RSS 2.0 Feed
Lou Dobbs On The War On (Some) Drugs
Not content to continue solidifying his reputation as a raving economic nationalist, Lou Dobbs has waded into the debate over the War On (Some) Drugs:
NEW YORK (CNN) — We’re fighting a war that is inflicting even greater casualties than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, incredibly, costing even more money. We’re losing the War on Drugs, and we’ve been in retreat for three decades.
That statement may come as a surprise to John Walters, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who spent last week trumpeting the Bush administration’s anti-drug policies. He claims these policies have led to a decline in drug abuse and improvements in our physical and mental health.
While Walters focused on a marginal decline in drug use, he made no mention of the shocking rise in drug overdoses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week reported unintentional drug overdoses nearly doubled over the course of five years, rising from 11,155 in 1999 to 19,838 in 2004. Fatal drug overdoses in teenagers and young adults soared 113 percent.
More than 22 million Americans were classified with substance abuse or dependence problems in 2005, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Nearly 8,000 people are trying drugs for the first time every day — that’s about 3 million a year. The majority of new users are younger than 18, and more than half of them are female.
Think about this for a second. Despite thirty years of the drug war, increased penalities for possession of even small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, and one of the largest prison populations in the world, we still haven’t succeeded in stopping people from using substances they obviously want to use.
At the same time, we’ve paid a price for this war. Civil liberties have been curtailed. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments have been eroded. And millions of people have been forced to live a life underground and outside the legitimate economy.
The obvious conclusion would be that it’s time to rethink the War on Drugs itself. But this is Lou Dobbs we’re talking about:
In the midst of the global war on terror along with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have forgotten about the brutal effects of narcotics trafficking on millions of American lives. We must end the abuse of drugs and alcohol, and provide successful treatment for Americans whose addictions are destroying their own lives and wounding our families and society.
Dobbs is confusing two different things here. Narcotics trafficking is a problem; it’s a currently illegal activity engaged in by some very bad people. Just like Prohibition solidified the Mafia’s rise to power, the War On (Some) Drugs has made criminal gangs in Central and South America and the United States very rich and very powerful. Thanks to the traffic in illegal drugs, entire neighborhoods of cities like Los Angeles are under the control of gangs who get their money and their guns from selling illegal drugs. They exist and prosper solely because drugs are illegal and they victimize Americans on a daily basis.
Addiction, however, is different issue. It’s a medical, or psychological, problem that can only be dealt with through treatment and counseling. And, think of it this way, isn’t it likely that people who are addicted to illegal drugs resist getting treatment because they’re afraid of getting caught ? These people would be addicts whether drugs were legal or not, and the addiction “problem” has no bearing on the issue of when we are going to end the monstrous failure that is the War On Drugs.
What people don’t understand is that one of the main causes of all these overdoses is the fact that an illicit drug market always demands more potent drugs, because the risk of transporting drugs is high.
The same thing happened during Prohibition. It was one of the main causes of the rise of hard liquor compared to beer and wine. Beer and wine is weak in alcohol, heavy, and bulky to transport. 100-proof whiskey isn’t.
I’ve got real-life experience with this. When I was in college, alcohol was banned in the dormitories, where I lived during my freshman year. Did we buy beer? Hell, no, it was too easy to get caught trying to smuggle a case of beer into the dorm, and too hard to hide the empty cans when it came time to toss the trash. So we drank hard liquor.
Make drugs legal, and for the most part, people will try to seek semi-safe drugs, such as marijuana, which is impossible to overdose on.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 14, 2007 @ 11:50 amI didn’t like the way Dobbs ended his article by saying we must be victorious in the war on drugs. I agree, but probably not in the same way most Americans would - and he left it open for interpretation. We can win the war on drugs - but only by changing tactics and taking law enforcement and criminal punishment out of the equation.
Comment by Derek MacKie — February 14, 2007 @ 10:12 pmIn 2001 the Taliban decided to end drug production in Afghanistan. They nearly put an end to all cultivation, production, and use of illicit narcotics. They didn’t do it with “rehab” or legalization, they did it with a firm hand of punishment. We are to soft on criminals in general in this country, go to South Asia and try to traffick some drugs, get caught and you will be lucky to get out alive.
Comment by J.K. — February 15, 2007 @ 9:37 pmIllegal drugs aren’t the problem. Over 120,000 people a year die from legal drugs. That’s 10 times the amount from illegal drugs. The properly prescribed, administered and taken by the individual Prescription drugs kill over 120,000 people a year. That’s where the real war on drugs belongs. Nobody says a word……Let the genocide continue. Wake up folks
Comment by Doc Sutter — February 19, 2007 @ 3:16 pmJ.K. your comment is not appreciated by people who value their freedom and individual rights. We do not want a totalitarian regime imposed by either government or religion; and we, especially, do not want capital punishment for getting caught at engaging in what are nothing more than vices (essentially “religious” sins — getting intoxicated on the “wrong” substance, prostitution, gambling, among others), these vices are not crimes; and not one of them should have ever been criminalized in a free nation.
Comment by Windy — February 19, 2007 @ 4:33 pmWe are to soft on criminals in general in this country, go to South Asia and try to traffick some drugs, get caught and you will be lucky to get out alive.
I do not want Southeat Asia’s legal system in this country…
these vices are not crimes; and not one of them should have ever been criminalized in a free nation.
