Can We Be Sure The War On Drugs Is Worth Fighting?

Tyler Durden's picture

Did you know the war on drugs is founded on racist principles? Prof. Stephen Davies shows the historical thought process behind banning drugs. One of the main reasons drugs were banned initially is because people were concerned drug use would lead to interracial relationships. Can you imagine someone making that argument today? Yet it was a principle reason for some of the laws banning drugs that we still have. Other reasons for banning drugs included fear of conspiracies and the misguided notion that the government somehow has a right to the productivity of its citizens. All three of these reasons are truly absurd, but all three were historically used as arguments that contributed to the war on drugs. If these are the arguments on which the drug war is founded, can we be sure it's a war worth fighting for?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TeamDepends's picture

The War On Drugs, every bit as successful as The War On Poverty.

pendragon's picture

there is no greater misnomer than "the war on drugs". how could such a limp wristed response on the part the authorities ever be considered a war? zero tolerance should mean zero tolerance. they want war...let's start by exporting all the addicts to russian gulags (including all those smelly dope dependants). then fire up the cement mixers...we got some shiny new prisons to build.

Skateboarder's picture

Is Tyler relearning his principles or something? I'm confused, i.e. what kind of question is that?

Should a tiny unelected evil minority be allowed to shape the future of the species?

Pure Evil's picture

There is no war on drugs. Just a massive expansion of the totalitarian police state misnamed the war on drugs.

0b1knob's picture

Story my late father once told me, make of it what you will.

My father was in the Phillipines both before and after WWII.    Before the war there were thousands of opium addicts in Manila and opium dens operated freely.   The Americans didn't much care although it was against the law.    Who cared?   Prohibition of drugs was a war you can't win.

Well the Japanese took control of Manila alll the addicts went into hiding.   The Japanese were death on drugs in a way the happy go lucky Americans could never be.   To everybody's surprise the Japanese posted proclaimations stating that to celebrate their victory there would be FREE opium for a month.   People were skeptical at first but a few addicts went to the dens and, sure enough, FREE OPIUM.   In a few days the dens were full of doped up opium smokers stoned out of their minds.   Hey life in the Southeast Asia Cooperative Sphere was great.   Who knew?

Then one day the Japanese Army surrounded the opium dens.   They read a short proclaimation stating that people who could not or would not contribute to the empire had no place in their empire.   Then the opium addicts were brought out one at a time and beheaded.   From the Japanese point of view they weren't worth wasting a bullet on.

See the japanese didn't make war on drugs, they made war on the addicts.  And it was over in one day.  IN.  ONE.  DAY.



ob1      Do you think the Japanese would oblige by using same method you describe in DC ?( In one day) 

NoDebt's picture

I'm not the police, I'm not your parents.  You wanna put that crap in your body, go right ahead.  Just don't come bitchin' to me to pay for your rehab costs with my taxes or insurance money.  Do something bad while you're high and don't bitch to me that you don't remember or you "weren't in your right mind" or should be excused because you're an addict.

On the other side of that coin, I also don't want to be paying for people to sit in jail under mandatory sentancing guidelines for being popped at a DUI checkpoint 2 tenths over the legal limit, having hurt noone, or popped holding a dime bag of pot (Is there still such a thing as a dime bag?  Been a long time since I was plugged into that world).  And for those who get popped for something obviously beyond the pale, but still having hurt noone or damaged property, slap an ankle bracelet on them (at their cost) and probation (also at their cost) and move on.  Don't have the money?  Put 'em to work picking up trash on the side of the road at minimum wage with all proceeds going to pay off the costs.

Of course, none of this will ever happen, since just punishment and paying an appropriate debt to society isn't the point any more (money flowing to the "judicial" and prison rackets is the point)


Boris Alatovkrap's picture

<-- War on Drug

<-- Drag on War

Must be bankster war if is last so long, like LBJ war on poverty, GWB war on terror, BHO war on sanity.

Ignatius's picture

How will they fund ongoing CIA operations if they end the War on Drugs?

