EXCLUSIVE–Former Bush Counternarcotics Advisor: We’re Losing the Drug War Because of Government Bureaucracy
by Jeffrey Scott ShapiroBig Government has obtained exclusive excerpts of a book scheduled to be released next month, which outline problems with the federal government’s handling of the drug war.
The book, The Border Challenge, authored by T. Michael Andrews, a former adviser at the Dept. of Homeland Security’s counternarcotics office, is scheduled to be released in bookstores in early February.
Andrews has suggestions for how federal drug enforcement agencies can reshape their strategies along America’s northern and southern borders, and he explains how government bureaucracy and shifting goals have made winning the drug war impossible thus far.
“One of the problems with having so many offices in the federal government directed at a common cause is direction and leadership,” Andrews wrote. “The scope of bureaucracy can be overwhelming. If one department wants to take a different policy direction from another, this could lead to an immediate bureaucratic tie-up and in some cases pushback among the many agencies.”
According to Andrews, bureaucracy comes from partisan politics, lack of consistent focus, and jurisdictional conflicts within competing law enforcement agencies that are not working together.
“One of the problems we always had–even today, I’m sad to say, are that there are still problems between the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) and ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement),” he said during an exclusive interview conducted from his home in northern Virginia.
“Those are really the two agencies that have drug enforcement power. ICE is charged with stopping any and all contraband coming into the United States under Title 18, and the DEA is charged with both domestic and international drug enforcement under Title 21.”
“The problem arises when once someone crosses over into the United States. Is it ICE or DEA? You’ve got two agencies that need to coordinate operations between one another. There’s already an inherent conflict with two different offices with two different missions that intersect. ICE will tell you that their job is securing the border. DEA will tell you their job is stopping drugs and if it’s at the border then they’ll be there, too.”
Andrews explained that one major problem is that ICE currently lacks independent authority to investigate smuggled drugs that end up in the U.S., but that the DEA has that authority. In order for ICE to pursue an investigation based on a Title 21 crime of drug trafficking, the agency must request approval to continue their investigation.
“The FBI is the only law enforcement agency that has total authority on each and every crime,” he explained. “ICE should have the same authority as the FBI in order to handle the Title 21 drug trafficking infractions much more effectively.”
Andrews said the federal government has also failed to develop effective long-range objectives and that foreign cartels are using the American legal system against itself.
“There’s no cohesive and long-range goal to fighting drugs,” he said. Every two years the goals change. If the goal shifts constantly the government can’t achieve it because it keeps moving. The goal shifts because of partisan politics and also the reality of the day we live in. Drug trafficking has been bumped off the radar screen for counter terrorism. There are limited resources to go around, so the same resources we were once using to fight drugs are now being used to fight terrorists.
“The Mexican cartels have some of our own people,” he explained. “Some of them know our laws better than we do. They have U.S. educated lawyers working down there. I learned that while working in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. There are cartels that have U.S. law firms on retainer. They know all about the attorney-client privilege and they use it for money laundering.”
In his book, Andrews examines each president’s leadership in the drug war from George H. W. Bush through Barack Obama.
“Clinton came off really soft and that really hurt him,” Andrews explained. “But then he found a hard charging drug czar named Barry Mccaffrey, and under his leadership that was the first time you had established goals. McCaffrey said we’re going for outcome measures, performance measures, and an end game, and then he established a lot more drug agencies, which got more overall drug control funding.”
Andrews said that under President George W. Bush, the budget to fight the drug war increased from $10 billion in 2002 to $13 billion in 2008, but because of the Sept. 11 attacks the mission changed and the drug war suffered as a result.
“The focus changed,” Andrews explained. “I don’t blame him because we were just attacked. We weren’t able to worry about the street thug selling dope because we had to go to war against terrorists. So, even though the national drug budget increased, it didn’t lead to more success.”
Andrews explained that under President Bush, dedicated drug enforcement money was now utilizing the drug trafficking budget to fight terrorism in the Middle East.
“There was a legitimate nexus between drug trafficking and terrorist activities,” he explained. “George W. Bush was the first president to focus on the nexus between the two, that terrorists were selling drugs to buy weapons of mass destruction… but it depleted resources from fighting drugs on the border.”
As a result, Andrews said that drug activities at America’s borders increased.
