This is one place, and probably the only place where I’m likely to part ways with my fellow conservative friends. I know they agree with me that the war on drugs has been an utter failure but my views on drug legalization is more liberal than most other conservatives. My views on this are libertarian.
I know all the arguments about how drug addiction breaks up families, endangers children and ruins lives. Those are all righteous and laudable, as well as heartbreaking arguments and drugs, like tobacco, is a truly defenseless cause. But no one can say that our so-called war on drugs has been effective by any margin. We’ve failed to beat it back and we will continue to fail. It’s a lost cause as a war. The only winners are the addicts and the drug cartels: Mexican and American.
Debra Saunders at Rasmussen Reports has an excellent column today about this. I could parrot her here but that’s really a waste of time and I could never do justice to what she’s written. I hope you’ll go read it. She makes excellent points about who is really paying for this bogus war and I’m sure you can guess – it’s you and me. She says “that if half of Americans who use pseudoephedrine drugs [otc cold and allergy medications] had to visit a doctor to get a prescription, it would cost $750 million per year. Meth addicts won’t be burdened by any new laws. It’s the law-abiding people who will pay.”
This is exactly why our drug war is non-winnable: those who don’t break laws are the ones who pay in dollars and loss of freedom, at the expense of the few who brew meth in their kitchens and blow up their homes and children in the process.
Diary of a Mad Conservative 
April 20th, 2011 at 6:24 AM
I’m with you, Roxy. My views on the drug war have changed dramatically. I don’t think the government has any right to tell us what to put into our bodies. They can regulate (perhaps like alcohol–but I have some issues there, as well) but not stipulate. If drugs were legalized, the violence would cease, drug addicts could receive the help they need without the threat of arrest and life would go on. John Stossel had a great show on this topic several weeks ago. His guest said that the last three presidents (Obama, Bush & Clinton) all admitted to trying/using drugs at one point. But of course, they weren’t “caught.” He said “Don’t you think they believe it’s a good thing for themselves and our country that they were not arrested? Then why do they think it’s a good thing to have other users arrested, get a criminal record and thus thwart their own opportunities in life?
It’s NOT about the utopia of a drug-free society. It’s about CONTROL.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:50 AM
Sing it Sister!!! Stossel is right on this – as well as lots of other things.
April 19th, 2011 at 9:11 PM
Hi Roxy. You’d think the damn fools would’ve learned their lesson during Prohibition, the law that made the Mob. Now they’re doing it again, empowering God knows how many underworld cartels. The cure is worse than the disease. But the politicians know it as well as we do. Follow the money & you’ll find that a great chunk of it leads back to any number of our elected officials, judges, and law enforcement officers.
April 19th, 2011 at 9:39 PM
Indeed Bob and Saunders says that any reduction in meth production in the U.S. has been offset by increases in Mexico. If it can’t be produced here, Mexico will do it for us and charge us a boat load for it, too.
The use of this drug is about as horrible as it can get for those families of the addicted and the addicted themselves.
And last I knew, addicts and alcoholics qualified for Medicaid. Do you know if that’s still the case?