How the War on Drugs Interferes with Real Wars
By: William Griffin
Debating the War on Drugs normally focuses attention on the obvious: the negative effects drugs have on society and the individuals who use them, the money spent on combating the illicit trade, and whether individuals have the right to choose to consume these substances.
The negative effects this war has on other nations and their people is widely ignored.
Trafficking these products in Central America, West Africa and the Caribbean contributes to instability and endangers national security. In both Colombia and Afghanistan, the illicit drug trade helps fund violent insurgencies which cause large regions of lawlessness, commit hundreds of murders, and actively kill government and allied military forces including, in the case of Afghanistan, our own men and women in uniform.
In Colombia, a 42 year civil war has raged between the government and FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), an authoritarian left-wing organization that has killed countless Colombians and foreigners. Most of Colombia’s 3000 kidnappings are also the work of these revolutionaries. FARC receives $300 million a year by ‘taxing’ the thriving cocaine trade in Colombia, and more than half the world’s coca is grown in FARC controlled territories.
By legalizing and regulating cocaine, any market in the United States could be supplied by legal cultivation in Bolivia, which does not have the problem of a violent insurgency. Since most of the price of cocaine comes from the illegal nature of the product and the risk the suppliers must take, by legalization will hamper FARC’s cash supply and ability to terrorize the countryside.
Meanwhile, southern Afghanistan cultivates 80% of the world’s poppy crop (the plant used to create opiates). 53% of Afghanistan’s GDP now comes from the export of poppies. Currently the Taliban uses this to their advantage, funding themselves with much of the profits. Western troops in the country destroy the crop where they can, but despite our efforts, Afghan poppy production grew 17% last year to hit $4 billion. As a result, the Taliban profited handsomely:
The Taliban earned $200 million to $400 million last year through a 10 percent tax on poppy growers and drug traffickers in areas under its control, Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime, said in an interview. He estimates that Afghan poppy farmers and drug traffickers last year earned about $4 billion, half of the country’s national income.
American troops have made gains by adopting counter-insurgency tactics and winning the populace over to our side. However, it’s difficult to win support of impoverished citizens when our troops are physically destroying the people’s primary means of subsistence.
As long as the price of the poppy remains high (once again due to the illegal nature of the product), it remains the best crop with which to provide food for one’s family. We can enforce the ban and destroy the crops, but American and Coalition troops will be seen as the enemy. If we legalize the product and depress the price, the problem will be mitigated through market forces. It will become less profitable to cultivate poppy and the Taliban will not be able to fund themselves with the trade. Farmers will switch their crop to either something to eat themselves or whatever else is most profitable.
The interference with real conflicts is another problem with America’s unconstitutional War on Drugs that must not be overlooked.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Respectfully, I believe that a society that legalizes drugs and/or other vices (for whatever good intentions) is morally bankrupt.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I think any society that believes it’s morally better to blindly criminalize drugs than think about and understand the issue is mentally bankrupt.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Michael, governments have never been able to control or force people to change their lifestyle. This is up to other people such as in churches, families, schools, and support groups. The war on drugs only makes it more dangerous for drug users to be drug users. This is because they are desperate and would put him/herself in harm’s way to get the drug they desire. If people have an illness, a drug addiction, why are they put in jail with criminals who have committed violent crimes? Suicidal people, for example, aren’t put in jail… somebody helps them. Besides, how can a government protect a person from him/herself in a free country? The truth is that government can’t protect somebody from themselves like this. The purpose of government is to protect people from other people.
I think most people who have researched this issue and who are against the use of drugs would realize this. I am very opposed to drug use. I’ve never tried drugs or even tasted alcohol. I am just trying to show you that I do in fact have very many morals. These morals have brought me, as everyone else who has researched the topic, to the reality that the war on drugs has cause significant harm to the people of this country.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:46 am
I feel it’s up to the individual to decide their own morals. Last time I checked there isn’t a book on morals . And as long as the individual does interfere with another individauls rights and freedoms there isn’t a problem . If drugs were legal and taxed the money could be used to deal with the people that need help. But it is up to the individual to want help ! Face it, drug use will NEVER go away .
July 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Michael, think outside of the box my friend. Are you familiar with pharmacies? Using your simple logic, any country that allows pharmacies or the use of “medicine” is morally bankrupt.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Why doesn’t B.J. support the Fair Tax??????????????????????????
July 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Michael,
“I believe that a society that legalizes drugs and/or other vices (for whatever good intentions) is morally bankrupt.”
Was the United States morally bankrupt throughout our history prior to the 1930’s, when these drug laws began to be enacted?