“We used to have helicopters that were dedicated to combat drug runners in the Caribbean,” he explained. “Those assets were redeployed in the Middle East to assist in our counter-terrorism efforts there. As a result, we lacked those dedicated resources for the Caribbean corridor. There were less resources there to combat the drug runners.”
Andrews said Obama has downgraded the former drug czar cabinet position to a diminished role within the White House (Office of National Drug Control Policy).
“It gives the role less stature – it’s tough to say you speak on behalf of the president when you’re not cabinet level. You’re really just a glorified cheerleader. It doesn’t give the position the weight it merits.”
Andrews’ examination of the drug war is insightful because it touches upon the problems our government has in fighting a perpetual war that will not go away. To successfully combat drug trafficking, however, the government must work to structure its own legal code and law enforcement agencies so that they are in sync and can finally work together instead of apart from one another, and in some cases perhaps against one another.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
88 Comments
“One of the problems with having so many offices in the federal government directed at a common cause is direction and leadership,”
Nothing more really needs to be said here.
The solution is simple enough. Get Rid Of The DEA, and use ICE, State Troopers, Local Police Departments, and the FBI, along with the DoD when needed.
There's a switch. The Bush administration blaming Obama! Long time in coming IMHO.
It is all because of Barack-racy.
The government, or rather certain rogue elements within the government, is bringing in the drugs – they've been caught red-handed doing this repeatedly.
That "bureaucracy" is also profiting handsomely from the status quo…
I believe we are losing the "war" on drugs because the premise itself is flawed. To legislate morality itself is wrong. It didn't work with alcohol and isn't working with drugs. Most of the enforcement is for pot and that is a joke. With a seed the weed will grow almost anywhere. This drug pays the frieght for the other imported drugs. Legalize pot and the whole import system will collapse. Billions saved.
We know, it's the Jew's fault. bla, bla, bla…..
the war on drugs can only be won by getting a WHOLE lot smarter.
It ain't just 'bureaucracy', either. Drugs,and it's interdiction is a big business, and people on both sides of the equations have interests in maintaining the status quo. While we do NOT agree with the Paulistas and having total legalization (Goodness, what a mess that would cause) there is a lot of things that cold be done much better.
Decriminalization of marijuana, bringing it down to a civil offense is smart.
Legalization and control of heroin- using it as a relief for terminal cancer patients- is smart.
Putting US military assets at the Southern border is smart. Not putting minor drug offenders in prison is smart.
This issue CAN be solved. But will we ever get SMART about it?…
Right… it's totally because of overlapping bureaucracy that the gov't hasn't "won" the "war" on drugs, and not because moral crusades rarely, if ever, work. See Prohibition for an example.
i wonder just how many anti-drug agencies there are in the government. just like how many agencies work on the homeless? during reagan's days, it would have saved the government money handing out a 30,000 check to all the homeless people, then to run all of the programs working on the problem. it sounds like drugs are the same way.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We can, but "they" won't allow it.
Goodness, what a mess that would cause
Please elaborate. I'm interested in learning about this "mess". And in doing so, please answer 2 questions. Does the "mess" include the deaths of innocents by law enforcement personnel?Do more people involved in the "war" die than those who die from drug use itself?
no, as said it is BIG business.
On both sides…
Didja know, that over the course of the past couple of years, over 50,000 people have died on the Border, in the Mexican Drug Wars?
That number is rapidly approaching, and soon will eclipse the total amount of casualties that the US suffered in the Vietnam War.
How is that for perspective?
"Legalization and control of heroin- using it as a relief for terminal cancer patients- is smart. "
The only problem with that is redundancy. There are plenty of pharmaceutical grade pain killers available for terminal cancer patients, that are tightly regulated, except when they are not.
Sounds WAY too kind to me. "We’re Losing the Drug War Because of Government Corruption" would be WAY more accurate in the case of the Soetoro Administration.
So in essence what can all take from the article is, Bigger government is not better government.
and less is more
Secret Service Interrogates 7th Grader For Facebook Post, Without Parental Consent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqSFbWtB_44&fe...
Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzoKo1qFmDo&fe...!
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
Doctors have told us that NOTHING is as effective in pain relief for terminal patients.
It would change the nature of the Afghan conflict.
Other than that, well we have no use for it- and it's illegality is a highly problematic geopolitical issue…
Yes, it is….
It's a freakin' industry for all involved….
no, it's the spike in addictions and drug related traffic deaths.
Not from what we have observed; drug use shortens lifespans and debases the soul. But plenty do die, yes.
