Is the USA drug war unconstitutional? Is it doing more harm than good?

[Pray To Jesus]

When our founding fathers created the USA, it is widely known that the government don't have the right to dictate what the people put into their body.

Per the original understanding and knowledge of the Constitution, Congress knew that it needed to change the Constitution itself to give government power to to ban alcohol. This led to the Prohibition and eventual repeal because of spike in crime rate.

I believe the same process is going on with be applied to our current situation with drugs. The different being this time around it's done unconstitutionally.

We saw the same increase in crime, especially in inner city areas and minority population. This is due to the amount of money gangs and cartels are able to make. It is this money that drives the violence, often deadly because illegal weapons are easily affordable with profits gain from the illegal drug trade.

It's amazing how naive people are today. Somehow, the government has trick the people into thinking that alcohol and drugs are different.

It's good that the people is wising up due to the advent of global telecommunication. This has already been seen by states putting drug legalization for vote, currently the battle is for legalization of marijuana.
States such as Colorado already made it legal.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Probably and most definitely.

I don't use any drugs other than caffeine and chocolate, but I object to the current policy on (little-l) libertarian grounds and from the pragmatic idea of reducing the overall damage done to society.


The current policy had led to:
- Prison terms and criminal records for non-violent offenders.
- SWAT team home invasions where sometimes they pick the wrong home and shoot your dog, or you.
- Gang violence
- A destabilized Mexico. Besides the deaths, the lack of stability increases the incentive for their citizens to come to the US because of the lack of opportunity there.
- Injury and death from unregulated, poor quality drugs.

I feel that drugs should be legal, but regulated and taxed like cigarettes and tobacco.

The arguments against legalization usually boil down to:
1. "Think of the children" - the claim that more children will try these drugs instead of the easily-obtained alcohol and prescription meds.

At least for marijuana and meth, kids seem to have no problem obtaining unsafe and unregulated supplies from street dealers, so I question this.

2. Addictive personalities can't help themselves when exposed to anything harder than marijuana, so if we legalize cocaine, etc. we'll have a bunch of addicts to deal with.

I can possibly see needing a prescription for any of them except marijuana, but I'm not convinced that is necessary or desirable.

a) How many of these people are getting already getting poor-quality unregulated drugs off the street? What evidence is there that there would be a large increase in addicts?
b) What evidence that the damage would be greater than the damage caused by current drug policy? (Violence, injury from unregulated drugs, prison terms)
c) If the legalized drugs were generating tax revenue, could enough of that be put into drug treatment to reduce the overall harm?

I can possibly see needing a prescription for any of them except marijuana, but I'm not convinced that is necessary or desirable.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it isn't unconstitutional, yes, it is a bad idea.

Edit: also, prohibition did not regulate the consumption of alcohol, only its sale, transport, etc.

 

[Craig234]

I'd like to see the CDC funded to study effective policies on drugs.

Just as the people who supported the laws against drugs didn't appreciate results such as the Mexican drug cartels, what results do we not understand would happen if we removed those laws today - with drugs such as crack, meth, and others that destroy lives?

There are absolutely problems that the laws cause many problems - eating up massive resources in our law enforcement and prisons, the laws themselves destroying lives, creating the profit incentives for criminal networks and violence, even threatening civil liberties at times.

But I think the 'libertarian' approach is wrongheaded and naive, of a sort of 'dont' worry about it, just let people do whatever and deal with the situation'.

There's a flawed ideology there that things 'interests' will mean people won't do bad things a lot - totally contradicted by reality, but they're stubborn.

It's not only wrong on simple things like seat belt laws - but far more wrong on things like drugs that totally make people irrational pursuers of more drugs.

But that's about the reason - while I don't support the Libertarian reason, we should ask about reducing our drug laws.

But I think it makes sense to note the damage drugs cause and ask, how can we best help people not become victims of drugs. There is an element of 'freedom' that's attractive too - there have been 'explorers' who want to use drugs such as LSD and hallucinogens, not to mention many who want to use marijuana - but we can't just 'make up' what policy will work well, as the drug wars show.

So, I'd like to see a well done project to look into what we can find makes good policy, which may well include a lot of de-criminalization - and maybe education and treatment.

It may not sound as sexy in politics to say "I want a study" as to say "I want freedom and I want it now", but I think it's the better plan than just unleashing legal meth.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'm not against studies, or against regulation.

It's (IMHO) an extremist libertarian who says "all control is bad", just like it's an extremist position to say it's OK to infringe any liberty "for your own good."

