Arianna Huffington On Drugs

David Weigel | April 6, 2007

The ultimate limousine liberal's new column asks why the Democrats are such narcs despite their obvious understanding of how the War on Drugs is unwinnable:

Obama has written eloquently about his own struggle with drugs, but has not addressed the tragic effect the war on drugs is having on African American communities.

As for Clinton, she flew into Selma to reinforce her image as the wife of "the first black president," and has made much of her plan to attract female voters, but has ignored the suffering of poor, black women right in her own backyard.

Located down the road from her Chappaqua home are two prisons housing female inmates, Taconic and Bedford. Forty-eight percent of the women in Taconic are there for nonviolent drug offenses; 78% of those in the prison are African-American or Hispanic. And Bedford, the state's only maximum security prison for women, is home to some of the worst victims of New York's draconian Rockefeller drug laws -- mothers and grandmothers whose first brush with the law resulted in their being locked away for 15 years or more on nonviolent drug charges.
Yet even though these prisons are so nearby, Clinton has turned a blind eye to the plight of the women locked away there, notably refusing to speak out on their behalf.

Let's furrow our brows at Eliot Spitzer, too, the Democrat who took the governor's chair in Clinton's state with the biggest majority in history, but who's still not touching the issue. The party's been beaten up too badly on the crime issue to ever seriously confront the drug war, although the occasional gadfly like Kucinich will propose something bold. As Huffington suggests, it's fed-up Republicans (like Jeff Sessions) who can make reform viable.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|4.6.07 @ 10:30AM|#

The death knell of the drug war ought to be Afghanistan. The U.S. is making that war harder and making the Taliban more popular because we won't let the Afghans sell opium. If the U.S. and NATO would let the Afghans legalize and tax opium the war lords and the people would turn against the Taliban and the war would be about 100 times easier. Yeah, it might not end but it would be a lot easier. But, we don't do that because if we did the price of heroin would drop and there would be more addicts. Basically, soldiers are dying and fighting a tougher fight in Afghanistan in order to prevent a few degenerates in the U.S. from sticking a needle up their arm and killing themselves. Yeah, that makes sense.

The same thing is going on in South America. You want to know why clowns like Chavez and Castro are popular? Because they show up with doctors to places where no one has ever bothered to send doctors. They give out money to the poor. Meanwhile, what does the U.S. do? It conducts a slash and burn program against the one crop that these people can actually make some money growing. And we wonder why a two bit illiterate thug like Chavez is popular? All in the vain effort to save degenerate American drug abusers from themselves. It has got to stop.

|4.6.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Just look at the UK for a lesson in why pols should never go near the drugs issue.

There a gradual relaxing of laws has been accompanied by (a) the anti-drugs lobby making political capital; (b) large numbers of progressives (led by the Independent) reversing their pro-legalisation position (it wouldn't do to be seen supporting anything a government does); (c) stoners doing what they do best, which is fuck all.

Result: another generation of politicians taught to go nowhere near the issue.

thoreau|4.6.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Arianna Huffington On Drugs

Is that when she married Michael Huffington?

Guy Montag|4.6.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Located down the road from her Chappaqua home are two prisons housing female inmates, Taconic and Bedford.

AWSOME! Is it full of Lifetime women's prison movie looking chicks or the not-so-hot protestor looking ones? I am betting on the former since I think Bill picked the house.

|4.6.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Guy,

What is it with Lifetime and women's prison movies? I have like six Lifetime movie networks on my satellite service and I swear there is at least one "woman wrongly in prison" movie showing at all times.

|4.6.07 @ 10:48AM|#

It's called Lifetime because it ensures a lifetime of semi-lucrative, albeit somewhat demeaning, employment for formerly popular female TV stars.