Law enforcement's big problem is their militarization. This, plus drug war = needless death. It can be addressed…
well I am sure the pharmaceutical companies would argue to the contrary. After all, many pain killers are derivatives of the opium poppy.
and some will even die from exposure to agent orange…
of course they would.
Selling marginally effective opiates is big business. Just sharing what DOCTORS have told us.
if Dr Paul were nominated- and somehow 'removed' from the equation?
The FIRST thing we'd investigate is the cartels…
I am not advocating for or against. I'm simply posting this because somebody else has done the study, and paid for it. Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? By MAIA SZALAVITZ Sunday, Apr. 26, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,18...
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
and the pharmaceutical companies are in bed with the powers that be.
But you already knew that
The “War on Drugs” is a perfect example of government taking a century’s old problem and exacerbating the situation into a self fulfilling thriving industry. Creating dozens of Al Capone’s, with tens of thousands of government employees chasing their tails with zero results. All the while, hurling hundreds of billions of dollars down an ever growing rat hole, leading to the demise of the greatest country the world has ever known, the USA.
As long as there is demand for something, a market will exist. It's basic economics. When the purchase and sale of something are prohibited, that market will be an underground black market led by unsavory people looking for steep profits.
This isn't at all a difficult concept. Prohibition of alcohol occurred less than a hundred years ago in this country, so it makes no sense that people would have forgotten the lesson.
The use of drugs has been around for millennia. In other words, the government is fighting a losing battle with human nature. Aside from the Constitutional arguments against drug prohibition, the most important arguments against it are that it empowers the most violent members of society and turns ordinary citizens into criminals, all while effectively morphing law enforcement into a quasi-military force.
How about the death of the inner cities brought about by gangs running the drug black market? How many innocent lives are lost to gunfire in gang warfare? How many lives were destroyed by being forced into the gang culture? How many people are killed and terrorized by militarized cops busting down a door in a no knock raid?
EVERYBODY who WANTS to use drugs, uses drugs. The fact that a substance is illegal has never prevented a person from using who really wants to. Prohibition criminalizes the users and creates a bloodbath of destruction in the war between the producers, dealers and law enforcement.
Everyone's in bed with the government. It's one giant bureaucratic orgy of cronyism and kickbacks.
Why did it take a Constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but mere legislation to prohibit "drugs" and start a war that kills tens of thousands of people every year and overloads our prisons?
The Mexicans should be outraged because it is our "war" on drugs that is leading to the brutal deaths of their citizens.
Do you honestly believe that?
I don't.
The cops would never go for it. The drug war pays for all of their cool military toys and allows them to dress up all badass, kick in doors, point AR-15s in 8 year old boy's faces, and throw women to the ground. It is a real power rush, you know.
The cops were on-board when they realized that they didn't have to be Andy Griffith protecting the peace, they could be Rambo driving APCs.
bingo.
Which brings us back to the beginning. BOTH sides like the current state of affairs…
and me the fool, i thought it was homeland security arming mayberry with tanks, and patriot missles, my bad.
shhh, don't let that slip out, do you want obama to figure that out?
Well, "once upon a time", opium was not illegal.
Laudanum was a simple, common, over the counter product, used for almost everything, and forming a base for numerous concotions.
Yes, there were addicts, especially since it was cheaper than hard alcohol.
And there were overdoses, since people could guzzle a whole bottle if they wanted to.
Yet somehow all of society did not collapse, crime was not rampant, women (including those stoned out of their gourds on laudanum) could walk the streets in safety, children and puppies could frolic without being abducted for unspeakable purposes (especially the puppies), doors could be left unlocked, and all the rest of the 20/20 hindsight with rose-colored glasses shtick.
And then the (first) Progressive Era got going full swing.
Okay, sure, requiring accurate labeling and quality controls was certainly reasonable.
That wasn't enough of course, and in short order all those horrible narcotics were banned to protect people from using them, harming their ability to contribute to the state.
Back to infowars with you, crackpot.
Aw, gee. Say it isn't so.
quick, turn off the lights and cut your internet connection – the black helicopters are coming……!!!
The population of hard drug users is far, far smaller than the population of drinkers. And actually, while it didn't bring an end to drinking, Prohibition did bring an end to the massive constant lower-class drunkenness that was the principle target of the reformist temperance movement.
