offense.
Daniel – I agree that "War on Drugs" is an appalling term but it is so ingrained in the culture that it is hard to think of any other shorthand. We could say "The forty-year old policy of controlling drugs through suppression, interdiction and military action" but that's quite a mouthful.
or whether one feels any sense of social responsibility at all. Your children come home and say 'I just had some coke and sex in the john at school" and you do what? Punish them when society tolerates it? Law enforcement is as frustrated as anyone else but the types we know do not want it legalized; they want big pushers put away fo 30 years and more, but they want consistency more than anything…
Keep up the good work Rusty – infiltrating the MSM with excellent investigative reporting. What is happening in Mexico is not so different from the Pablo Escobar story in Columbia in the 80's. Political assassination by cartel thugs culminated with the siege on their equivalent of our congress – murder escalated to include the highest officials in government – to the point all order broke down. Clearly Cauldron 'gets it'; Mexico is at the same precipice.
It's only in the past few years that the kidnapping epidemic has migrated into Phoenix – but it's been rampant throughout Mexico, Central & South America for decades – it was previously limited to insurgency militias seeking to militarily overthrow ruling governments.
Well, it is accurate.
Re: My "War on Drugs" phrase comment – I was actually getting at trying to see things from the legalize side of the debate and the government control that drug interdiction engenders.
I find it ironic that now Mexico is compelled to 'militarize the boarder' – acknowledging that the narco-thugs have been so successful in corrupting police and government officials that only the military can clean it up.
In 1917, the last time Mexico faced a similar threat to social revolution, we sent the Marines. But Black Jack Pershing didn't have to contend with an ipso facto Mexican National lobby in Washington demanding 'inclusion' and citizenship for those who migrated here in the last twenty years.
Five years ago President Bush called the movement at the boarder by armatures 'vigilante justice.' It was entirely politics. Now there is a SHOOTING WAR. And the good guys – if one can even call them that – are getting slaughtered. What is the difference between millions of illegal’s here wiring earnings south (in the billions) and the Islamic 'charities' funding Hamas & others?
Maybe if ordinary Mexican citizens – not just the wealthy – could self arm for protection & Mexico reinstated the Death Penalty for the worst of these criminals – the country wouldn't be in a quasi state of emergency.
Oh the Children!
You want to protect the children? Make the stuff legal.
Legitimate businessmen are a lot more likely to check a customer's age than someone who is already breaking the law by selling a prohibited chemical.
I challenge you to give me one reason to keep drugs illegal that could not be used as an argument to reinstate alcohol Prohibition.
Health, children, violence, effect on family and friends, job loss, theft to support the habit….
Alcohol causes all kinds of problems, but I haven't seen the world end because of it.
I've always found it interesting that someone who has used illegal drugs is somehow tainted, and anything they say on the subject is suspect.
It's a typical tactic, dismiss the person because it's easier than addressing their argument.
dcase – Thanks for noticing the Buck Turgidson thing. I totally agree that legalization will create other problems. After all the only law that is always in force is the law of unintended consequences. I don't have children which may make be more objective (or callous depending on your point of view) but I take your point. I have worked in the criminal justice system most of my life and my experience is that those who want drugs can always get them. Therefore the basic question is "who profits from this?" If we legalize and allow consumption to be on a par with alcohol prices will (I think) fall and individual users will find their own levels of use. Treatment must be available. There will be addiction but there is addiction now. It's one of those consequences we must deal with.
Thank you for helping me make my point. A person who is inclined to kill you over the profit that can be gained from heroin is just as likely to kill you for the profit that can be gained by controlling the Unions or legalized gambling.
If this was Star Wars, then these are guys who have gone over to the Dark Side.
War on Drugs…. How do you wage war against an inanimate object?
I suggest we start a War on Cabbage!
Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am not one of those who finds racism in every action. Crack is indeed a cheaper and more dangerous form of cocaine. We'll never be absolutely sure that the disparity in penalties for using and dealing crack versus those of powder cocaine is intentionally racist, but we can be sure that the result has been a gross disparity in race-related arrests.