Edward|4.6.07 @ 10:48AM|#

Good for Ariana Huffington. Alas, limousine liberals carry more weight than loser libertarians. Why are ideologies and their adherents always so full of paradox? Could there be an opposites-attract factor in the choice of ideology? Maybe people choose an ideology to compensate for flaws.

|4.6.07 @ 10:58AM|#

I'm a libertarian to compensate for my near-fanatical devotion to the Pope.

de stijl,

My fiancée watches a lot of Lifetime, Television for Women who Hate Men, and I've observed a number of ex-star men, as well as women. The few minutes of Lifetime that I've endured are often punctuated by remarks like, "Hey, I know that guy!" or "Wait, that actor/actress is still working--what the hell is he/she doing on Lifetime?" That sort of thing.

daksya|4.6.07 @ 11:01AM|#

Politicians can't afford to go against the tide. There must already exist within more than a small minority of the voters the sentiment that the suffering is due to the inherent and tangential effects of an elective war on drugs rather than the unfortunate side effects of a necessary one. IOW, as long as the myth that drugs are intrinsically evil agents keeps hold, no politician can put the 'war on drugs' under the limelight, as opposed to those "evil drugs".

All those drug policy reform advocates, who, for pragmatic reasons, present the case for legalization as 'lesser of two evils' implicitly acknowledge this yet fail to understand it can't work because of the strong hold of the aforementioned myth.

Guy Montag|4.6.07 @ 11:02AM|#

What is it with Lifetime and women's prison movies? I have like six Lifetime movie networks on my satellite service and I swear there is at least one "woman wrongly in prison" movie showing at all times.

Idunno, but watching it with the sound off is usually better. Anything with Donna Mills I am all over.

|4.6.07 @ 11:03AM|#

|4.6.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Guy,

I am all about Jacquiline Smith. Her with the sound off or on is never a bad thing.

|4.6.07 @ 11:06AM|#

The WoD is a tough thing - on one hand, there's no doubt that it's unwinnable in the sense that we'll never get rid of drug abuse. And it's very expensive.

On the other hand, it would be a massive risk to legalize hard drugs and there's no doubt that the WoD probably does prevent serious drug abuse from ravaging American society more than it already does.

|4.6.07 @ 11:08AM|#

Pro,

Lifetime gets a lot of milage out of woman kills abusive husband and wrongly goes to prison and woman framed by filandering husband and evil homewrecker wife and goes to prison plots. It definitely is TV for women over 35 who hate men.

I've found the opposite - IMO, Lifetime is TV for women who hate women, since every movie involves a woman getting abused in some way(and not always by men).

You have to really enjoy watching women suffer to be a fan of Lifetime movies.

Guy Montag|4.6.07 @ 11:09AM|#

I am all about Jacquiline Smith. Her with the sound off or on is never a bad thing.

Yea, she is in there for me too!

VM|4.6.07 @ 11:14AM|#

"You have to really enjoy watching women suffer to be a fan of Lifetime movies."

Hooked - and you really have to enjoy suffering to be a fan of Lifetime movies!

(although I've seen several "Spenser" movies on L'time)

I've heard...

|4.6.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Hooked,

"there's no doubt that the WoD probably does prevent serious drug abuse from ravaging American society more than it already does."

Really? I'd say that there's plenty of doubt. In any case, is it moral to continue a war that encroaches on peoples' rights on a massive scale to prevent a very small percentage of the population from becoming drug abusers/experimenters/addicts?

Fluffy|4.6.07 @ 11:18AM|#

"There's no doubt that the WoD probably does prevent serious drug abuse from ravaging American society more than it already does."

Then why weren't we ravaged during the decades before criminalization?

Cocaine was legal in this country once. Strangely, civilization didn't collapse.

Sal Paradise|4.6.07 @ 11:19AM|#

I have a feeling that the Democratic Party's solution to the War On Some Drugs will be the creation of Mandatory Treatment Centers. Which will, in essence, be prisons but with better decorations.

I loved all the responses that said to "legalize and tax the hell of it". I've figured it out, taxes are like crack to Democrats.

|4.6.07 @ 11:23AM|#

"I loved all the responses that said to "legalize and tax the hell of it". I've figured it out, taxes are like crack to Democrats."

If Dems ever legalized drugs, which they won't but work with me here, the taxes would be so high that there would be a black market in cheap untaxed drugs. We would just stop putting people in jail for drug use and instead put them in jail for tax evasion. I can think of few things outside subsidized peanuts and pork that would give the typical Democrat politician more pleasure than throwing people in jail for tax evasion. Considering that I am surprised that the Dems are not behind legalization.

Hooked on Innuendo|4.6.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Really? I'd say that there's plenty of doubt. In any case, is it moral to continue a war that encroaches on peoples' rights on a massive scale to prevent a very small percentage of the population from becoming drug abusers/experimenters/addicts?