The problem with the current war on drugs is that we aren't willing to wage it with the level of ferocity that would be required to win it. In particular, we keep going after dealers/distributors/manufacturers while ignoring customers.
No, you are losing the drug war because it is impossible to win the drug war.
Kind of like Afghanistan.
If street drugs were legal to manufacture and sell here, there would be no black market and cartel gangs warring for smuggling routes into the US.
It is interesting how you prohibition advocates can be so blind to the death and destruction the war on drugs causes, but have an extreme paranoia about increased violence and drug use if prohibition was lifted.
We expend an inexcusable amount of lives, money and time trying to force others to fit our own sense of morality. We are, in essence, saying "I think drugs are bad, and I will kill or imprison every last one of you if you don't conform to my will." Who the hell are you to intrude on my liberty and tell me what I can and can not smoke?
you prohibition advocates
Don't generalize me, and try to categorize me, or pigeonhole me with everyone else.
It can't be done.
I am not a prohibition advocate.
On the contrary.
Who the hell are you to intrude on my liberty and tell me what I can and can not smoke?
I am not one to intrude.
My drug policy is simple.
Pour it out in a trough, free choice, so everyone that wants to partake, can do so, like a bunch of undisciplined hogs, until they are dead. In less than one generation, there will be no more drug problem, or a drug war.
Nature takes care of itself.
Let's not forget the premise of the drug war: The State has the right to tell you what you can do with your body even if you are not harming another. The State, and only the State, has a say over what drugs are good and bad. And of course, those drugs are usually those produced by those shelling out big bucks lobbying for the FDA to pass their pills. Or a substance they can make billions off of from taxing, like alcohol.
The drug war makes the violence go up. It gives rise to those most willing to commit any act, no matter how unspeakable, in order to get rich to fulfill the demand.
The fact that this fool is defending the States drug war on this website is just laughable.
All hail the State, for it knows best.
"which outline problems with the federal government’s handling of the drug war."
How is this any different than leftist / socialist /marxist handling of the economy or the wealth gap or income inequality?
In both cases (nanny state economic socialists or nanny state social conservatives), they cry that things aren't going their way because they aren't conducting the war properly; they never consider that theirs is an immoral crusade.
There are more than enough idiots on both sides of the aisle.
Were losing the drug war because users simply won't give up smoking/snorting/shooting/etc their drugs. As long as there's demand, the war will continue.
Well DUH!
Government isn't empowered to "handle" a "drug war" to begin with! And they wonder why never ending failure is resulting? They really wonder?
dcase – please cite for me the Constitutional Authority for the drug war.
Remember, it took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol because government was not empowered to enact such a prohibition. Remember too that said Amendment has been repealed.
Please go all the way back to the basis, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that rests upon it and enlighten us all to the supposed authority over what we put into our own bodies resting with government.
Individual Liberty, respecting and protecting it – now that is smart. It is also right and proper.
Avoiding it, pretending it doesn't exist and empowering government with the ability to issue permission slips to those it chooses is, well, the opposite on all fronts.
Yes, this entire issue can be solved. It has to be solved by government owning up to its own responsibilities and boundaries, with people doing so themselves on an individual level as well.
I recall a show I watched a few years ago about prairie dogs down in Texas. A rancher was taking a reporter around his ranch and they stopped at this one spot. which is where the foolishness was exposed.
On his right was an area where taxpayers funded a prairie dog preservation program – as a food source for Black Footed ferrets. To his left, taxpayers were funding the eradication of the pests called Prairie dogs.
Simply Amazing. And a nutshell of what is so wrong with this country. Government is trying to micromanage literally everything and every one everywhere every day.
And the operators of the so many levels of government are so compartmentalized that they cannot see the pure foolishness so self evident in the prairie dog example, much less the litany of others that exist.
One thing is true. A great deal could be accomplished by a President willing to close down the runaway cabinet. Each President is fully empowered to construct and establish their own Cabinet. All it would take is a signature to end the vast majority of the foolishness we now witness.
Yeah, any one of the current GOP contenders would do so. Suuuuuure they would. We both know better. So the question then becomes –
Why do Americans vote for the foolishness over and over and over again?
We should stop wasting money on the drug war anyway.
"We’re Losing the Drug War Because of Government Bureaucracy"
I'm sure we all appreciate the delicious irony of this statement?
Well, as long as there is demand and unconstitutional federal laws prohibiting them.
true, but to what end?
