New Front in War on Drugs?
show comments
  • Mrs. Davis

    better to attack drug addiction through the demand side, by increasing the social stigma surrounding drug use

    As was done with tobacco, but not yet alcohol.

  • Luke Lea

    “better to attack drug addiction through the demand side, by increasing the social stigma surrounding drug use”

    And what better way to do that than making them cheap and readily available? Let people grow their own poppies and marijuana plants, make meth to their hearts content, and it won’t be long until the glamor is gone, along with all the ill-gotten gains that fuel so much domestic and international crime, fills half our prisons at $50,000 per year per inmate, and permanently disenfranchises tens if not hundreds of thousands of our young people before they barely get a start in life.

    Drug legalization seems like a terrible idea, until you analyze the likely consequences. Just like ending Prohibition.

  • Lark

    “These restrictions will be to be carefully written and intelligently applied to avoid harm to the innocent, and they need to be followed by reductions in criminal penalties for drug use and a shift in enforcement strategies.”

    …And you really think government either can or wants to do that?

  • Jimmy J.

    Legalize, tax, and regulate all presently illegal drugs. The only requirements:
    1. Buy from a licensed dealer/pharmacist.
    2. Provide proof of identity and address. If you want to use legally, you must identify yourself as a user.
    3. Swift justice for any who commit a crime while under the influence.

    Use the tax money to fund anti-drug education programs in schools and rehab for those who request it or are ordered into it by a judge. May not work, but what we’re doing sure isn’t.

  • Jim.

    Make passing a drug test a requirement before receiving publicly subsidized medical care.

  • Toni

    “just because mom is on drugs doesn’t mean baby isn’t hungry or in need of shelter.”

    I can’t figure out how you’d design a program to insure that mom or dad spent money on food and shelter. As it is, parents have been known to pimp their own kids.

    I’m not sure orphanages wouldn’t be a better answer.

  • SGT Ted

    Yes, lets spend more money on a failure, because we don’t like hippies. The only illegal drug that is used casually that remains detectable in your pee for any length of time beyond 2 days is pot. Other far more dangerous drugs are non-detectable within 1-2 days. The war on pot is the same as the war on alcohol; overblown and generating crime and profits for drug gangs. [Urine] tests are not an accurate assessment of impairment or use beyond a few days.

    Hey maybe we can have random [urine] testing on the people who receive any sort of tax dollars, like politicians, artists, public university employees and tax leech grant writers. I bet that slows down the gravy train. How about [urine] tests to receive Social Security checks? How about [urine] testing if you drive a government supplied vehicle, like our politicians get? Or maybe a [urine] test at any time for those who want to drive our government?

  • Troll Feeder

    “These restrictions will be to be carefully written and intelligently applied to avoid harm to the innocent”

    If private property has any meaning at all, then I do not harm the innocent when I refuse to provide charity.

    Better that you had written, “…intelligently applied to allow the innocent continued access to public welfare.”

  • So, society is finally embracing the approach I’ve been pushing for the last ten or fifteen years.

  • lorien1973

    SGT Ted says:

    You can drug test more than urine, you know.

    But yes to your other ideas. Anyone who gets a check from tax payers dollars should be tested regularly.

    I’d take it a step further though. If you are on welfare/unemployment, you should be on birth control as well. If you can’t pay for your own life, you certainly shouldn’t be bringing new ones into existence.

    About time, though. I’ve been saying this for years now. I’d also expand it to alcohol, as well. If you drink, no checks. Perhaps smoking as well.

  • Martus

    This has nothing to do with the War on Drugs and everything to do with government illiquidity. The Welfare System needs Welfare! Watch for the means-testing to become ever more onerous. First druggies, then smokers, then fat people, until no one qualifies.

    And, of course, Social Security & Medicare will be the same. It is inevitable.

  • Jimmah

    Government isn’t a philanthropic organization and therefore shouldn’t be in the business of charity to begin with. They have no right to drug test anyone.

  • Otis McWrong

    SGT Ted: “Hey maybe we can have random [urine] testing on the people who receive any sort of tax dollars, like politicians, artists…”

    I don’t really care if they smoke weed or not, but am all in favor of them losing the right to vote.

  • KYSTEELGIRL

    Why not just close our borders?

  • lando034

    Easy solution for the kids… it’s child abuse to be in a household using drugs. If they fail the drug test, no welfare and the kids are taken. Also, there are avenues for kids to become wards of the state… you think the drug addicted parents are going to hold onto the kids if they aren’t getting money for them?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.