The War on Drugs vs. the War on Terror

Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens explains why the destabilizing force to worry about in Afghanistan is not opium but the war on opium.

[Thanks to Linda Stewart for the link.]

Comments

[Warren]

"I believe that the threatened sacrifice of Afghanistan to the dogma may be the "tipping point."

Ha ha ha. As if anybody ever truly cared about Afghanistan. America has proven time and again it's perfectly willing to sacrifice other countries to the War On Drugs. If they don't come around, we'll be happy to blow them up again. Hitch suffers from a sever case of myopic tunnel vision, with sanctimony complications. Having him cheering on our sidelines, while not as embarrassing as some celebrities, isn't much of an endorsement.

[Juanita]

America has proven time and again it's perfectly willing to sacrifice other countries to the War On Drugs.

Don't we have a right to protect our national security issues?

[SR]

Juanita, he's probably referring to the fact that a good chunk of South America has been an on-and-off warzone for the last 25 years in large part because rebel movements have been able to finance themselves through the illegal drug trade.

[Matt]

But whoah! Look over there!

"The Supreme Court today declared unconstitutional a portion of the nation's federal sentencing law and said that federal judges are no longer obligated to follow the controversial system of sentencing guidelines established by Congress in 1984."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3336-2005Jan12.html

[Matt]

Sorry for the off-topic post. It just felt like a scoop.

[Warren]

SR,
Right. That, and also the guns and bullets (and planes and troops) we provide to the 'official' Governments the rebels are fighting against, but whom we support because they tow the line on the War On Drugs.

[Juanita]

Juanita, he's probably referring to the fact that a good chunk of South America has been an on-and-off warzone for the last 25 years in large part because rebel movements have been able to finance themselves through the illegal drug trade.

All the more reason to put extra effort into trying to eliminate illegal drugs. We are way too lenient, we need tough laws, perhaps life imprisonment without parole for possession, and death for dealing or possession with intent to sell. We have got to eliminate all intoxicants from the face of the earth.

[outSide@@N]

wtf: Juanita...

current expression: dumbfounded...

[rghunter]

Juanita, are you high?

[outSide@@N]

Juanita:

apologize for the hasty reply, forgot this site is rampant with Sarcasm.

[Jennifer]

The sad thing is how many current and former members of our government have advocated the same thing as Juanita, only they were entirely sincere.

[Ruthless]

Being too cheap and too poor to have cable, I know nothing about Christopher Hitchens except what I've seen here. (I'm in Plato's cave, and he's only just flitted by.) But is he a small time John Stossel trying valiantly to carry an ember from here to start a little flame in a distant cold, cold hearth?

Truth is like truffles, eh?
Unearthers of it are lowly pigs.

Juanita, what say ye about that well-defined guy up there dry-fucking the carpet?

[Brian]

Nah, he's not a John Stossel. He's a sometimes clever lefty who's traded on the novelty of being a lefty in favor of the war in Iraq. More a Trotskyite than a lefty, which makes him a neocon I guess, since those guys are ex-commies. Hence their totalitarian/utopian thing.

Anyway he sees the War on Terror as cool because he sees it as a war on religious fundamentalism. But then he thinks about how the fundies here got Dubs reelected and pours himself another drink.

[Larry A]

"We are way too lenient, we need tough laws, perhaps life imprisonment without parole for possession, and death for dealing or possession with intent to sell."

This sounds like a great idea until you remember we're talking about people like Betty Ford.

It's not a war on drugs. It's a war on people.

[Juanita]

Juanita, what say ye about that well-defined guy up there dry-fucking the carpet?

Huh?

The problem with drugs is that they are dangerous, unhealthy, addictive, and cause violence. Of course alcohol can be too, but alcohol has a long history of safe use in western society.

Cocaine is hundreds of times more addictive than alcohol and heroin is thousands of times more addictive than alcohol. Tobacco is the most addictive, but perhaps someday it too will be illegal, perhaps when the majority of people support a ban and punishment for use.

Society has determined that drugs are not beneficial and deserve punishment, thougth it may seem a victimless crime, and yes drug prohibition causes some of the drug problems, but there are downstream effects due to use ... poverty, disease, crime, increased welfare, medicaid and prison costs, decreased productivity, etc.

[Maurice Girodias]

Cocaine is hundreds of times more addictive

Le troll.

