From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
I'm in Foreign Policy today, skeptical of trying to improve our drug policy by militarizing our involvement across the border. At its inception, the fight against drugs was billed as a 'total' war. But for years, it's been better described as a total mess. Mired in the costly gray area between law enforcement and armed conflict, the war on drugs has put Americans in a position that's steadily grown more, not less uncomfortable. Worse, from a strategic standpoint, it's put logical pressure on prohibition-minded policymakers to move us from military rhetoric to military practice.
Ostensibly, the aim is to fight 'em there instead of here -- the great principle of US statecraft in modern times. But the fact that we're now talking openly about inkspot counterinsurgency campaigns in Mexico -- as close to 'here' as you can get without shooting up the homeland -- ought to raise serious questions in our mind as to whether the war on drugs is leading us to attack the very roots of American grand strategy. If there is to be an alternative -- that doesn't involve military conflict on our doorstep and even closer to home -- we'd be well-advised to talk it through now.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
You're right on, James. It isn't a stretch to see tactics used for wars in other countries being used against U.S. citizens (I mean, now that we can put them on hit lists and assassinate them...), especially when we target ideologies and ideas rather than countries and people. Look at the Patriot Act, billed as a national defense initiative: it's been used in over 1500 drug cases and 15 terrorism cases.
If I want to get pissed off before a long run, I'll just read something about Jose Guerena's slaughter by the Pima County Sheriff's Department (yes, THAT Pima County Sheriff). Scary stuff.
May '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
Serious question: What would happen if drugs were legalized?
This is the extreme libertarian hope, I know. Let me throw in a caveat or two. (This includes alcohol.)
1) If you overdose you will not have access to an emergency room. You are on your own.
2) If you are involved in an accident and are the sole victim, you are not entitled to an insurance claim.
3) If you injure someone while on drugs you go to jail immediately (no bail) and stay for 50 years with no parole. If you kill someone, you are executed within 90 days of being caught.
Would this extreme version of personal responsibility be enough to stop drug use? Probably not. But the problem would solve itself through attrition over a period of a few years. Might we have a lot of people in jail? For the first 50 or 60 years. That too would taper off.
Apr '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
How can anyone still support the War on Drugs?
It is profoundly immoral, and becomes more so every day.
It is destroying whole countries. People south of the US border are being beheaded, dismembered, and hung from bridges by cartels. Over 15,000 people were killed last year in Mexico alone in their Drug War. That is roughly the total number of homicides in the US for the same year in a country a third the size.
It is keeping poor people poor both domestically and internationally. How many people in the US are in jail because of drug crimes? This hurts them, their families, and the nations economy. Some countries in Central and South America have illegal drug trade values greater than the legal GDP of the entire country. How can they maintain a stable government and the Rule of Law that enables their economies to grow and flourish?
Yes, drugs (legal and illegal) destroy some peoples lives through abuse, but at least they had some choice in the matter.
People are being killed or condemned to life long poverty because some people don't want other people to get high. Sorry for the drama, but it is wrong.
Oct '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
Pilli, I think you're right that it wouldn't stop drug use, since people are awful at weighing up the risks and benefits when it comes to vices. It would decrease it, though I think that the measures you listed, particularly the third, are pretty Draconian.
I don't think legalization, with none of those extra conditions, would increase drug use much either, since those people for whom drugs are especially attractive are usually already in a pretty good position to get it (high school and college kids).
On a side note, one of the problems with statutory laws in general, versus more traditional common law, is that they often remove any discretion (eg statutory rape); basically, if you cause something to happen, or a condition exists, you get punished. If taking drugs is negligent, then it should be considered in a negligence action. We saw this in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial; people were calling for a law that makes it a crime to fail to report a missing child within a few hours. Laws like that make things simpler, but they take away a jury's tempering function.
Edited on Nov 10, 2011 at 3:11pmOct '10
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
Pilli: Serious question: What would happen if drugs were legalized?
1) If you overdose you will not have access to an emergency room. You are on your own.
