American Wars on Vice, from alcohol to tobacco to hemp to what's your poison are and always have been a national disgrace.

It certainly makes us look like the asses we are when we gas on about liberty.

I've always thought that the blindness of the Left on guns is mirrored by the blindness of the Right on drugs.

It is foolish to blame the instrument and ignore the component of human behavior.

Just as guns do not kill people -- people kill people -- so, too, is it true that drugs do not ruin lives, people ruin lives -- sometimes their own, sometimes those of others.

And just as it is foolish to guide public policy based on the tip-of-the-iceberg of street crimes using guns, so, too, is it a chump's game to behold the pathologies of a black market (one created by the government's draconian action) and extrapolate from there that ruination awaits the wider society should possession of these instruments be made lawful.

As Simon says: stuck on stupid.

M

>>I note it is never mentioned by pro gun folks either.

It is mentioned.

Pretty frequently on the gun boards I spend time on.

The general consensus is that the war on (some) drugs is bad use of resource with bad consequences.

Whether the cure is worse than the disease, though, becomes the subject of a food fight between socially conservative and liberty oriented members.

{continued from anon 1:15, which was me, I forgot to login}

Basically, just as the gun bigots are wont to shriek "blood in the streets! Shootouts over parking spaces!" concerning guns, the law and order types are wont to shout "Junkies EVERYWHERE! Degenerate morals! Broken families!" concerning drugs.

I concur. The drug war is more costly than the Iraq war. Reforming the drug laws would reduce violence tremendously.
I'm a gun owner myself, yet I have no problem whatsoever with the gun laws that are on the books today. I know a lot of the rightwingers here oppose any legislation, but most of them are enacted to prevent cops and innocent civilians from getting killed.
We spend an awful lot of tax dollars trying to protect drug users from themselves.

No Yogi here is what it really is:

Gun control is to prevent self defense.

Drug control is to prevent self medication.

All the rest is obfuscation.

I agree with anonymous that Simon's statement that nobody talks about ending the drug war to reduce crime is unduly pessimistic. But nobody in national politics is talking about it, which is where it really matters.

Some are stuck on stupid, others are stuck on craven opportunism. And in some states, the inability of excons to vote makes the drug war the modern day Jim Crow. In others, the profits from prison labor make it the modern day slavery.

As for the cure being worse than the disease, only a fool would make such an argument.

M. Simon, that's an oversimplification. You don't need assuault rifles and cop killing bullets to defend yourself. There are no good reasons why you shouldn't do a backround check before selling a gun.

There is no difference in lethality between an assault rifle and a similar rifle without the assault features.

What are you afraid of? A bayonet charge?

Criminals don't need background checks. Why should law abiding persons?

Erm. No. Well, maybe. Depending on what you mean by self medication. If you're talking about pseudoephedrine or acetaminophen or acetylsalicylic acid or ibuprofen, by all means, please do promote their use. If you're talking about the use of narcotics by terminal patients in hospices, by all means, promote their use too.

However, if you are talking about the free and easy, free-market-only-regulated flow of cannabis, LSD, crack, rohypnol, Ecstasy and whatnot for recreational use, then I must disagree. There is arguably evidence indicating that the use of these drugs in and of themselves can lead to permanet damage of the person involved and the increased tendency towards 'antisocial' behaviour. Even those notoriously libertine folk in Amsterdam recognise this.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I do find it ridiculous that someone can be all 'Stop the War on Drugs!' and still totally 'Secure the Borders and Build the Wall!' - these two are contradictory in nature and let me explain. In both circumstances, you have a controversial/arguable assumption; namely (1)drug use is bad and (2)illegal immigration is bad. In both cases, the logical conclusion is to reduce or mitigate/control/minimise the chances of such occuring. And the easiest way of doing it in both circumstances is by control. And yet, for the one you wish to abolish (or at least greatly loosen) and on the other you wish to have full (or greatly increased) enforcement.

Not that people need to be consistent, no. We'd be robots if we were. But if you were to say 'Change tactics in the War on Drugs', an equivalent of COIN tactics and the Surge, coupled with rational, looser regulations, and a concerted effort by all parties involved (parents, community, drug companies, research organisations and even yes the govt), then yeah, I'm with you there.

You really think this is obfuscating? It seems pretty clear-cut to me.

You really need to re-educate yourself re: your beliefs about drugs.

Here is how it works in America. The rich go to a doctor to get drugs with a certain effect. The poor buy from the gypsy drug store.

Class War

Treatment vs Recreation

Round Pegs In Round Holes

Our drug war is really a class war. The rich against the poor.

FWIW I'm a Republican. I know. It goes against the grain.

Ah, is that right? Then what you need to do is change the terms of the engagement.

Never mind that you're Republican. But tell me; does the fact that certain drugs have the same primary effect also mean that they have the same *secondary* effects? The FDA takes years to approve drugs because they have to go through all kinds of hoops to prove that their side effects are minimal. Even then, sometimes certain drugs like minoxidil (sp?) have, shall we say, very hairy side effects?