Yes, I should eat steamed veggies with every meal for my own good. No, I don't accept that the government has the right or duty to make me do that.

There's a flawed ideology there that things 'interests' will mean people won't do bad things a lot - totally contradicted by reality, but they're stubborn.

Edit: also, slightly off-topic but a moderate libertarian is not necessarily against the FDA, EPA, copyrights and (reformed) patents, etc. and we do realize "you didn't build that [alone]". It's the extremists who think "the magic of the market" will somehow lead to clean air and water, safe drugs and free Hollywood movies for everyone. In discussing libertarians here and in other threads it seems like you've chosen the strawman of the extremists to argue against.

Edit 2: I also accept that the anarchist form of libertarianism is as you describe, including being unworkable in a modern society. Libertarian can be as simplistic of a label as "liberal" and "conservative" when people can be e.g. fiscally conservative and socially liberal or moderate.

 

[Craig234]

On the constitutionality issue, I'm not expert enough to say what should be the right answer (which may have little to do with what the Supreme Court has said).

On first glance it does seem there's a question about the federal government regulating these things; they seem to fall within those limited powers reserved to the states.

The grounds I've heard of for federal power seem weak - the horrible Scalia, who simply and blatantly makes things up to fit his politcs, invented a bizarre basis for outlawing someone from growing pot, by saying that because that might prevent them from buying (illegal) pot imported from out of state, that made it an 'interstate commerce' issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm just a layman, but it seems to me that is is likely unconstitutional. It is unquestionably doing more harm than good, in my opinion. It's just another example of our corrupt government using "War on XYZ" fear-mongering to subvert Americans' rights, build bureaucratic empires, and fuel corporate welfare.

 

[ivwshane]

When our founding fathers created the USA, it is widely known that the government don't have the right to dictate what the people put into their body.

Per the original understanding and knowledge of the Constitution, Congress knew that it needed to change the Constitution itself to give government power to to ban alcohol. This led to the Prohibition and eventual repeal because of spike in crime rate.

I believe the same process is going on with be applied to our current situation with drugs. The different being this time around it's done unconstitutionally.

We saw the same increase in crime, especially in inner city areas and minority population. This is due to the amount of money gangs and cartels are able to make. It is this money that drives the violence, often deadly because illegal weapons are easily affordable with profits gain from the illegal drug trade.

It's amazing how naive people are today. Somehow, the government has trick the people into thinking that alcohol and drugs are different.

It's good that the people is wising up due to the advent of global telecommunication. This has already been seen by states putting drug legalization for vote, currently the battle is for legalization of marijuana.
States such as Colorado already made it legal.

You can believe whatever you want but does the data support your belief? I'd like to see crime rates before the war on drugs took place as well as data on drug use during that same period and any other relevant data you think would back your claim.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You can believe whatever you want but dors the data support your belief? I'd like to see crime rates before the war on drugs took place as well as data on drug use during that same period and any other relevant data you think would back your claim.

The studies and citations listed in this wiki article support the viewpoint that the drug war is misguided, and that the war is being carried out without good research to back it up its effectiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Socio-economic_effects

Can you offer evidence to support that spending hundreds of billions, infringing our rights and incarcerating large numbers of citizens has been effective? Those costs are facts, even before we look at crime statistics.

If we are going to go to war, I'd argue the burden should be on its advocates to prove that the war is a just and effective one.

 

[Screech]

Constitutionality: If a constitutional amendment was needed to ban alcohol, why should marijuana and other such drugs not require such an amendment? Seems pretty obviously unconstitutional as far as personal use is concerned. Obviously the federal government can ban interstate traffic of it, but a person growing their own ____ ? Please.

Doing more harm than good: Certainly. Again, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[ivwshane]

The studies and citations listed in this wiki article support the viewpoint that the drug war is misguided, and that the war is being carried out without good research to back it up its effectiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Socio-economic_effects

Can you offer evidence to support that spending hundreds of billions, infringing our rights and incarcerating large numbers of citizens has been effective? Those costs are facts, even before we look at crime statistics.

If we are going to go to war, I'd argue the burden should be on its advocates to prove that the war is a just and effective one.

That's a straw man argument as I didn't make any statements for or against your argument. I looked on the wiki site and the links are either dead or are to documentaries or include studies from other countries. You made a claim the onus is on you to provide proof of those claims.

In order to have a proper debate we have to agree on the facts first.

 

[Lithium381]

Shall we leave it up to the states to try? I think Washington and Colorado are already trying it. CA tried it for a bit but it got squashed by the feds....