I'm one of those who thinks the war on drugs has failed, and will continue to do so. I know that drug abuse is rampant and horrible, and I can't be convinced that it will be less so by virtue of legalization. I'm looking at it from a practical point of view. Eliminating the strictures is probably just the lesser of two evils. But at least it will help slow down the street wars, and possibly eliminate a major source of wealth in terrorist states and in those states whose interests are inimical to those of America's.
Make the stuff legal. Protect the chidren. My God, man- think about the dichotomy of your words. We tried to reason with you; your challenge was already met. But you are set in your convictions, you obviously enjoy using them and don't mind if others do. From a libertarian standpoint we understand- but that is why we are not libertarians. A just society has responsibilities, and this stuff needs to be kept unlawful and every child must be educated to it's dehumanizing evils. Alcohol has a 10,000 year association with society and is bad enough. But an occasional beer or glass of wine hurts no one. Druggies are far more habitual in their use, and Europe is already rolling back the methadone/free needle rules because It Is Creating More Addicts.
Obama is going to grant refugee status to Mexicans illegally crossing the border, from what I understand. Hey OBAMA how about getting serious about the problem and get the military on the southern border? You won't hear a peep from the New York Times on this issue since they have a big Mexican investor, and have no credibility in any event.
Then what will we have with Corned Beef? Brussel Sprouts? Broccoli?
yours is the most reasoned response we've dealt with. One senses the sadness in your heart. But if we capitulate to this, then there is no moral imperative left for us to pursue. This is indeed a very difficult issue and you are not wrong- your point is honest and selfless, unlike the drug advocates we have heard from who truly enjoy throwing their money and life away chasing chemically produced endorphins…
yours is the most reasoned response we've dealt with. One senses the sadness in your heart. But if we capitulate to this, then there is no moral imperative left for us to pursue. This is indeed a very difficult issue and you are not wrong- your point is honest and selfless, unlike the drug advocates we have heard from who truly enjoy throwing their money and life away chasing chemically produced endorphins…
This is where I part from my conservative brethren, sorry. The War on Drugs is dumb. The government cannot and should not dictate morality. Drug addicts should be in some kind of treatment not a prison, if they choose. Regulate it as you do alcohol, 21yrs old, DUI or DWI, taxes, bootlegging, etc. The heroin/drug addicts, alcoholics, that I have known you could tell them if they’re caught they’ll have to face a firing squad in the morning, they’d still do it, and by the way they still get drugs in prison, just my thoughts. ____
you are the one advocating it sir, and admitting to use paints you as such… we have addressed your argument but you do not care to listen. So,let's just agree to disagree and best of luck with your own situation.
My challenge was not met.
I have yet to see an argument to keep drugs illegal that is not also an argument to reinstate Prohibition.
Obviously legalization will allow more people access to the chemicals, and thus more addicts.
But if given a choice between that and gangsters getting rich while killing people, prisons filling faster than they can be built, liberties tossed out the window, expanded police power because everyone is a suspect, addicts fearing imprisonment when wanting help, corruption on all levels of law enforcement and government, death an injury from an unregulated product, billions of tax dollars spent with no effect on supply or demand…
Or do you think those are acceptable consequences?
It doesn't matter. Cabbage is bad. It's bad because we say it is bad, and anyone who grows it, sells it, or eats it should go to prison.
the war has been difficult Hawk- it is not a failure. You are correct of the sentencing inequity; it is one of Jesse Jackson's (only) salient points. However, there is far more violence involved with crack than powder so it is actually understandable. If we free these poor people from their leftist imprisonment in projects stacked on top of each other with no future in sight so they can be reliable Democratic voting blocs this situation would improve dramatically. To legalize this would be to officially announce failure. We may as well stand for nothing at all…
Will there, necessarily, be more room in prisons? Since use will undoubtedly go up, so will the number of incidents in which someone endangers someone else. And if we follow your recommendation, then we would be treating someone with a substance abuse problem no differently then they were treated during the so-called War on Drugs.