[Juanita]

http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm

[Twba]

Cocaine is hundreds of times more addictive

I can pass up cocaine but don't get between me and an all you can eat seafood buffet. Shrimp is thousands of times more addictive.

[Juanita]

Shrimp is thousands of times more addictive.

Yes, but it doesn't result in violence like cocaine or heroin does.

[Jennifer]

Juanita-
You are aware, I assume, that if we apply your "life without parole" plan then something like 25 percent of our country's population will be in jail, right?

[dullurd]

Yes, but it doesn't result in violence like cocaine or heroin does.

The very legal measures which you advocate bolstering are the primary cause of the violence. If drugs were legal, the illicit drug underground would disappear.

You admit that "alcohol has a long history of safe use in western society," but what do you define as 'safe'? Some people get belligerent when they're drunk, so alcohol often leads to violence. DWI is also, uh, unsafe. It seems that your definition of "safe" would more accurately be that "most people are responsible with it, and those who aren't face legal consequences." We who support legalization believe that despite the government's propagandistic, ass-covering misinformation, illicit drugs are much less supernaturally powerful than Parnership for a Drug Free America would have you believe. Therefore, citizens should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites with regards to using weed, alcohol, coke, etc.

[Juanita]

You are aware, I assume, that if we apply your "life without parole" plan then something like 25 percent of our country's population will be in jail, right?

Criminals belong in jail, period, and, don't you think such harsh punishment will be a deterent?

This would be a great source of cheap, perhaps free labor, we have moved from and aggricultural, to an industrial, to a service and now a prison based economy.

[Jennifer]

Juanita-
A prison-based economy won't last in a free society; or rather, a free society won't last with a prison-based economy. So would it be accurate for me to say that in some ways, you think the US should be more like Saudi Arabia?

Your talk of free labor leads me to think you either have a low opinion of freedom, or else define it as "the right to do as you are told."

[Juanita]

The very legal measures which you advocate bolstering are the primary cause of the violence.

The drugs themselves result in violence as well.

If drugs were legal, the illicit drug underground would disappear.

We cannot make dangerous substances legal, period.

[Jennifer]

We cannot make dangerous substances legal, period.

So we should lock up the smokers and the drinkers, as well?

[dhex]

"Yes, but it doesn't result in violence like cocaine or heroin does."

ahh, someone is clearly not a shrimp.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHRIMP?

i remember calmly walking through downtown brooklyn when i was attacked by a bag of heroin. i'll never forget it. never had i experienced such violence from otherwise inert chemicals. even the bleach knows its place.

[Juanita]

So we should lock up the smokers and the drinkers, as well?

No, those substances are legal and have a long history of safe use in western society. Tobacco will perhaps someday be illegal because it is not safe and is very addictave.

... attacked by a bag of heroin ...

If you ingest it, yes.

Drugs have ruined my country, Colombia.

[Jennifer]

Juanita-
What ruined your country is the fact that the black market means scumbags can make fortunes selling plants that are basically weeds. Of course, my country's dumping herbicide on your farms probably isn't helping, either.

And there's voluminous medical evidence showing that alcohol is far more dangerous than illegal drugs (except for heroin). Find a woman who's beaten by her husband, or a child abused by his parents, and nine times out of ten the abuse takes place during an alcoholic rage.

As a smoker, I appreciate your concern for my health, but I'd rather live a life of freedom and die at age sixty, than live to the age of ninety in prison.

[Jennifer]

By the way, Juanita, I don't know how familiar you are with American history, but during the 1920s alcohol was illegal here, which led to the rise of gangsters and crime syndicates that almost tore our country apart as badly as yours. The only difference between modern Colombia and 1920s Chicago is you guys have more foliage and a nicer climate.

[Juanita]

Of course, my country's dumping herbicide on your farms probably isn't helping, either.

But it eliminated the drugs.

And there's voluminous medical evidence showing that alcohol is far more dangerous than illegal drugs...

And cocaine is healthy?

Find a woman who's beaten by her husband, or a child abused by his parents, and nine times out of ten the abuse takes place during an alcoholic rage.

Or all the women who haven't been beaten by a husband on heroin, cocaine or marijuana because of the laws.

As a smoker, I appreciate your concern for my health, but I'd rather live a life of freedom and die at age sixty, than live to the age of ninety in prison.

Yes but there are downstream effects to society.