…but I don’t want narcotics to be legalized, either. You’re smoking something good if you really believe that legalizing drugs would remove all the problems. The cheaper and more accessible something is, the more it will be used. Period. I thought that was Libertarianism 101? Well, it’s Economics 101, anyway.
I’ve never used the illegal stuff, but I’ve been prescribed the legal stuff - Vicodin, for example (which is pretty mild). I know how tempting it is, and I know that if you could just buy it at Albertson’s there’s people who’d be there everyday.
Comment by Craig — February 19, 2007 @ 4:48 pmIn response to J.K. who says that we are too “soft on criminals” and wants to get tougher on drug offenders by following the lead of the Islamic Taleban:
According Constitutional law and the natural laws of justice, adults who exercise their natural rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not criminals no matter what any man-made law may say. Adults who refuse to be told what they may eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest are not criminals anymore than those who refuse to be told what they may read, write, think, or believe.
There is an honorable way to win the drug war and all other prohibition wars with a victory for freedom. Every person who wants to criminalize honest trade and other peaceful behavior should be required to meet on the field of honor (pistols at point blank range) with a defender of freedom.
Every person who advocates violence (the law) against peaceful people should be required to meet, one on one, with someone who defends the constitutional and universal principle of individual freedom and personal responsibility. This simple requirement will cause all drug fighters, gun grabbers, illegalizers, and other terrorist thugs to disappear. It would be like turning on a light in a dark room and watching the cockroaches run for cover. Why? Because all these freedom-violating thugs are cowards who always hide behind some majority mob. Their idea of a fair fight is to hire a dozen goons to point a dozen guns at one head.
The best way to prevent all these prohibition wars and most other wars is to require all the tough-talking war mongers to fight.
Comment by Richard G. Eramian (Rick) — February 19, 2007 @ 5:19 pmCraig — No one said that freedom removes all problems. Furthurmore, it is more about legalizing drug users (people who use drugs without government permission) rather than legalizing drugs. The war on drugs is a lie. In fact, it is a war against human beings. It is people, not drugs, who are being killed, assaulted, robbed, and arrested.
Do you and all your friends get drunk everyday just because the drug alcohol is legal? Why didn’t the legalization of alcohol cause everyone to go crazy?
For your information, The major drugs in the world — alcohol, cocaine, opiates, and cannabis — are valuable medicines which have served mankind for thousands of years. These naturally produced medicines are also the safest drugs. Preparations of coca, opium, cannabis, and alcohol have been safely produced and consumed for centuries. These much-valued herbal medicines also have religeous, ceremonial, and recreational uses. They belong in every medicine cabinet. Cheap, effective, and safe drugs are good, not bad.
Comment by Richard G. Eramian (Rick) — February 19, 2007 @ 6:40 pmVicodin is a dangerous pain medicine because it contains a large amount of acetaminophen which is a leading cause of liver damage. A typical vicodin pill contains 10 mg of hydrocodone (an opiate which is a safe and effective pain medicine) and 650 mg of acetaminophen, an ineffective and dangerous pain medicine. As few as five or six vicodins within a twenty four hour period can cause permanent liver damage.
Vicodin, like many other pain pills produced by the government-licensed monoply, contain only tiny amounts of safe and effective opiates which causes people who need pain relief to take more pills. All to often, the result is liver damage from the acetaminophen.
Unlike most of the synthetic pain medicines produced by the government-licensed monoply, opiates can be taken in large doses without causing organ damage. Opiates, like cannabis and coca products, are illegal because they can be produced cheaply and cannot be patented. The prescription drug racket can’t make any money from them.
Comment by Richard G. Eramian (Rick) — February 20, 2007 @ 1:53 amDiversion, the war on drugs is a diversion. Do you see what you guys are doing. You’re argueing about all the minutia surounding this contrived war on drugs while the big killers remain untouched. You’re to preoccupid with the war on drugs with all its twists, turns, and minutia to face the real issue which is the deliberate killing of people with the legal drugs. Deliberate genocide. It’s one of their best tactics. Create a diversion and get poeple argueing about that while the real crimes go unnoticed. It works too as this forum so adequately demonstrates.
Comment by Doc Sutter — February 20, 2007 @ 2:26 pmOk, I am blogrolling your site. I looked at this issue from a different POV last week. Teens’ illegal drug use is down per a report released by White House drug czar John Walters. Prescription drug use is up.
http://ladyliberty.wordpress.com/2007/02/15/prescription-drugs-no-safer-than-street-drugs/
I guess free minds think alike.
Comment by miche — February 20, 2007 @ 3:08 pmSo, spell it out Doc Sutter, if you know the answer.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 20, 2007 @ 5:44 pmJK, you assume that we want to end the production of “illegal drugs”. I could care less if those drugs are produced, or not. If you like the way things work in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Singapore, etc. then I would suggest you move there instead of trying to impose totalitarian regimes here.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 20, 2007 @ 5:47 pmThe FDA is a collection of fools.
Marijuana is a medicine, and the liberty of patients in States all over US should not be denied by those morons at the FDA that won’t realize that the cannabinoids are far less toxic that the vile, liver-destroying synthetic pharmaceuticals disease sufferers have to endure all because they won’t budge on listing cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance.
Comment by C.R. — February 23, 2007 @ 7:23 pmi like marijuana ciggerettes.. hahahahahaha
Comment by k-dawg — March 2, 2007 @ 11:20 pm