-jcr
July 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Jeremy,
As it happens, I’m a teetotaler myself. I have quite a few friends who are also in favor of legalization of all drugs, despite having no interest in using drugs themselves.
Perhaps we should start an organization of non-users for legalization.
-jcr
July 1st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Thank you to all who replied. I appreciate your passion but am not swayed in my opinion. Can someone please tell me if candidate Lawson is in favor of legalizing drugs? Is he on the record one way or the other? How about candidate Price?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
“Last time I checked there isn’t a book on morals”
Don’t mean to be snide but there are more books and treatises on morals than a person could read in one lifetime. Including works by Bentham and Kant, almost all religious texts and many others.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 am
“I appreciate your passion but am not swayed in my opinion.”
Nothing will sway your “opinion”, because your opinion is wrapped in a neat little box whereby you don’t feel obligated to answer to the observations made by the posters after you.
Favoring a decriminalization/regulation approach does not mean one advocates drug use itself. See below…
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Drugs will always win the war on drugs! We take billions of dollars away from our economy for what?….so we can scrape 0.8% of the drugs off the street? I want my flourishing jobs and personal American choice back! The truth is we don’t need someone throwing my classmate or co-worker in jail because they puffed a joint in their own home! Alcohol is far worse than a few drugs I can think about but we wouldn’t throw our alcoholics in jail…instead we get our families involved to correct someone but regardless prohibition does not work. Alcoholics shouldn’t have to hide from us nor do they have to go through shoddy means to get their “fix”. America was suppose to be better than the rest of the tyrannical world! Whatever happened to common sense? I don’t even use drugs but I can look around me and see how much the war on drugs is costing my family, friends, neighbors, and community! It is waaaaaaay too costly and it is a major factor that is being added to our country going bankrupt! I guess majority rule and democracy is too blind to see the truth or people are too afraid to face the facts. Where will it stop? Once the FEDERAL government takes over our doctors like 7/9ths of the world and starts taking legal drugs off the shelf will we notice what this was really about……oligopolization and money for elected officials. To think that a society with freedom of choice is the problem blows me away, it is the lack of freedom that ruins societies. When will we see the errors in our ways……I mean……..it took me years to help my mom see the truth because she is such a bible thumper. My mom’s dedication to Christian morals almost trumped what should be the Christian message……God gave us love and free will. Believing that the FEDERAL D.C. will cure drug problems is insane, this should be a state’s rights issue, not a beaurocratic democratic action!
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
According to one study at least, Americans are among the world’s top drug users. Just more evidence that the War on Drugs is failing.
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Americans_are_world_s_top_drug_user_07012008.html
I do not support drug use, but I am firmly opposed to the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs causes so much damage to our finances, our communities and other nations, as this post shows. The federal government has no authority over drug policy, and therefore it should never intervene. Finally, there is overwhelming evidence that the War on Drugs has no positive effect on drug problems. I think the only rational thing to do is end the War on Drugs and seek a better way to deal with our drug problems.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Michael,
Let me point out that the war on drugs fails on both a practical and a moral level. First, on the practical level, if your aim is to keep drugs out of childrens’ hands, consider for a moment that it’s easier today for kids to get pot than beer. Beer is a legal product, and sellers of alcohol want to remain on the right side of the law. Pot being illegal, the sellers have no reason to care if their customers are old enough to make informed decisions.
Now, on the moral level, do you have the right to forcibly prevent your neighbor from ingesting what he wants to ingest? If you don’t have the moral right to do it as an individual, then you can not delegate it to a collective and gain a moral right.
-jcr
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Michael,
What moral background has led you to believe that drug legalization is immoral? Myself, being a Christian, have had several discussions with other Christian friends about the Bible’s interpretation of drug use. The primary scripture used to justify moral outlaw of drugs is that “your body is God’s temple.” If this simple phrase is to be applied to all legislation, not just the politically popular (drug prohibition), shouldn’t the government outlaw Mcdonalds, Cheetos, and Pepsi, and mandate a minimum number of hours to exercise weekly? These laws would challenge the fundamental principals of American freedom, create incentive for black markets and crime rings to exist, and be impossible to enforce without bankrupting the American economy, just like the war on drugs. Governments have failed throughout history to legislate morality, the War on Drugs is no exception. We must rely on communities, families and churches to ensure our moral duties and we must restore the constitutional principals of liberty in the United States.
-Grey Monroe
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
@grey_monroe: My personal belief that guides me and is mine and is not necessarily shared by others is that to (over)indulge in drugs (including alcohol) is to deny Jesus Christ preeminence in my life. Recreational drugs (including alcohol) often are taken to escape hardships in life. To the extent that I can, I prefer to cast those hardships at the foot of the cross where only the grace of God can truly bring healing in my life.