Imagine this: The federal government declares all drugs no longer a federal offense and California followed your recommendations. Family dissolution, however, if it can be tied to drug use would be classified as a criminal offense – after all it does hurt innocent children and spouses. Now we have the state of California imprisoning men and women because their marriages ended as a result from their drug use. Hmmm … unprecedented freedom?
BTW, I hope that those who make the legalize argument have no problem with tobacco smokers smoking anywhere – restaurant, bar, shop, office … anywhere.
Alcohol has a 10,000 year association with WHITE society.
Marijuana, opiates and even cocaine have had thousands of years of association with non-whites.
Are you racist, sir?
you draw hysterical conclusions to workable situations and throw out the prohibition canard. You, sir are intellectually disingenuous. Violent crime must be dealt with harshly, no matter what the cause. Prisons should not be filled with non-violent offenders, we are in favor of rehabilitation and community service, corruption is relatively non-existent in the US over drugs, and if you buy junk and put junk in your body than junk is the result. You will not address the 10,000 year association with moderate alcohol use (mead predates Sumerian culture) and keep shrieking 'Prohibition'… we have met your emotional argument with logic.
You have not done the same.
The difference is a matter of degrees. There is exponentially more money to be made in the drug trade than pretty much any other criminal enterprise. Then we can redirect the law enforcement resources currently tied up in drug interdiction to go after the protection rackets and other criminal enterprises.
And what good is done in the attempt to stop drug use? We're failing to stop the drug use AND at the same time increasing the damage the drug trade does on society.
Remember its the LIBERALS that demand "perfect solutions". Us conservatives are supposed to look at problems with logic and reason. From my perspective its a simple cost/benefit analysis and I've concluded that the war on drugs and the black market in drugs do significantly more damage to society (both in violence and in loss of freedom) than the use of the drugs by the idiots that choose to use them.
I was trying to make a joke. I got your point the first time. The horse is dead. You can stop hitting it.
I think that you will find a lot of conservatives in favor of some sort of legalization. William F. Buckley deplored the "War on Drugs" and the National rEview has always featured commentary critical of interdiction policies. The problem most conservatives have is seemingly having to "surrender" to these cartel goons and tacitly endorsing the use of potentially harmful substances here at home. I always cringe a little myself when I see some sixty-ish balding ex-hippie with a ponytail smoking reefer in a parking lot like he's still the coolest cat around. Still conservatives should be for social policies that cause the least amount of harm and I think that we have reached this point with drug legalization.
I think that you will find a lot of conservatives in favor of some sort of legalization. William F. Buckley deplored the "War on Drugs" and the National rEview has always featured commentary critical of interdiction policies. The problem most conservatives have is seemingly having to "surrender" to these cartel goons and tacitly endorsing the use of potentially harmful substances here at home. I always cringe a little myself when I see some sixty-ish balding ex-hippie with a ponytail smoking reefer in a parking lot like he's still the coolest cat around. Still conservatives should be for social policies that cause the least amount of harm and I think that we have reached this point with drug legalization.
was waiting for a truly emotional invective and you delivered. This color thing must mean a lot to you. Our life has depended on and been saved by people of color…
so the answer would be we don't see color but do see the color of a man's soul.
And yours is dark indeed…
was waiting for a truly emotional invective and you delivered. This color thing must mean a lot to you. Our life has depended on and been saved by people of color…
so the answer would be we don't see color but do see the color of a man's soul.
And yours is dark indeed…
"The government cannot and should not dictate morality." Nonsense. When the government writes laws outlawing murder it is dictating morality. When the Founders wrote a Constitution restricting what the federal government (but not individual state governments) can do, they were dictating morality. The former happens to be a morality an overwhelming majority of the population agrees with. (There are people who think murder should be acceptable, and while most of them are in prison, and many of them are working in the drug trade.) The latter happens to be a morality many, sadly, think no longer applies.