Overfed's picture

If only we could apply that strategy to politicians, bankers, and lawyers.

Pool Shark's picture



If you legalize narcotics, you'll also need to eliminate welfare for drug addicts.

Public assistance has changed the entire equation. We can legalize drigs when Americans are prepared to step over homeless heroin addicts in the streets...



Musashi Miyamoto's picture

Last time I checked (AD 2014) Americans were stepping over homeless heroin addicts. Nothing new here, move along...

Spinelli's picture

jesus go to the south... I stepped over 13 on one block... then when i got to the next block i saw tuns of police and kids selling dope... So i went to the next block and started skateboardng with some healthy college kids...

Cops kicked us out... Fuck it I went and smoked a joint in the block over... fuck the police if theres a war on drugs then do something about it, otherwise stop stealing our money under the pretense of a war?

What war?

O did weed, i did weed, the person reading this did weed, so did their mother and teacher...


Skateboarder's picture

Get high and do kickflips (and frontside flips and backside flips and 360 flips too of course).

Musashi Miyamoto's picture

Cops don't care if your slinging dope for the most part, as long as you keep to the ghetto and away from the good neighborhoods and keep a low profile. Its called a "containment" policy. Every city is the same way. They send narcs to fuck with the low-hanging-fruit but most dealers can smell a narc. You see them counting change 3,4,5 in the morning, think extra large rubber-bands...

Pigs are bullies, the vast majority of the time (>95%) they only go after weak addicts and people that don't have the means or the will to defend themselves in court.

Remember justice are only for those who can pay for it....

stacking12321's picture

i agree with you that "war on drugs" is a misnomer.

it's actually a war on people, as stefan molyneux of freedomain radio has eloquently pointed out:

sleigher's picture

It's actually a war on competition.  (HSBC, Wells)  The old saying is true, don't steal, the .gov hates competition.

DaveyJones's picture

does that include alcoholics? "prescribed" drugs? Caffeine addicts?  how do we pay for this?  

how about all the dangerous drugs knowingly manufactured by the real corporate drug dealers. They have done a world of damage 

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Indeed, Davey.  Where do we draw the line?  My inclination to just to legalize almost all of them. 


"Caveat Emptor"

Take personal responsability.

stacking12321's picture

personal responsibility, yes.

but why "almost" all of them? why are you willing to accept giving any power at all over your own life, to the dangerous criminals in government?

N2OJoe's picture

Agreed. Legalize them all but require LABELLING of all ingredients. You want to give your kid Cyanide and mercury vaccines? Great, have them, but label the damn thing so people like me can make the choice for ourselves.

pendragon's picture

oh dear. straight from the pro dope lobby handbook

akak's picture

Oh, so you're an idiot AND a hypocrite, is that it?

pendragon's picture

who is the bigger idiot - someone who's life is dependant on weed or someone who's life isn't. don't think i'm guilty of hypocrisy.

stacking12321's picture

you seem unable to comprehend that the issue is not about drugs per se, it's about basic human liberty, about not infringing on others.

are we better off when some bureaucrats in washington get to decide what we can or cannot ingest into our own bodies, having jackbooted government thugs busting down peoples' doors and shoot people (often the wrong doors) in a witch hunt for "the devils weed", or are we better off running our own lives, making our own decisions?

the fact that you don't trust yourself to run your own life and feel someone else needs to watch over you and make decisions for you is a sad reflection on how little confidence you have in yourself. were you abandoned by your parents at an early age, perhaps?


pendragon's picture

it is not me that i'm worried about. like it or not your decisions impinge on others. you do not exist in a vacuum.

stacking12321's picture

that's been one of the more reasonable statements you've made, thus far.

but, about that word you used, "impinge".

when someone does something that transgresses against your person or property, that is impinging.

but, if someone stays on their own property, in the privacy of their own home, and chooses to take some drugs, that is not "impinging" on you in any way.

in fact, *you* are the one that's impinging, if you feel you have the right to control what goes on in the privacy of your neighbor's home.