Also, please know that I am a former drug and alcohol abuser.
I appreciate your other comments and comparisons and general level-headedness. Thank you.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
FWIW, I partially answered my own question about where the candidate Lawson stands on drug legalization. He appears to be against the federalization of drug enforcement laws (source: http://tinyurl.com/5jo3wf). I still don’t know if he’d be for or against North Carolina legalizing drugs and I haven’t had any success on finding out where Congressman Price stands.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Michael,
You believe it is immoral to overindulge in drugs. I respect that. But it is awfully selfish of you to ask the government to control society based on your religious values. I may have moral objections to drugs, gambling, or prostitution, but giving the federal government control over the legality of these things just asks for trouble. Remember alcohol prohibition? It led to more crime - and instead of ending alcohol abuse, it just turned the market to the streets. Making prostitution illegal gives the power to the pimps, making drugs illegal gives the power to the dealers, and making gambling illegal gives the power to the bookies. People are going to make the conscience choice to participate in such activities either way, but at least when they are legal, they can be regulated in a safe and lawful manner.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Today we celebtrate our Independence and the more I look back into our history the more I realize that the very independence we honor has been eroding from the start. Today, July 4th 2008 sees us in worse shape than we were in back 1776. It is time that “We The People” make good on our promise of Liberty. We cannot end a war on drugs or any other feel good policy that has come down from Washington or Raleigh until we settle the main issue that our founders so bravely put to words, but we have struggled with for all this time.
We, not the politicians, must “Hold these truths to be selfevident”. We must enlighten ourselves as well as our friends and families to know what Freedom and Liberty are. That neither are easy nor cheap, and certainly not free. We, each and everyone of us must insist and insure that individual freedoms—liberties—rights are only attainable if we all agree and practice the principles of our founding. We have strayed from the first days of our birth as a nation. We have seen countless errors throughout our short history, let us not continue down that road that has seen so so many failures to the ideas of individual liberty. Let us remember our past through this day, our day of declaration and say to ourselves that we will live by those words written so may years ago. As selfevident individuals we can live up to the high expectations our fore fathers wished us to live. There is no guide book on free society and how one is to be maintained, and that is the beauty in all of this. We are free to live as we see fit only as long as we are free.
Happy Independence Day!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Blackstone’s concept of law is rooted in reflections of local mores. Local mores are clearly aligned to desire a community free from the negative influence of its members being on drugs.
Distinctions with “legal” drugs or “illegal” drugs become debating club topics for which most people simply don’t care. This is a syllogistic debate for which you have left out important real life premises. People don’t care to engage in symantic exactness and ideological purity.
We want our loved ones back from the dark places of humanity. The social stigma that comes from the illegal nature of drugs is a positive force on our own internal behavior regulation.
We have a problem in America with prescription drug abuse. We have a problem in America with alcohol abuse. We have a problem in America with illegal drugs.
People see, at a distance and in their own families, the human destruction caused by substance abuse. People know that we humans struggle with inner demons. Madision said that if men were angels we wouldn’t need government.
Come on BJ! What are you doing!?!
You are as bright a candidate as I have seen in a generation. You have more good ideas on how government ought to be structured than AEI and CATO can put on its websites in a month. But you are on the wrong side of this issue and you diminish your standing among reasonable, thinking people by getting into this debate.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Sean - You hit the nail on the head. The key word is “local” — not federal.
Our federal government has a responsibility to live up to its Constitutional obligations. The Constitution does not give the federal government the jurisdiction to mount a federal “War on Drugs”, and pass mandatory sentencing guidelines and enforcement down on the states in violation of the 10th Amendment.
A Constitutional perspective actually encourages state and local governments to work and advance shared local mores.
Blogs are great for debates, but from a legislative perspective I’m not interested in syllogistic debate, either. I’m simply interested in a federal government that lives up to its Constitutional obligations, and recognizes its jurisdiction.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:26 am
thats it? the conversation just stopped as it was getting interesting:( Anyway very interesting debate.
As I understand it, the federal government gets its power to regulate drug laws from article 1 section 8 paragraph 3 of the U.S. constitution “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”.
The Gonzales V. Raich supreme court case provides a good example of the legal position both by the states and the federal government. The ruling was in favor of the federal government.
“In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court’s precedent “firmly established” Congress’ commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a “class of activities” with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a “class of activities”: the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use “essential” to regulating the drug’s national market. “
An over view of the case can be found here http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/
I personally do not agree with the ruling as basically congress can now have complete control of how states regulate their intrastate commerce activities by simply stating that it affects the over all market, which is pretty frighting.