2) If you are involved in an accident and are the sole victim, you are not entitled to an insurance claim.
3) If you injure someone while on drugs you go to jail immediately (no bail) and stay for 50 years with no parole. If you kill someone, you are executed within 90 days of being caught.
1) Fine—we apply a test at the triage in the ER and, if there's time available, we treat those who can pay.
2) Agreed.
3) I don't see any need to make a distinction here. People should be responsible for their own actions whether or not they've ingested substances which modify their behaviour. Punishment should be based upon the injury to others, not whether the motivation to commit the injury was amplified by spirits or drugs or just raw stinking badness.
May '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
The severity is the whole point. As Warden mentions above, thousands of people are dying to enable drug lords to provide drugs to irresponsible users. The users need to be made responsible for their actions.
In time, a Darwin effect will thin the use to a much lower level. People will either never start using out of fear (maybe even sanity), quit using drugs entirely, use drugs in a safe/secure manner (harming no one else) or be removed from society either through overdose, incarceration, or execution.
If a person wants to destroy himself, that is his business. If his irresponsibility causes harm to another, he should lose his right to remain in a free society.
May '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
John Walker
Pilli:
1) Fine—we apply a test at the triage in the ER and, if there's time available, we treat those who can pay.
2) Agreed.
3) I don't see any need to make a distinction here. People should be responsible for their own actions whether or not they've ingested substances which modify their behaviour. Punishment should be based upon the injury to others, not whether the motivation to commit the injury was amplified by spirits or drugs or just raw stinking badness. · Nov 10 at 3:10pm
I disagree with your #1. I would prefer to deny treatment...period. If the user survives on his own, he may heed the lesson and quit.
Re: Your #3. While I totally agree with you statement, I was offering the comment in the context of legalizing drugs. We know how many car accidents are caused by drunk drivers. I would presume that number would increase if drugs were legalized. I would make it absolutely clear that impaired driving is verboten and will be severely punished.
Oct '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
Pilli
The severity is the whole point. As Warden mentions above, thousands of people are dying to enable drug lords to provide drugs to irresponsible users. The users need to be made responsible for their actions.
If a person wants to destroy himself, that is his business. If his irresponsibility causes harm to another, he should lose his right to remain in a free society. · Nov 10 at 3:26pm
The punishment has to fit the crime, not the effects of the crime. The death of people in Mexico is as much a fault of "conservatives" who keep the drug trade profitable by requiring illegality as it is the drug user. If we found out that the Tamil Tigers were killing Bengali workers for making GAP shirts, would we need to make GAP purchasers responsible for their actions? Are they irresponsible purchasers?
As to traffic accidents: would you be fine with doing the same to sleepy drivers, inexperienced drivers, old drivers, and cell phone drivers, all who should know better?
Jun '10
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
It seems to me that it took about 50 years for the culture to settle on a social/legal code for legal alcohol following prohibition (1930's to 1980's). There are legal consequences to mistakes with alcohol but much of the real pressure to perform is social. Legalized casino gambling in various locations has cost some people their lives, houses, marriages, etc. but overall (having worked in a casino for 5 years) it appeared to me that the individuals and the culture at large (through lore, shame, and other social devices) were learning to cope with the danger and enjoy the diversion. My guess is there will always be a small percentage of the population which has difficulty with a given temptation. But there are surely less costly ways protect the vulnerable and help the fallen than the current "war". Spending billions, enriching bloodthirsty murdering thugs, militarizing the police (not to mention giving them huge incentives for misbehavior through property seizure laws) all seems insane and futile. As a hypothetical would the consumption rate of cocaine would go up or down substantially if it were legalized tomorrow?
Edited on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:54amOct '11
Re: From Drug War to Real War, From There to Here
End the drug war. The federal government never had the authority to ban alcohol until the passage of the 18th amendment, and lost that power when the amendment was nullified by the 21st. Where did the authority to ban other drugs come from? How can people who claim to respect constitutional limits on government power support a war on people whose only offense is the possession of a substance that can't hurt anyone but the user?