[Ruthless]

We should thank Juanita for giving us practice at talking reason to hysteria.
We have met the enemy, and she is J.

[Jennifer]

Juanita-
Actually, the herbicide DIDN'T eliminate the drugs; there was a news story a few weeks ago about how growers developed a new, super-potent strain that is impervious to the herbicide! Evolution at work. The herbicides HAVE put a lot of honest farmers out of business, and poisoned who knows how many people.

Nobody's ever been beaten by a guy who smoked too much pot; even if the smoker WANTED to beat someone up he'd lose his train of thought, and instead of using his fist to punch he'd just stare at it, and then remember that he's really, really hungry.

I'm curious; what is your definition of freedom? I define it as "the right to be left alone and do as I please, so long as I hurt nobody else."

[Jennifer]

Ruthless-
Don't be rude. This is a chance to see what the Other Side thinks, and although I find Juanita's viewpoints offensive, she hasn't insulted anybody. Also, as she's from Colombia I say cut her a little slack. I mean, racism is wrong, too, but if a Holocaust survivor is filled with anti-German bigotry I'm not going to lecture him that All Men Are Created Equal. And I have German ancestry.

[dhex]

"If you ingest it, yes."

no, it up and fucking attacked me. it's why i now support the war on some drugs. because they're getting angry!

[NoStar]

Question: Did Christopher Hitchens ever get even a drop of Johnny Walker Black Label Scotch or a single Rothman's fag from the effort a few months back to allow his fans (or enemies) to buy him a drink and a carton of smokes?

And if you find yourself wonder 'Just what kind of a man smokes Rothman's king sized cigarettes?', wonder no more:

http://www.pirate.ca/spot_of_the_week/archive/audio/source_rothmans.html

[NoStar]

*wondering

[Juanita]

I'm curious; what is your definition of freedom? I define it as "the right to be left alone and do as I please, so long as I hurt nobody else."

Yes

[Juanita]

People who use drugs say they feel great at first and that drugs are the best thing that ever happened to them. Over time, they'll need more and more to get the same high, this really increases the risk of addiction, and in most cases, overdose. And even if they never O.D., drugs will ruin their health, force them to drop out of school, lose friends, and impair their judgment enough that they'll definitely do some really stupid stuff. Drug users do things they wouldn't do while sober, they all engage in unsafe sex and put other people's lives at risk on the road. They then go through an unwanted pregnancy, a car accident, and a positive AIDS test? Drug abusers develop psychological problems and all have suicidal depression and serious physical problems such as liver damage and brain damage. Of course, there's also the eventuality of death from an overdose.

[dhex]

sadly, you're right. the same problems, however, emerge from stupidity as well.

the solution? death camps.

[Juanita]

sadly, you're right. the same problems, however, emerge from stupidity as well.

Yes, but stupidity is not illegal. I am just saying that bacause of the detrimental downstream effects to society of drugs we have to enforce whatever laws it takes to create a drug free society.

the solution? death camps.

No, I am not sugessting eugenics.

[Ruthless]

dhex,
Sometimes our Prez uses "Juanita" as a screen name here. He has Rove do the typing.

[Jennifer]

Juanita-
So you and I agree that adults should be allowed to do as they please, so long as nobody else is hurt. That's good.

But here's the thing--back when I was in college, in graduate school, and for some time thereafter, I was a regular marijuana smoker. Over the course of a decade, I probably consumed at least a pound of the stuff. My friends and I would get together, smoke, and then we'd listen to music or watch comedy videos or have long discussions about every topic under the sun, and we laughed our asses off throughout it all. These are some of my fondest memories. I had a great time.

I never once drove a car while stoned. I never had unsafe sex. Or caught a sexual disease, or got pregnant. I never dropped out of school, never lost friends or damaged any relationships, never did ANYTHING which had any bad consequences (except for the time I ate an entire one-pound bag of plain M&Ms in a three-hour period, but the tummyache was gone by the next day), and never did anything that put my life or another person's at risk.

Here are some of the things I did do during this period: Worked full-time. Put myself through college. Earned a Bachelor's degree. Earned a Master's degree. Graduated with honors. Earned a few professional licenses. Got a professional job. Paid all my bills. Paid all my taxes. Saved money in the bank. Donated to charity, from time to time.