Legalizing crack cocaine doesn't seem to be an answer, either. You must promote an alternative as well, not just attack the system…
this is a silly question.
There isn't 'constitutional authority' for almost everything the government does. Using the commerce clause and the general welfare clause are their favorite rubber bands to be twisted beyond all recognition.
But to legalize this substances would be an abdication of any social responsibility the government has.
The unintended consequences would be devestating; thousands- maybe tens of thousands would die.
This isn't 'Tombstone' any more. There are laws- and many of these substance laws ARE in the public interest…
I get your point, but keep in mind in some cases we do and should legislate morality, which is why murder is illegal.
funny that was on fox news last week.
your bigotry is disgusting.
The only murder that is moral is suicide.
any other murder deprives another individual of life and is criminal conduct and nothing to do with morals.
That makes absolutely no sense.
"Moral," as defined by dictionary.reference.com, means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong."
People in societies must agree that certain acts are right and others wrong. They don't have to agree about ALL acts, but there must be a consensus about some (such as killing someone just because), otherwise the society will lack stability and fall apart.
"I get your point, but keep in mind in some cases we do and should legislate morality, which is why murder is illegal. "
this makes no sense.
murder being illegal has nothing to do with "legislating morality" as murder is criminal action that deprives another person of life.
An example of moral legislation dealing with murder are anti suicide laws.
Some people believe you have the right to kill your self.
killing your self is immoral.
here we go another radical racist zionist telling americans how to live.
take your bigotry and move on.
yet you have voiced for support for fast and furious gun and drug smuggling operation started by bush administration and retooled by obama- holder to attack the 2nd amendment.
Congratulations!
You win the award of the day. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's put to the side, for a second, the enormous waste of money the drug war has been. There is one important point that doesn't get brought up enough. The drug war is unconstitutional. There is nothing in there that allows the federal government ban drugs of any type. Remember, they had to get an Amendment just to ban alcohol.
If you support the drug war then you don't support the Constitution.
We're losing the drug war because we ought to lose the drug war.
We're also losing the war on prostitution, and it's because of an inefficient government bureaucracy dating back to the Roman Empire.
But give us just a few more years and a little more money and…
Every problems that involves government workers gets worse: drugs, poverty, housing, education, environment, etc. Strong families, private and charter schools along with active churches can solve the majority of the drug problems. I am impressed when I visit some of the following campuses: http://www.aimschools.org/aiphs_state_ranking.sht...
This is a perfect example of what happens in a Representative Federal Republic when the Federal government attempts to do more than just the "Core Responsibilities" that the Federal Government was established to do. You get changing directives, administrations, congress'… i.e.: Order, Counter-Order, Dis-Order. (as they say in the Military)
The Federal Government should not be doing anything more than what an individual State CANNOT do for itself. Not because that "job" might not need doing, but because it is the Nature of Representative Government to do these "jobs" BADLY!
It cannot help itself, Congress has 432 members in 1chamber & 100 in the other. The Nature of Politics DICTATES that anything Congress passes will, in part or whole, be driven by politics… NOT common sense!
Hence, stupidities included in Drug laws, The Fed Reserve, Bridges to Nowhere, Solyndra, Turtle-tunnels, or any one of literally THOUSANDS of other programs/decisions/spending that make No Sense!
This kind of crap constitutes a Financial/Regulatory Cancer draped around the throat of the Entire Country. I see NO WAY that we can survive beyond another year or two without dumping it all & going back to a Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution.
Our choices are:
1) Keep doing/spending what we are… followed by financial collapse 2013~2015… Leading to:
a) Socialist Takeover / World Currency / possible World Gvmt led by "elites"… in other words: New World Order
OR
b) Civil War between "The Left" & "The Libertarians" / 21%liberals +15~20%"useful idiots" vs 40%libertarians
2) Cutting MOST Federal entitlement programs ($2.5Trillion) AND cutting the rest by 50%(minimum) AND reducing Regulations by 75% AND Eliminating 16th Amm./IRS in favor of a tax level of 10~15%.
I do not see the current Admin/Congress capable of Choice #2. I do not see any of the current Candidates for President capable of Choice #2 (except Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is TOTALLY unworkable) Then there is the Probable makeup of the next Congress… most likely they will not have the Stones to enact Choice #2.