pendragon's picture

my neighbors are stoners. they are not good neighbors. they smoke it in their garden in the summer. my children are exposed. is that enough of an impingement for you or am i impinging on them?

stacking12321's picture

sometimes when people live in close proximity to each other, things like this happen.

one neighbor across the street sometimes plays music too loud, the music comes on to my property, and it could be said they are infringing on my right to enjoy peace and quiet.

another down the street has an overly loud motorcycle that sometimes goes by.

i can see how pot smoke next door might be a minor annoyance, but it's not dangerous.

it's good to talk to people if you have concerns.

it would not occur to me to try to ban music, or ban motorcycles, or try to push for a law that criminalizes such people and puts them in jail. that would be an overreaction.

pendragon's picture

it might be only be a minor annoyance to another dope smoker. the law is already in place..cannabis has never been legal in the neighbor's lifetime.

so this neighbor doesn't work and claims housing and unemployment benefits paid for out of my taxes. the neighbor has young children. does his dependancy impinge on their lives? and does his benefit sucking impinge on my life?

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Tyler went a trollin' and he did ride, uh huh.
Tyler went a trollin' and he did ride, uh huh.
Tyler went a trollin' and he did ride,
Sippin' down some Kool-Aid® on the side,
Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh.

acetinker's picture

You may want to consider this, or not, pendragon.  What if you find yourself down on your luck?  Never been there?  That's too bad, 'cos if it's true, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

But if you did somehow find yourself in such a position, who would you look to for help?  Your cohort?   You might be surprised.

In short, you sound like a priveleged prick who's never known hardship- and you know what?  I don't give a fuck about you- except to say you also don't know dick-all about dope, or why it's used.

pendragon's picture

welcome to the stoner circle jerk. if i was ever down on my luck i certainly would never turn to dope. would just be a continuation of the downward spiral. i can assure you i know plenty about dope. 

acetinker's picture

You've chosen a housecat as your avatar.  You seem to think you know all there is to know about "the stoner circle jerk".  Yet it somehow is beyond your comprehension to realize those you call stoners are more aware, more articulate, and actually more informed than yourself.

In truth, you seem like a fan of Hannity.  Dude makes me wanna puke.

pendragon's picture

you are clueless. for a stoner there is only their righteous herb, they see nothing else. need the's all on this thread.

go ahead and will be your biggest achievement to date.

Spinelli's picture

1.) no such notebook

2.) your close minded to ignore the text based on the name (even if you made it up)

3.) hows his idea bad?

4.) his idea would save trillions???

5.) get owned.

pendragon's picture

the tea and coffee shyte is the most oft quoted bs re dependancy. except the news is tea and coffee are harmless. well maybe too much coffee can lead to hyper tension. the US ireminds me of the last days of the roman empire. drug legalisation is the final nail in the coffin


JimS's picture

How did you avoid being tried at Nuremberg, after WW2?

Overfed's picture

The 'War on Drugs' is a war on freedom and a war on the people, and nothing more. It is all about power, control and money. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

pendragon's picture

our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence yeah. 

Overfed's picture

It's about freedom of choice. Do you own your body, or does the government?

pendragon's picture

but why would you choose to pump it full of crap?

nmewn's picture

Freedom of choice.

With freedom comes responsibility and bearing any consequences of the voluntary choices you make.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Why do you feel compelled to make choices for others?

pendragon's picture

neither of you answered the question. 

Overfed's picture

Because it should be mine to do with as I please. Are you telling me you never eat steaks, bacon, ribs, potato salad, chips, salt, coffee, butter, candy, soda pop, beer, wine or whisky? If you can say yes to that, we'll talk about having an empty life.

pendragon's picture

everything in moderation but not harmful drugs

nmewn's picture

When does a drug become harmful?

DaveyJones's picture the drug companies? when it becomes illegal

pendragon's picture

avoid the answer by asking another question. depends on the drug. if we are talking about tea then never