And so in all seriousness, I would like to know how society would be better off if I went to jail for the rest of my life. If I live another forty years, at about $30,000 per year (which is what it costs the state to house an inmate), that's $1,200,000 in today's dollars that the taxpayers will have to spend on me. Even if I'm made into a slave (free labor), the value of my work won't be anywhere near $1,200,000. I'd see to that myself, if I had to.

We agree that freedom means do what you like, so long as nobody is hurt. So I ask you in all sincerity: of the six-billion-plus people on this planet, who amongst them can honestly say that they were harmed by my smoking, and so I should go to prison for even one day, let alone the rest of my existence?

[Juanita]

We agree that freedom means do what you like, so long as nobody is hurt. So I ask you in all sincerity: of the six-billion-plus people on this planet, who amongst them can honestly say that they were harmed by my smoking, and so I should go to prison for even one day, let alone the rest of my existence?

You harmed no one. I guess were one of the lucky ones. The DEA claims that marijuanna is a dangerous drug. They are the experts we are not allowed to disagree with them.

[Jennifer]

They are the experts we are not allowed to disagree with them.

WHAT?!?!!

Juanita, if people weren't allowed to question the experts then we never would have gotten out of the Dark Ages. Of course you're allowed to question the experts, especially when you have voluminous evidence that they are wrong.

You know what I just realized? I inadvertently told a lie, or at least an untruth, in my last post--I did put my life at risk, every time I smoked marijuana. You know why? Because I ran the risk of arrest on drug charges, which would have ruined my life for sure. I'd sooner take my chances walking through downtown Bogota waving a thick wad of dollars and shouting (in Spanish) "Rich American gringa here, boys! Come and get it!"

The experts' latest line is that drug money fuels terrorists. And it certainly is true that FARC is getting obscenely rich from cocaine, and using its money to do hideous things to people in Colombia.

But the only reason they can do this is because cocaine is illegal, which makes it harder to get, and therefore far more expensive and profitable. If any honest farmer who wanted to grow cocaine could do so, say after registering with the government and getting the proper tax licenses and so forth, then FARC would lose its main source of income.

How do I know this? Because that is EXACTLY what happened here with alcohol during Prohibition. It was illegal to make or sell alcohol, so the honest taxpayers stopped doing it, and ruthless murders like Al Capone took over. And made far more money than the honest breweries and distilleries ever did, or could.

Then they repealed Prohibition. The gangsters lost their source of income, the honest people returned to the business, and so today America is not being terrorized by ruthless gangs of alcohol producers with more money and better weapons than the government.

[Jennifer]

Make that, "ruthless murderers like Al Capone."

[RandyAyn]

You Guuuuuyys,
Juanita's not a troll, she's a shill. Can't you people figure that out? This sentence should have given it away:

They are the experts we are not allowed to disagree with them.

That's where Juanita "jumped the shark"

Bravo, Juanita Baby, you really got these folks going.

And Bravo! Reasonoids for your measured, civil, cooperative tone. This is really what separates Reason from the vast majority of political opinion threads.

Civility Rules!

Ah, such sweet theater 😉

[Juanita]

They are the experts we are not allowed to disagree with them.

Sorry, I meant really don't have the facts.

But the only reason they can do this is because cocaine is illegal, which makes it harder to get, and therefore far more expensive and profitable

Or just eliminate it througth strict enforcement. Drugs have too many deleterious downstream effects to be allowed.

It was illegal to make or sell alcohol, so the honest taxpayers stopped doing it, and ruthless murders like Al Capone took over.

Yes but alcohol has a long history of safe use in western society. Drugs cannot be used safely, drug abuse is dangerous.

[Jennifer]

Juanita-
Yes, alcohol has a history of safe use in society. It also has a history of UNSAFE use in society, and this history is what helped get Prohibition passed in the first place. Watch any episode of COPS--when you get to the domestic-disturbance scene where the woman in the trailer park gets beaten by her husband, nine times out of ten he's drunk. But just because HER guy can't hold his liquor doesn't mean that MY man at home should go to prison if he wants to have a beer or a glass of wine after work.

Also, cocaine, or at least coca leaves, have a long history of safe use in Colombia, far predating the arrival of the Spaniards. Marijuana and opium have both been used for millenia. As with all things, there have been weak people who couldn't handle them. But there have been far more people who used them in moderation, with no ill effects until they were banned and their supply controlled by criminals.