Yes, I shouldn't say there's no doubt but it does seem that making certain drugs illegal prevents at least some people from using them. So I'm not sure that you can say with any more confidence that if all drugs become legal only a small percentage of people will abuse them. Because it's probably the government's anti-drug efforts that keeps people from using them in the first place.

I do agree that the WoD is probably not moral. But then again, war never is. But sometimes it's necessary.

highnumber|4.6.07 @ 11:25AM|#

The ultimate limousine liberal's new column asks...

So, now Weigal's™ a shill for big cars!

|4.6.07 @ 11:25AM|#

John,

If anyone ever doubted that politicians put their "tough on drugs" images before American lives and foreign policy, our drug policy Afghanistan is undeniable proof of that fact. It's absolutely disgusting.

And you can add Morales to the list of semi-literate, anti-American, neo-caudillos who rode to power on the back of America's drug war.

|4.6.07 @ 11:29AM|#

I wake up every morning, looking forward to a big hit of columbian. It'll wake me up, give me the kick I need. A couple more during the day and life ain't too bad. Forty years now, I've been a user. I'm hooked but I don't do crime to support my habit and I ain't gonna stop 'cause it makes feel good.

Mike Laursen|4.6.07 @ 11:35AM|#

We would just stop putting people in jail for drug use and instead put them in jail for tax evasion.

Hopefully, tax evasion busts would just involve a lot of form letters, accountants, and lawyers instead of guys in paramilitary gear. There may be a lot of IRS accountants, though, with a secret hankering for Kevlar and semi-automatic weapons.

|4.6.07 @ 11:36AM|#

On the other hand, it would be a massive risk to legalize hard liquor and there's no doubt that the WoD probably does prevent serious alcohol abuse from ravaging American society more than it already does.

Sound familiar, Innuendo?

Volunteer|4.6.07 @ 11:37AM|#

If Dems ever legalized drugs, which they won't but work with me here, the taxes would be so high that there would be a black market in cheap untaxed drugs. We would just stop putting people in jail for drug use and instead put them in jail for tax evasion.

And we already have a perfect model to study: cigarettes in overly taxed places.

Guy Montag|4.6.07 @ 11:39AM|#

Silly me, forgot to change my handle back.

Guy Montag|4.6.07 @ 11:41AM|#

|4.6.07 @ 11:54AM|#

it does seem that making certain drugs illegal prevents at least some people from using them.

Sure, the casual user.

It doesn't stop the habitual or the addicted, though, and to the extent drug use inflicts any harm on anyone, it is through habitual or addictive use.

So, IOW, the WoD reduces the harmless recreational use of drugs, but that about all. And all at the cost of creating a massive criminal industry and jailing millions of people.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.07 @ 12:00PM|#

Arianna Huffington On Drugs

Isn't that a given?

|4.6.07 @ 12:06PM|#

On the other hand, it would be a massive risk to legalize hard liquor and there's no doubt that the WoD probably does prevent serious alcohol abuse from ravaging American society more than it already does.

Sound familiar, Innuendo?

Indeed it does, and there is probably no reason to doubt that alcohol's legality is a big reason why it's our society's most commonly abused drug.

|4.6.07 @ 12:09PM|#

Sure, the casual user.

It doesn't stop the habitual or the addicted, though, and to the extent drug use inflicts any harm on anyone, it is through habitual or addictive use.

So, IOW, the WoD reduces the harmless recreational use of drugs, but that about all.

But doesn't most drug abuse start out as "recreational"?

So even if you feel people should be allowed to abuse drugs if they want to, I think it's a bit delusional to believe that increasing the number of "casual" users will not also increase the number of addicts and abusers.

|4.6.07 @ 12:11PM|#

Yes, I shouldn't say there's no doubt but it does seem that making certain drugs illegal prevents at least some people from using them. So I'm not sure that you can say with any more confidence that if all drugs become legal only a small percentage of people will abuse them. Because it's probably the government's anti-drug efforts that keeps people from using them in the first place.

I think this is a common misconception. Teenagers already have easier access to drugs than alcohol. There is nothing the government is doing that can prevent anyone living in or near a large city from procuring drugs in a short time.