If we do not stop spending/borrowing, in a year or so WHO will lend(buy Bonds) to the Federal Gvmt? Investors? Nope, they aren't that stupid – look at Greece, Spain, Portugal… etc. Foreign Gvmts? Nope, even China & Saudi don't have THAT kind of cash! Besides, living off of FOREIGN gvmts doesn't sound too bright, does it?
So who is left… yep, The good ol' FEDERAL RESERVE! And where do THEY get a couple of trill a year? PRINTING PRESS! Gee, can anybody say Weimar Republic? Zimbabwe? Yes, Devaluing our currency is REALLY going to help the poor… the middle class (we won't have one)… etc. In other words, we're right back to Choice #1.
So, we The People, are left staring an Economic/Political/Law&Order Collapse right in the face. Stock the F___ Up, folks… or Else! When our Just-In-Time delivery systems stop delivering, What Will You Do?
"Those who fail to plan, Plan To Fail!" Don't know who said it, but he/she is right!!
the wealth gap or income inequality
The entire concept is an invention by Karl Marx in order to alienate one part of Society from another, with the destruction of said Society as the goal. That sob Marx has gotten, AT LEAST, 300,000,000 people killed w/his Stupid Socialist ideas. If I didn't know that it is up to Our Lord, not us, I'd say he's Roasting In H___ right now!
And THAT is why the Progressives (Gropressives) instituted it! To destroy the Constitution. You cannot create a "Socialist Paradise" (I hope I NEVER see just what that means) under our Constitution.
The War on Drugs should NEVER have started in the first place. But the Democrats didn't like Filipinos, blacks and Hispanics, so about 80 years ago Drug Prohibition started. Later, corrupt Republican politician, Richard Nixon, against the advise of his own commission that recommended NOT to criminalize drug use, used the occasion to round up his enemies through a new, War on Drugs. Republicans and Democrats presidents alike have continued this racist, counterproductive, EVIL, anti-Constitutional War at the cost of trillions in total money spent fighting it, time lost, lives ruined, increased security, increased policing, prisons, etc. This immoral War destabilized entire regions, cost the lives of police, judges, children, Public Servants and up to tens of thousands in Mexico, where children are now called the 'Bang, Bang' generation because of all the bloodshed. Please help to END this War by speaking up and speaking out where you think you could do some good. Thanks, 777denny
While I respect your opinions, I believe them to be false. Marijuana is easier to get in schools than alcohol. Anybody who wants to do drugs already does them regardless of the "law." The loss of our civil liberties has been devastating.
We already live in a police state. Our Constitutional rights are gone. How much more ferocious do you want the government to get?
So is your mother. BTW Ron Paul sucks.
Dude – "Thou shalt not kill." Sound familiar? That moral principle has been encoded into law – of course, there's the exception of self-defense, and if you kill yourself, well, you're dead, and can't be prosecuted. So it may be immoral to kill yourself, but there's no point in making a law about it, because you can't be punished for it (here, anyway). Not all moral principles become or should become law, but some must in order for society to work.
nothing 'false' about the opinions offered here.
Drugs shorten lifespans, ruin lives and debase the spirit. Period.
While that may be a person's RIGHT to destroy themselves, it is not a right to destroy the lives of others. Dealing drugs is a CRIME against both society and the individual spirit. Just because it is 'easy to get' doesn't make it's use acceptable,,,
Your opinions and you have a right to them. People have always found mind altering substances desireable and always will, it's biology. It's the same biological desire as sex. As far as a crime against "society" goes, society is not my responsibility. I am responsible only for myself and society has no claims upon me or my freedom.
fine.
You kill someone in an auto accident while under the effects of mind altering substances and we'll call for the death penalty.
Fair enough?
It already happens, it is called alcohol.
so let's make the situation worse.
All in the name of getting high.
You'll forgive us for being unsympathetic…
It can't be any worse. Botched drug raids, gang warfare, drive by shootings, killing of innocent people, drug turf wars, the largest prison population of any so-called "free" nation on earth, militarization of the local police, SWAT raids, destruction of the Bill of Rights, should I go on? You don't get that people who want drugs can already get them. And yes people who are stoned are already driving around, operating machinery, raising children, etc. So your answer is lets throw everyone in jail? Mandatory drug tests for everyone? Still won't work.
good points.
It is truly a mess. So, let's go back to the libertarian coda. Harm someone while under the influence you lose your freedom. Kill someone, you lose your life.
Seems fair…
OK I agree.
I was speaking in the context of the drug war.
You must be logged in to post a comment.