25 Years Ago President George Bush Waved a Bag of Crack in Our Faces. What Good Came of It?
The explainers over at Vox sum up something we of the libertarian ilk have known for a long time--the war on drugs not only sucks on any conceivable ethical or moral ground, it also doesn't achieve its pretended goals.

The occasion is the 25th anniversary of the day then President George Bush waved a bag of crack cocaine allegedly obtained across the street from his house in America's faces, and vowed to escalate and already long-lasting and already failed war on drugs.
The results, via Vox:
Twenty-five years later, the increased efforts don't seem to have affected illicit drug use across the country.
New data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, released September 4, shows illicit drug use is actually up compared to one decade ago. (The federal survey underwent major methodological changes in 2002, so it's difficult to compare trends for all Americans prior to that year.)
The Monitoring the Future survey, which tracks illicit drug use among high school students, found drug use has greatly fluctuated over the past few decades. In 1975, four years after former President Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, 30.7 percent of high school seniors reported having used illicit drugs in the past month. In 1989, the year of Bush's speech, the rate was 19.7 percent. In 2013, it was back up to 25.5 percent.
But ooo, what if we weren't waging war on drugs? What then, druggy?
Isaac Campos, a drug historian at the University of Cincinnati, points to the late 19th century, when hard drugs such as cocaine, which was relatively new at the time, were almost entirely unregulated. "We had the perfect storm for a wave of drug abuse," Campos said. "Even then, within a system far less regulated than anyone advocates for today — a system of radical legalization — we know that rates of abuse were not significantly higher than they have been in the last decade or so."
Add in all the money spent and all the lives disrupted to that lack of efficacy, and you've got a government program for the ages, the nature of statism laid bare.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
points to the late 19th century, when hard drugs such as cocaine, which was relatively new at the time, were almost entirely unregulated.
But opium dens!!!
The crack was, by all accounts, obtained in Lafayette park. But it was an absurd setup that the DEA guys had to work at to make happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....shdrug.htm
That is pretty fucking depraved but I guess I am not surprised at this point.
No kind of entrapment, lying or fraud surprises me when it comes to drug warriors.
Where are the libertarians on the war on drugs? Their silence is telling; clearly they only care about the rich.
We're just Republicans who want to smoke pot.
If you don't think saving a child from getting high is worth 27 billion dollars a year, you're a monster.
I will spend at least three hours a day personally preventing children from getting high for only 1 billion dollars a year.
You can't end the War on Drugs; there's too much money in it.
Did your walker help you write this post?
Your point?
Should this have been a top level comment, to the post author, or was this really a reply to The Late P Brooks?
If the latter - your point?
I the country legalized drugs we could start counting drugs in the GDP. At $400-$500B a year (quick Google on the size of the US illegal drug market) that would tack on two or three points in GDP growth that politicians could take credit for.
I don't think anyone knows what high school drug usage is - kids bragging, etc. - nor does anyone know what drug use was in 1890.
The only organized polling then was done by Census and anyone who has
ever tried to trace ancestors knows what a lousy job was done counting heads.
So how is W waving a bag of crack any different from the news anchor waving a high-capacity magazine?
If it really was crack, wasn't he possessing it (probably with intent to distribute)?
Or, if you want to say it was OK for him to have it because it was seized by cops as evidence, how was he not tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, etc.?
So how is W waving a bag of crack
2014 - 25 = 1989 = HW