And as anybody well knows, the simple answer to expensive drugs is compulsory licensing. If you want to go that way.

And just to add a little more oil to the fire, the entire world is not the USA. You want a real drug war, come on down to Singapore or Malaysia. We don't dose our kids of ritalin or some other crap just because they act out in schools. You may think the drug war in the USA is a class war, but it isn't necessarily the same the world over. And if you don't care about the rest of the world, then like I said, you need to change the terms of the engagement.

And that's that.

Look, I know things are not so simple. But for goodness' sake, take a really good look at the REST OF THE WORLD, please? Look at what happens when they loosen restriction on certain classes of drugs. Take a good look at what happens when you consume those drugs *recreationally* - which, whatever you think, is how Big Pharma markets the drugs anyways - sildenafil, for crying out loud. Down here, we just use Tongkat Ali and be done with it.

I might not be the only one who needs to be re-educated.

GK,

Funny thing is that most of the banned drugs (esp pot) have fewer and less dangerous side effects.

Of course the FDA drugs go through about a decade of review.

The banned drugs have been reviewed for a century or more. Some of them millennia in actual human trials.

Most of the bad things you hear about those drugs are due to black market conditions.

As I said - it is a class war having nothing to do with science. Nothing at all.

What happens when they lose restrictions? Look up Dr. John Marks' work in England with heroin. What happens with reliable access to pure drugs is that people get on with their lives.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950730/ai_n13997603

All most all the ills attributed to drugs are caused by black market conditions.

So yes. I have looked at what happens. I have been studying the subject for 40 years. Intensively for the last 8.

The Iron Law of Prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes."

People generally prefer milder drugs - if legally available.

Prohibition always and only makes things worse.

Ah... wonderful. A 12 year old article, concerning a single clinic and a single guy practically on his deathbed, who has colleagues who are not so sure about his assertions. Of course, I as well as any other know that this does not necessarily mean anything. But just to counter...

Here is a link PRO

Here is a long CON

So, which is it? I don't need schizos running around the streets with guns...

You know what? I doubt you will change my mind, and that I would change your mind. Since I pretty much agree with you on most other subjects you blog about, and since the freedom of thought has not been taken away from either of us, I would like to propose we respectfully agree to disagree on this one matter. Would this be an acceptable proposal, Mr Simon?

My personal take on the matter: People are idiots. They should, however, not therefore be regulated for their own good. If they kill themselves, let God and the community sort it out. But if they become more dangerous to *others*, then I suggest govt intervention is not the worst thing in the world.

I agree with that statement you made, though - making something illegal is almost an absolute guarantee that its allure increases manyfold. Which is why I much prefer regulation over prohibition. How much regulation? That depends on scientific research, and political reality, unfortunately.

GK,

So you are telling me that the research on schizophrenia and tobacco is not useful because it is 12 years old?

I suppose Einstein's 1905 papers must really be worthless.

In any case you ignorance aside there is this wonderful thing on the 'net called Google. Perhaps you have heard of it. I'm sure if you used it for your research you could find something more recent. I did.

Out of deference to our most honored host I prefer to link to his posts when they cover a subject of interest.

Drugs are bad is something you were taught by the GOVERNMENT. It must give you the warm fuzzies to be spouting the government line on a subject where your self education is deficient.

But since I'm a nice guy I'll give you something else to gnaw on.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/497/biden_bill_addiction_brain_disease

Addiction is a function of genetics and trauma. Even the NIDA says it is a function of genetics and environment.

So you think it isn't a war on the traumatized? On those who are not the same as everyone else? Where is your latest proof?

In my estimation you are just another class warrior disguised as a libertarian.

Why does the Government seal of approval of some drugs and not others make you feel so self righteous?

Access to banned drugs will not cause a mass die off. Dr. Marks in England (before the USA shut down his research) showed that "addicts" given regular access to heroin lead normal lives.

Chronic drug users take drugs chronically for relief of chronic pain. The amygdala is the heart of the matter. Do some research and get back to me. The ills you see re: drugs is caused by lack of legal access. You might want to read "Drug Warriors and Their Prey" by R.L. Miller which runs down the whole sorry system.

Drug users are no more addicted to drugs than insulin users are addicted to insulin. It is a semantic trick played on you by the Government. You down with that?

I'd suggest you read more pro-gun blogs then. We're pro-gun not because they're cool and make loud noises, but because they help secure liberty. Part of that liberty is allowing people to make their own decisions in their lives, even if it's a bad decision, and require them to suffer the consequences of them.

Liberty is a nasty, dirty, thing. To allow other people to have it means they may do things you don't like or approve of.

We should start a petetion to make tobacco against the law. possession of more than one pack would be intent to deliver. passession of a pipe be possession of drug parifinilia( sp ) . What would be the difference??