By the way, I am NOT unique in being a person who used drugs for awhile and came to no harm; it's just that such people keep their drug use secret, for fear of arrest. I wouldn't have told you what I did if I still had even the slightest trace of illegal drugs in my home or body. So a lot of the people who knew me years ago never, ever suspected that I was one of those supposedly evil and degenerate Drug Users.

And you will never, ever be able to completely eliminate drugs, just as you'll never be able to eliminate rats, though humanity has tried for centuries. It might--just might--be theoretically possible to eliminate certain manufactured drugs, if the government wanted to be utterly ruthless and, in the process, hurt more innocent people than the drug lords ever did--but plants like cocaine, marijuana, or opium poppies will always find some isolated space to grow, especially if people are motivated to grow them.

[Juanita]

Juanita, if people weren't allowed to question the experts then we never would have gotten out of the Dark Ages. Of course you're allowed to question the experts, especially when you have voluminous evidence that they are wrong.

Yes but times were different then, they didn't have a drug war that needed to be fought. We are not talking about repression of truth, like the dark ages, we are talking about public health and safety.

I believe in freedom, you may claim a right to waste your life getting high, but I have a right to live in a drug free society. Let freedom ring.

[Isaac Bartram]

Or just eliminate it througth strict enforcement.

How strict does the enforcement have to be. The US now has the highest per capita prison population in the world and it's mostly for drug offenses. Shall we double it. How? The narcs already have the highest budgets, and the most leeway in abusing civil liberties. Should we nuke Columbia to cut the filthy drugs off at the source? After all if it is that important sacrificing a few people for the greater good shouldn't be a problem.

Drugs have too many deleterious downstream effects to be allowed.

All those effects are a consequence of prohibition. The greatest harm caused by drugs is the harm caused by the authorities when they lock people up.

No researcher has ever found a lethal dose of marijuana.

However marijuana does make some people irrational; everytime cops and politicians talk about it you cna count on someone going totally crazy.

Overdoses of other drugs are usually the consequence of impurities due to the black market, or ignorance because drugs have to be used in secret and imformation about safe doses are hard to come by and what there is is unreliable.

...but I have a right to live in a drug free society.

There is no such right any more than there is a right to live in a society where noone sings off-key. You have a perfect right to not use drugs of any kind, either therapeutically or recreationally. You also have an obligation to prove that those who do not agree actually cause you harm before you threaten them. All you have done is repeat the nonsense that is put out by the leaders of the drug war who you call experts but are in fact as ignorant as you are.

[Jennifer]

Isaac-
After reading Juanita's last post, I now see what RandyAyn saw much, much sooner. Kudos to his perspicacity.

[Ruthless]

Jennifer,
The more you bang your head against the wall, the more beautiful you become to most of us here.

... however:
"dhex,
Sometimes our Prez uses "Juanita" as a screen name here. He has Rove do the typing."

This thread may taper down to just Jennifer, and Rove.

How would you like that?
Don't answer.
Just bang on the pipes.
(reference to Tony Orlando song)

Excuse me, you like Tony Orlando and Dawn, don't you Mr. President?
I thought so.

[Jennifer]

You did very well too, Juanita.

[Jennifer]

Ruthless-
If so, then back when I was teaching my beauty would have blinded you.

Or at least made you squint.

[Jennifer]

Oh, and if I never post again, assume I was the victim of one of those two a.m. "knocks on the door."

[Juanita]

Oh, and if I never post again, assume I was the victim of one of those two a.m. "knocks on the door."

I hope not.

[Ruthless]

See, Jennifer, Dubya is trying to pull a Slick on you.

If he knocks, and your trailer is rockin'...

[Isaac Bartram]

Jennifer

I've been trying to figure Juanita out and wavering back and forth between satire and sincerity. I may have wavered the wrong way.

Anyway I hope I haven't given our Prezidink any ideas with my radical law enforcement prescriptions. God knows with his current advisors he may be crazy enough to follow them.

I still blame myself because of the number of times I said "by god, if they want to ban sunthin dangerous they oughta, by god, ban tobacco" in the 80s. I know that's what gave the backy-nannies their ideas.

[Larry A]

Juanita: [I believe in freedom, you may claim a right to waste your life getting high, but I have a right to live in a drug free society. Let freedom ring.]

Then there's my cousin, who is one of tens of thousands of people who want nothing more than to live in a society free enough that physicians aren't arrested for prescribing the drugs they need to control the physical pain that is making life a living hell.