Then again, states closer to the southern border might be more at risk to having it "go wrong" than the northern states.

I've heard enough studies SUPPORTING MJ use to think that it might have some merit to try. Other drugs, no we're not ready for that.. . but we spend far too much and far too many young lives are ruined over the war on pot....and for what?

 

[Lithium381]

On the constitutionality issue, I'm not expert enough to say what should be the right answer (which may have little to do with what the Supreme Court has said).

On first glance it does seem there's a question about the federal government regulating these things; they seem to fall within those limited powers reserved to the states.

The grounds I've heard of for federal power seem weak - the horrible Scalia, who simply and blatantly makes things up to fit his politcs, invented a bizarre basis for outlawing someone from growing pot, by saying that because that might prevent them from buying (illegal) pot imported from out of state, that made it an 'interstate commerce' issue.

Hah, normally I tend to take Scalias side on things, but that is just pretty far fetched!

 

[Pray To Jesus]

You can believe whatever you want but does the data support your belief? I'd like to see crime rates before the war on drugs took place as well as data on drug use during that same period and any other relevant data you think would back your claim.

History doesn't lie. We went through the prohibition and saw the drastic increase in violence and crime that money from illegal alcohol sale brought.

People want alcohol. People want drugs.

In my mind the experiment has been conducted already and it has shown that making things people want illegal leads to violence and crime from the vast flow of money to be made on selling illegal products.

 

[PowerEngineer]

History doesn't lie. We went through the prohibition and saw the drastic increase in violence and crime that money from illegal alcohol sale brought.

People want alcohol. People want drugs.

In my mind the experiment has been conducted already and it has shown that making things people want illegal leads to violence and crime from the vast flow of money to be made on selling illegal products.

If this is the yardstick we use to measure, then shouldn't we also legalize prostitution?

I have to ask you why your judgment isn't based on "objective truth".

 

[DaveSimmons]

If this is the yardstick we use to measure, then shouldn't we also legalize prostitution?

Yes, we should. Sex prohibition has never worked either.

A well-regulated prostitution industry would be safer and healthier for all involved. Get rid of the pimps and their control using violence, lies and drug addiction. Let the sex workers keep their money, get proper health care and even pay into 401k funds for retirement.

Use some of the taxes collected to fund rehab and job training to help those that want to transition to other jobs.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

If this is the yardstick we use to measure, then shouldn't we also legalize prostitution?

I have to ask you why your judgment isn't based on "objective truth".

How you did you come to the conclusion that my judgment isn't based on objective truth? I would like to know your thought process as far as this statement is concerned.

I advocate for policies using the best available data and evidence available at the time. If later evidence shows contrary, then I will switch what I advocate for.

Therefore, I do believe that a lot of the US policies is misguided and brought more harm than good. Don't you think we should work to change the nation for the better?

I do think prostitution should be legalized. If it's legal then we can protect the women working in those jobs through better working conditions as well as education about their risks.

My aim for myself is to love what Jesus love, to practice forgiveness, and work on improving myself. It's God's will and plan for my life that I have to spread my knowledge of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit the way God show it to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

How you did you come to the conclusion that my judgment isn't based on objective truth? I would like to know your thought process as far as this statement is concerned.

I advocate for policies using the best available data and evidence available at the time. If later evidence shows contrary, then I will switch what I advocate for.

Therefore, I do believe that a lot of the US policies is misguided and brought more harm than good. Don't you think we should work to change the nation for the better?

I do think prostitution should be legalized. If it's legal then we can protect the women working in those jobs through better working conditions as well as education about their risks.

My aim for myself is to love what Jesus love, to practice forgiveness, and work on improving myself. It's God's will and plan for my life that I have to spread my knowledge of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit the way God show it to me.

Not to disagree with anything you said but I see the problem of objective truth differently, I think, than you do. When you say you advocate for policies using the best available data and evidence available at the time and if later evidence shows contrary, then you will switch what you advocate for, I would agree, but what I don't believe, and you seem to believe, is that you actually know what the best available data and evidence are. It just so happens, or at least in my opinion, that everybody believes they do that and yet there are myriads of opinions. I call this buying into ones unconscious presumptions. Similarly you may be mistaken in assuming that the truth can only be seen in the way that you were shown it rather than one of numerous ways that folk may experience revelation.

Some drugs open the doors of the mind and some people are not ready for what they may find. It is dangerous to blow off the armored doors of what we feel without knowing the nature of the monsters that lie in wait there and how to surrender to them without having a psychotic break.