Daniel, I currently have an eloquent reply tied up in moderation limbo … hopefully it'll show up here eventually.
GRRR.
Andrew, buddy, y'all really gotta do something about the robomod, there was nothing even slightly objectionable in what I posted … not a single "bad" word, proper capitalization, no spelling errors, no hyperlinks, not even the name of the people that are the descendants of Moses (the dreaded "J" word … which often gets my posts sent to moderation limbo. I guess we should just pretend those people don't exist).
"Could you honestly refuse to help your own child, brother, sister or loved one even if they voluntarily began to use drugs or became addicted?"
Certainly not. And I wouldn't prevent anyone else's family from doing the same for them. I just don't want the GOVERNMENT helping them – federal/state aid should ONLY ever be for people who have legitimately suffered through no fault of their own (illness, accidents, outside assault, etc.)
I'd not contend that a drug-abuser who overdoses "deserves" death, I'm just not convinced that a guy who's dumb enough to ingest enough poison to kill himself because of a short-term high exiting the scene really qualifies as an automatic tragedy.
I don't entirely disagree with you, I just can't entirely agree with you either. I see crack as equivalent to bathtub gin. During prohibition, bathtub gin and rotgut whiskey were cheaper and deadlier than professionally manufactured alcoholic beverages, and produced a cottage industry of local murderous thugs. That's why I mentioned the "street wars." And of course, this puts me in the weird position of suggesting that if cocaine were legalized, crack (and maybe crystal meth) would nearly disappear because there would be a better, purer, and cheaper form of legal drug available. It wouldn't eliminate criminal enterprise, but it would put a big crimp in it.
I don't believe that revoking prohibition meant that non-drinkers ended up standing for nothing at all. As a former alcohol abuser, I still rail against alcohol abuse. I'd simply prefer to spend more time, money and resources on educating people about drug abuse, and less on people shooting at each other. I spent the 60s and most of the 70s in Berkeley and San Francisco, so I have more than a passing acquaintance with illegal drugs as well. Needless to say, I take no joy in advocating legalization.
crack addicts will just take the legal subsatnce and make crack out of it. We know we aren't making any friends with our take on this issue but feel that there is a deper obligation to our future then to just give in… but we respect your point of view…
And that's the beauty of free thought, free speech and free enterprise. It's one of those oddities of life that as I get older, I seem to have more questions and fewer answers.
"Family dissolution, however, if it can be tied to drug use would be classified as a criminal offense – after all it does hurt innocent children and spouses."
It'd be interesting caselaw, but I imagine any such decision would be overturned pretty quickly – i.e. punishing the innocent. I can't imagine it standing up, since poorly-managing a family isn't in and of itself against the law.
As to smoking laws: I don't smoke or take drugs with anything approaching regularity, and while I'm for absolute legalization I think that preventing people from using stimulants with an airborne or potential-secondary-effect ("contact high") in an enclosed space is perfectly reasonable in that no one should be forced to inhale or make contact with chemicals they don't wish to. Outdoor smoking bans, on the other hand? Ridiculous. I am, however, open to the idea that the decision of whether or not to have indoor smoking ought be left to the owners of the establishment.
Well it's too bad drugs are treated as A FEDERAL ISSUE, then, isn't it? After all, the federal government has somehow come up with a way to justify FEDERAL raids on marijuana dispenseries in California. All those scary cancer patients getting their weed is apparently a matter of national security.
What should scare people is this: If all fifty states were to legalize marijuana tomorrow, the federal government most likely wouldn't stop raiding people's houses. So what else in the Constitution is considered "inconvenient" (and, therefore, ignorable) for the federal government when it comes to law enforcement? The 2nd Amendment? The 4th Amendment?
yes- we agree that the older we are the less we know… and that's being told to us quite pointedly today. You do practice free thought quite well, amigo…
The People will always be on the winning side of the drug war.
Yay! My post finally showed up (only 2 hours after I posted it … oh well at least it made it!)
