In an op-ed appearing in the Washington Post on Thursday, former President Jimmy Carter called for an end to the global war on drugs.
In a message to Congress in 1977, then-President Carter said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts. He also cautioned against filling America’s prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying, “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.”
Has the war on drugs been a failure? Discuss.
Hard to say if the “war on drugs” has been a failure. Also depends what is meant by “war on drugs” — preventing the importation and distribution in the first place or apprehending those who possess when it is here? How many people do hard time now for possession of less than nounce of marijuana?
My libertarian side says let individuals do what they want in the confines of their own home (I don’t want to see rampant public use in ‘drug bars’ or something), but make stiff penalties for anyone who gives drugs to children. Economically, decriminalization would remove some of the black market and associated violence (similiar to alchohol prohibition).
My conservative side doesn’t want to encourage drug use by legalization. Wouldn’t a liberal argument say that it’s not in the best interests of society and the greater good? I’m also not sure that if government is going to decriminalize drug use, then why should it be paying for treatment centers. If individuals are responsible to make choices, they must be responsible for consequences.
To get back to your failure question — is the “war on speeding” a failure just because cops aren’t everywhere at all times to catch every speeder and so people still do it?
Thought provoking topic!
I read the op-ed and I can agree with most of President Carter’s points, especially when it comes to incarcerating citizens. Especially in this tough economy when we’re slashing education funding while holding steady of prison expenditures, but that’s another debate. And there needs to be a lot of focus on driving demand for drugs down to make it less lucrative for smugglers. But does the government not have a certain moral obligation to interdict supply lines before they reach this country? So far I haven’t seen anything from the best and brightest that would work better.
If the government does not have a moral obligation on drug usage, then why should it have one when it comes to supply? Meaning, if government says it ok for an individual to make the choice to use drugs (passively endorsing demand), why should it stand in the way of supply? I don’t see how you would drive down demand by making the market more open through legalization.
But you’ve assumed I am talking about marijuana legalization, which I purposely did not mention. Take out pot, there are still many other highly dangerous and addictive drugs that you will agree should never be made legal. So what do you do?
I think certain drugs should be legalized, like the weaker ones and what crimes they do under the influence of said drugs should be charged similarly to if you had taken too much alcohol and broke the law whether it be an act of violence or running into someone with a car. I could see by legalizing some, we can not only stop a few of the illegal dangerous drug cartels in their tracks. I see the War on Drugs similar to the Prohibition. Ultimately a failure and creating dangerous groups who would rise to power by the demand.
It’s terrifying for Mexico and even the southern portion of the United States have to deal with because of those groups – wide spread violence and the War on Drugs ultimately magnified the problem like the Prohibition. Even if Mexico has tried to decriminalize it in their own country? The problem is with the United States’ policies which need to change because that is where their profits come from. Violent drug gangs exist in the first place because drugs are illegal. Exactly like how violent bootleggers existed during the Prohibition. As far as I’m concerned it should be treated like alcohol.
However It’s hard question to ask, for example: Marijuana is such a relatively harmless substance that is wrongly lumped in with cocaine, meth, MDMA, and others that are dangerous under the term “drugs”. While there may be a way to use them responsibly, that is a really hard topic to consider. Then again, I think the drinking age should be lowered. It’s ridiculous in my opinion that eighteen year olds can be sent off to a war yet they can’t even have a drink.
However on the flip side: In Portugal? Drugs were decriminalized. Keep in mind, not legalized – decriminalized. Virtually every negative effect we purportedly worry about has actually decreased if you read here.
In other words, for the most part, no real punishment at all – at least in Wisconsin.
My libertarian tendencies generally have had me thinking more on the permissive side. The idea that adults should be able to do what they want so long as they don’t hurt anyone else. That said, I think forgot’s thoughts are spot on – how do you permit individual usage while still doing something about sellers? While we can disagree about whether individuals should be allowed to use drugs or not, I’d guess it’s near unanimous that dealers are clearly a destructive effect on society.
Pot – I’d stop short of full legalization, but usage or possession of amounts in line with personal usage should be a misdemeanor for all offenses, not just first as it is now in Wisconsin. I support very severe punishments for driving especially subsequent offenses. Not any different than drunk driving though.
I’ll also say again, the same thing I said last week when the topic came up (and nobody else responded). To complain about the problems with drug policy with regard to prison population without bringing the hard numbers into it doesn’t really merit consideration.
Oh trust me, I’m not happy either with the alcohol laws and the treatment of it either. It’s just a slap on the wrist if you’re caught drunken driving. To be fair, I was thinking of other states who are much less ridiculous in that aspect. It’s a case where I think we should both lower the drinking age but we should also be more harsh in punishments for irresponsible drinking and driving.
The dealers themselves are the destructive force in this, and honestly? A lot of the gun debate majority of the time comes from those cartels having such powerful weapons. And I understand both perspectives, but that is why I think it’s important to fight to take illegal guns off the street and why I’m happy it passed with harsher charges on illegal guns in the state.
Either way I think Portugal’s view on it is so interesting. The dealers and traffickers themselves are still criminals and punishable by law. I think it should be at least worth looking into.
If you legalize drugs, you no longer have the black market of sellers (and runners and lookouts and kingpins and traffickers, etc. etc.). That market simply ceases to exist.
If we stop the war on drugs we won’t have any excuse for keeping our military in Colombia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/30/colombia-agreement-us-military
How are we going to foment unrest in socialist countries throughout South America without a war On Drugs?
All drugs should be decriminalized. The war on drugs has done absolutely nothing, aside from overpopulating our prisons (and tax burden) with non-violent offenders, while grossly enriching and empowering organized crime cartels and corrupting entire levels of government worldwide.
Clarifying – they should be decriminalized in terms of personal use, not the side effects on society. As in all other matters, the rights of drug users end where my nose begins.
Decriminalize all drugs? Like heroin? Cocaine? Are you kidding? Haven’t we seen how devastating alcohol is? This is what a responsible government would allow? Please take a moment to come back to reality. It ain’t gonna happen, for many, many reasons.
Again, let’s take marijuana out of the equation. The question still is: You’re in charge of protecting your citizenry from substances that are illegal and clearly dangerous. What is your plan?
And I should add that this is not a political issue. No need to get partisan about it.
Never said it would happen, and I’m well aware of the radical nature of my opinion. Too many people making too much money and getting too much power off the status quo.
And making it illegal makes it less devastating to the millions who would continue to use it….how, exactly? We have a case study on the topic of alcohol prohibition, as you’re well aware.
Well, first, if you legalize them, that takes care of half of that question by default! 😉
I’d simply ask you to prove how and where the “war on drugs” has improved things in any aspect.
That’s exactly why this is an interesting topic with better discussion than most topics, especially lately. There are Republicans and Democrats on both sides of this issue, so there’s more mutual respect for opposing viewpoints. Wish people could ignore the R & D obsession & approach all topics in the same manner.
Agreed.
The best debate on this issue evah.
lol. Best debate on it in my mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire_(season_3)
The reversal of the presumption of innocence in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in all jurisdictions.
More: The universally unconstitutional war on drugs.
GT – I think we should outlaw that guys out fit to the left of Ron Paul personally.
Im sorry second to the right of ron paul