And the vast majority of drug users use drugs the same way that the vast majority of alcohol drinkers drink alcohol: casually and responsibly.

For me, the bottom line is that either the state owns our bodies or it doesn't.

I highly recommend reading Jacob Sullum's "Saying Yes."

|4.6.07 @ 12:19PM|#

So even if you feel people should be allowed to abuse drugs if they want to, I think it's a bit delusional to believe that increasing the number of "casual" users will not also increase the number of addicts and abusers.

I agree with this. Some people will always abuse their freedoms. Of course, that's not an argument against freedom.

Jennifer|4.6.07 @ 12:35PM|#

Mildly off-topic but funny enough that I wish to share it with people who can appreciate it: I'm doing an article about some proposed changes in medical-marijuana laws in our state, and have interviewed a couple of drug-warrior legislators who cited multiple reasons why the republic will be destroyed if sick people are allowed to smoke pot. Throughout the interview I kept talking about this one medical-MJ user I met (paralysis victim who smokes to suppress his painful muscle spasms).

Turns out that drug warriors really, really hate it when, twenty minutes into such an interview, you let your voice get all high-pitched and innocent and ask them how long they think the paralyzed guy in the wheelchair needs to spend in prison.

I mean, they really fucking hate it. Especially when they try to dismiss the question and you refuse to let it go.

|4.6.07 @ 12:50PM|#

and have interviewed a couple of drug-warrior legislators who cited multiple reasons why the republic will be destroyed if sick people are allowed to smoke pot

What were the multiple reasons?

Jennifer|4.6.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Oh, you know, Lincoln. Gateway drug. First step to full legalization. Bad for your health. Think Of The Children. After awhile I stopped taking notes and started doodling, biding my time until I could ask The Question.

Rhywun|4.6.07 @ 12:57PM|#

Because it's probably the government's anti-drug efforts that keeps people from using them in the first place.

But the whole point is that it's none of their damn business. If I choose to do drugs and wreck my life, it's my business (and potentially my loved ones'), not the government's.

Rhywun|4.6.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Sock it to 'em, Jennifer. Take 'em down!

Jennifer|4.6.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Damned right I will, Rhywun. The story was originally going to be the standard here-are-sick-folks-whom-pot-can-help piece, but I told my editor I want instead to focus on the people who insist such folks should rot in jail. Fortunately, I'm allowed to be sarcastic and opinionated, so long as I don't distort any facts.

Fluffy|4.6.07 @ 1:15PM|#

"Yes, I shouldn't say there's no doubt but it does seem that making certain drugs illegal prevents at least some people from using them. So I'm not sure that you can say with any more confidence that if all drugs become legal only a small percentage of people will abuse them. Because it's probably the government's anti-drug efforts that keeps people from using them in the first place."

Well, if the question before us is whether or not the drug war is MORAL, then this isn't relevant.

It's perfectly moral - indeed, it is the epitome of morality - if people who do stupid things suffer as a result. This means that the fact the people who abuse drugs suffer is not in itself an argument for the morality of prohibition.

A drug war that is harming people who aren't doing anything wrong [selling drugs to people who casually use them] in order to protect people from the consequences of their actions [drug abusers, who deserve what they get] is employing immorality to stop a moral outcome. Sounds like a pretty immoral war to me.

LarryA|4.6.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Because it's probably the government's anti-drug efforts that keeps people from using them in the first place.

1. The main reason most people say no to drug abuse isn't because drugs are illegal, but because abusing yourself is stupid.
2. Much of what the government prohibits clearly isn't "abuse." Start with making cloth out of hemp, and work up to prescribing large doses of opiates to people who cannot function without them.
3. On the balance, most illegal recreational drug use is no more abusive than the way most people use alcohol, gambling, fast food, sex, chocolate, or fast little red cars.
4. Even hardcore drug addiction is less dangerous than SWAT raids and prison, particularly since the latter prevents the medical treatment of the former.

poco|4.6.07 @ 1:19PM|#

I'd love to read your finished story, Jennifer. Will you provide a link when it comes out? Or should we look on your blog?

|4.6.07 @ 1:19PM|#

"Sounds like a pretty immoral war to me."

Especially when the actions of those prosecuting the drug war so obviously and blatantly infringe on the civil rights of those who aren't recreational drug users.

|4.6.07 @ 1:23PM|#

But doesn't most drug abuse start out as "recreational"?