I agree with Movie Bob. Period
Not exactly. Murder infringes on another person's liberty. Yes, it's a "moral" issue, but it's also a violation of personal liberty–and that is why it should be illegal. Not simply because people think it's "morally bad." Do you have any idea how many things people consider " morally bad?"
Personal morality is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from personal liberty, and the founders understood that. It is the government's job to protect personal liberty; in the realm of personal morality, i.e. acts which do not affect other people (except to possibly offend them), it is the government's duty to step aside and let people live their lives.
This is the inherent issue with defending liberty: people are GOING TO BE OFFENDED. People aren't going to approve of everyone's behavior–and that's exactly the way it should be. Folks should be free to live their lives the way they see fit without government intervention so long as they don't harm others or infringe upon the rights of others. That is the very definition of liberty.
People who have a problem with that concept have a problem with the primary ideals that founded this nation.
Those cartels don't just traffic in drugs. It is currently their most profitbale enterprise, but you'd be nuts to think it's their only one. If you legalized all drugs tomorrow, they'd switch to other activities that would be profitable and there would still be issues. The cartels won't go away.
Zundfolge, you're right, of course, that Liberals demand "perfect solutions"; solutions that usually mean just more government interference in our lives. I too am attempting to weigh the costs and benefits.
30 years ago I know someone who was in an accident that left her severely brain damaged and unable to care for herself. Her family has cared for her all these years (I bring this up not to elicit sympathy. Rather as a factual case to illustrate a point.). That is not something I would wish on anyone. Since drug use would go up if it was made legal, then I am certain there would be more cases like this.
I am not certain, and no one has convinced me otherwise, that the thugs who commit murder and mayhem will simply dissolve into the woodwork were drugs made legal. They didn't when alcohol was made legal. The mother who today mourns a child killed in some rival gang's crossfire, I believe, would continue to be at risk. Someone ordered to kill and willing to do so to support the drug trade would be just as willing to kill to support something else.
Yes, there is a social cost to the so-called War on Drugs, and there may, as you eloquently argue, be some benefits if they were made legal. There would be a social cost were all drugs legalized. At this point, I just don't see benefits outweighing those costs from legalization.
In time, I may change my opinion on that, which is why I remain open to honest and reasonable discussion on the topic.
The accident I refer to above was due to alcohol.
True that, but there's also nothing in there that says I have to be at all in any way financially responsible for your probable destruction of your life and means of supoorting yourself. Since we obviously no longer live in those times, I can't support your right to legalize wholesale drug addiction to anyone who wants to go out an buy it.
However, if you want to remove any and all Federal and state entitilements and entanglements entirely, then remove drug laws, go right ahead and f yourselves up. I won't have to pay for it, and when you come to commit addition induced violence, I'll have my 2nd Amendment allowed protectin device to stop you.
Liberty is just as much a moral issue as murder. If my morality declares your liberty is inconvenient than that's that. The Founders, I think, were pretty clear in Declaration of Independence: "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Founder's Christian morality and century's of moral and ethical thought is what inspired that statement.
I would argue that it is an inspired morality, inspired by something outside of yourself, that leads you to the statement: "Folks should be free to live their lives the way they see fit without government intervention so long as they don't harm others or infringe upon the rights of others." That is a moral argument, and you are using the Constitution to make it the law of the land. Why do you have a problem with that?
OK, so I got part of the Declaration quote wrong, but not the important parts.
And what about hard drugs that cause psychotic episodes and violent behavior like methamphetamine? They can lead people to infringe on the personal rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens. Should we legalize those too?
I'm not convinced that is true. There is ample evidence that alcoholism INCREASED under prohibition (probably because restrained, moderate use of alcohol became a thing of the past … you went to the speakeasy and slammed down poorly made hooch … no glass of wine with dinner). Right after the end of prohibition there was a slight uptick in alcohol use, but then it receded back down to pre-prohibition levels.
Thing is, drugs have been completely illegal for longer than I've been alive and there's still people that die or are seriously harmed in accidents involving drugs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.