Gosh, doesn't all alcohol abuse start out as "recreational?

Of course it does, but not all recreational use turns into abuse. In fact, only a small percentage does.

Simple case - what drug would you try if it were legal that you've never used solely because it is illegal?

Rhywun|4.6.07 @ 1:36PM|#

what drug would you try if it were legal that you've never used solely because it is illegal

Me, I've already tried most every drug that doesn't involve piercing the skin. Would I use more if they were legal? Probably. But holding down a decent job and keeping a nice standard of living are more important to me, so I know for a fact I wouldn't let such drugs interfere with that - much like my regular alcohol use doesn't.

Guy Montag|4.6.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Does anybody know if you can get Lifetime in Kabul, Afghanistan?

|4.6.07 @ 1:51PM|#

But doesn't most drug abuse start out as "recreational"?

Maybe. So what if it does? Why should the casual user who will never be anything else be treated like an addict?

So even if you feel people should be allowed to abuse drugs if they want to,

I don't "feel" this, I think it, so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Try to substitute thought for feelings, you'll do better.

I think it's a bit delusional to believe that increasing the number of "casual" users will not also increase the number of addicts and abusers.

That's better.

I think it shows a remarkable degree of ignorance to believe that drugs are using addicts, rather than addicts using drugs. This is the kind of magical thinking that displaces personal responsibility by blaming inanimate objects. See, also, guns.

The vast majority of people who use drugs do not become addicts. Those who do are addictive personalities, who will find and use drugs (or something else) to compulsively scratch their itch, regardless of the consequences.

|4.6.07 @ 1:55PM|#

"I agree with this. Some people will always abuse their freedoms. Of course, that's not an argument against freedom."

How does one abuse freedom? Responsibility yes, freedom, never. Can't have too much freedom. It's not incremental. Freedom is not license, it does not ignore responsibility.

|4.6.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Hooked,

I do agree that the WoD is probably not moral. But then again, war never is. But sometimes it's necessary.

Tell me why this war is necessary.

|4.6.07 @ 2:20PM|#

How does one abuse freedom? Responsibility yes, freedom, never. Can't have too much freedom. It's not incremental. Freedom is not license, it does not ignore responsibility.

Hmmm...are you suggesting that freedom is like a medium in which responsibility exists? It seems to me that you can't abuse responsibility, but you can neglect it. I only meant that by neglecting the responsibility that comes with freedom, you're treating the freedom you have badly.

I suspect we agree, but we're arguing semantics.

|4.6.07 @ 2:24PM|#

So Democrats remain silent, because they have been crucified and lost too many elections to speak out.
Republicans generally villify and demonize drug users, are the driving force behind all the increased and pointless prosecutions, and pounce on any democrat who opens their mouth to suggest the drug war is misguieded.
And you blame.... the democrats?

Robert|4.6.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Suppose you could change the world magically to one in which psychoactive drugs are technically infeasible in humans. Would you? All benefit of psychoactive drugs would be nonexistent, but so would the vast majority of the war on drugs. Worthwhile trade with this world?

|4.6.07 @ 2:56PM|#

I love how the second post on the huffpo page blames Bush for the Dems not legalizing drugs.

|4.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#

Tell me why this war is necessary.

Well, I think that widespread use of dangerous drugs really would severely harm society.

Is there any civilized country that does not have some form of drug prohibition? It seems as though we're all kind of in agreement that certain drugs need to be outlawed.

Jennifer|4.6.07 @ 3:09PM|#

I'd love to read your finished story, Jennifer. Will you provide a link when it comes out?

I'm not sure where to send it, but I'll gladly give it to you, Poco. The only story I've linked to on my blog is the one about working on the phone-sex line, and only because that one was just too damned cool to limit it to local readers.

|4.6.07 @ 3:19PM|#

I think that widespread use of dangerous drugs really would severely harm society.

What makes you think that the only thing saving us from said widespread use is the WoD?

Is there any civilized country that does not have some form of drug prohibition?

Well, there was practically the whole frikkin' planet until just under a century ago. We managed to make it out of the caves and were well on our way to technological civilization without a war on drugs.

|4.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#

And you blame.... the democrats?

Of course. The democrats seem to believe that they are such a force for good that they can't risk losing all that goodness they give to society by even suggesting that marijuana users and growers should not be in jail. The democrats obviously believe that what most people want should be what they get, regardless of it's morality or legality, as long as that means democrats get elected. It's the democrats fault because, just like republicans, they reflexively refuse to take responsibility for the results of their actions and inactions.

|4.6.07 @ 3:28PM|#

It seems as though we're all kind of in agreement that certain drugs need to be outlawed.

I don't agree that we are. Most of us probably agree that drugs will have to be legalized incrementally. Of course, until marijuana is legalized (the most obvious first step), nothing else will be, probably.

But there is, practically or morally, any reason for any substance to be illegal to be had by any adult. There are, however, many things it should be illegal to do under the influence of many substances.

|4.6.07 @ 3:32PM|#

And one more thing about the hypocrisy of democrats. Al Gore smoked bails of pot in college and yet, during his run for president, he was clear in his belief that medical marijuana should be illegal.

That isn't just hypocrisy. It's really a little sick.

|4.6.07 @ 3:40PM|#

|4.6.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Les,

I think he meant that most countries are in agreement about keeping prohibition on illegal substances.

|4.6.07 @ 3:46PM|#

David-Adam

Thanks. Sorry if I goofed there, Hooked.

|4.6.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Hooked,

I'm going to make an assumption and I want you to tell me if I'm incorrect.

You perceive drug users as either being decrepit abusers or on the road to that state of being. In your mind, these people are completely controlled by their desire for a fix and are unable to function within society. There is no such thing as a casual user, and you believe most users spend their idle time huddling in a corner, mumbling softly to themselves while growing long hair and picking at skin lesions. They are violent when approached.

True, false, or somewhere in between?

Mostly false. I'm not saying that all drug users (in this case meaning the "hard drugs") are necessarily addicts, although it's difficult to really but a figure on what percentage of them are.

My argument is that making drugs legal (which will in turn make them more socially acceptable, especially if they are marketed) will create more drug users and a certain percentage of them will become hardcore addicts like the kind you describe above. Society can handle a few druggies, but wouldn't you agree that there is a breaking point?

To a large extent I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't like the WoD and I agree that in a perfect world we'd all be able to do with our bodies what we like. But at the same time, I can't see a society where cocaine can be purchased cheaply at the local 7-11 as being one that can prosper.

|4.6.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Thanks. Sorry if I goofed there, Hooked.

No problem. David's correct, I was just pointing out that pretty much all countries have seen a need for prohibition in some form or another. Which doesn't mean necessarily that it's good policy but it does mean that there are no examples out there that we can really look at as to see what a "free drug" society would be like.

poco|4.6.07 @ 3:50PM|#

I'm not sure where to send it, but I'll gladly give it to you, Poco.

Thanks! I'm sqwendolyn at yahoo. (Publicizing the byline is thorny, I take it?)

|4.6.07 @ 3:51PM|#

I'll guess that the majority of Democrats, just like Republicans, honestly believe that drugs should be illegal. Interesting, isn't it, that most of the 'mainstream' voices to call for legalization have Republicans. But really, neither party is anywhere close to doing anything about it, so arguing which one is "less bad" is little more than quibbling at this point.

In any event, I normally make fun of Arianna, but I can't here. Her column is dead-on. The racial angle of the WoD seems like one of the best points of entry to try and convince the general public of the stupidity of prohibition. Rather than get all preachy, I think more Americans need to see the real human cost of the WoD on their TV screens before any minds will be changed.

Jennifer|4.6.07 @ 3:59PM|#

(Publicizing the byline is thorny, I take it?)

No, it's just that I like to pretend I'm this modest-type person who'd never hijack threads by making posts like "Check out this cool article I wrote!"

|4.6.07 @ 4:08PM|#

What John said.

Exactly right. I wonder if we'll ever see ex-military types on teevee talking about the Drug War making the War on Terror unwinnable?

|4.6.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Society can handle a few druggies, but wouldn't you agree that there is a breaking point?

That, it seems to me, is the important question. The one it raises is, will the negative effects of having marijuana (let's say, for starters) available at the 7-11, be greater than the negative effects of enforcing marijuana prohibition. You could say the same thing applies to cocaine and heroin.

If someone wants to restrict freedom, I think the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the greater good of those restrictions.

|4.6.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Hooked,

Well I'm glad to hear that I'm largely mistaken on your views of drug users.

I don't know if it's possible to predict how the market would act if drugs were legal and affordable. But as far as a breaking point as you call it goes, I suspect it won't be a concern. I recall reading that during alcohol prohibition, consumption of hard liquor increased while consumption of beer decreased. Now beer is, of course, the most popular medium for drinking alcohol. Similarly, when cocaine was legal it was often drank. It wasn't until drug prohibition came around that snorting higher concentrations of it became popular. And then there's crack cocaine, which arguably wouldn't exist without the WoD.

So I suppose, with that in mind, that you wouldn't see too much powder cocaine at your local 7-11, and instead see some super kickass energy drinks with cocaine as a main ingredient. Just a thought of course.

Paul|4.6.07 @ 4:40PM|#

War on Drugs is unwinnable

Mr. Weigal:

You're looking at the War on Drugs with too narrow a view. The goal isn't to Win the war on drugs, it's about money.

Get it?

To quote Dick Jones of Robocop:

"I had a guaranteed military sale with ED209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not! "

The War on Drugs is a massive salary, pension and benefits program that the government pays to itself. And now we have the War on Terror which does nearly the exact same thing. The war on drugs won't recede, it will continue to expand exponentially.

|4.6.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Hooked sez that there are no examples out there that we can really look at as to see what a "free drug" society would be like.

Wrong. This country was apparently not civilized prior to the early 1900s (as "drugs" were freely available) or you just don't know a damn thing about the history of prohibitions.

|4.6.07 @ 5:07PM|#

The War on Drugs is a massive salary, pension and benefits program that the government pays to itself. And now we have the War on Terror which does nearly the exact same thing. The war on drugs won't recede, it will continue to expand exponentially.

Sadly, this pretty sums up the entire issue.

|4.6.07 @ 5:28PM|#

It's called Lifetime because it ensures a lifetime of semi-lucrative, albeit somewhat demeaning, employment for formerly popular female TV stars.

Actually, "Lifetime" is an acronym that stands for "Life Is Full of Evil -- That Is, Men's Evil."

Brian Sorgatz|4.6.07 @ 5:45PM|#

Jennifer:
No, it's just that I like to pretend I'm this modest-type person who'd never hijack threads by making posts like "Check out this cool article I wrote!"

Why did everyone look at me when she said that?

Seriously, I don't think hijacking is a fair analogy at all. I can't change the course of a discussion against anyone's will when I do that (unless I engage in truly obnoxious tactics that I know would get me banned quickly and permanently). And since I write a libertarian blog, I don't think I'm the moral equivalent of a spammer by mentioning it here from time to time.

|4.6.07 @ 5:52PM|#

Its not just this country, either, juris. It was damn near every civilized country. And its not like people weren't using (non-alcohol) drugs. Opiates in particular were freely available - laudanum in particular. Yet somehow, Western civilization not only survived, it throve.

thrived?

highnumber|4.6.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Why did everyone look at me when she said that?

I'll bet you think this comment is about you, don't you, don't you?

Seriously, Brian Sorgatz (if that is your real name), I think she was referring to a certain egotistical blowhard who frequents these pages. I myself recently blogged about him.

Brian Sorgatz|4.6.07 @ 6:10PM|#

highnumber,
My real name is Ladykiller McGrew. But I thought the pseudonym Brian Sorgatz suited the Playboy theme of my blog better.

|4.6.07 @ 6:15PM|#

R.C.

What is most amusing is that a [presumably] liberal modern supporter of prohibition(s) doesn't know that the original versions were pushed by the David Duke/Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell's of the day.

highnumber|4.6.07 @ 11:20PM|#

Ladykiller McGrew,

I would have kept half my name if I were you.

I would have gone with something like Hugecock McGrew.
(I think I've been spammed by "Hugecock McGrew.")

Jennifer|4.7.07 @ 11:10AM|#

No, Brian, I wasn't thinking of you at all when I wrote that. If anything I was making fun of myself, being all modest and demure when what I really want to do is hijack every thread on this board to say "Check out the cool article I wrote about the job I got on a phone sex line!"

Which can be conveniently found by clicking on my name here. Ahem.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements