A classic political tool or fallacy is to create something that is universally "Good" or "bad". Like drugs, crimes, or education (respectively)
Regardless of Party, a politician will have a hard time cutting education funding and when they do, their opponents will remind voters as much as possible. Likewise, for so many politicians, the "war on drugs" is easy to defend. Drugs are bad, therefore, we should want drugs to be off the streets. Think of the children!
The thing is, the "war on drugs" has created more severe penalties for individuals who are non-violent addicts and has caused the United States to have the worlds largest per-capita prison population. NOBODY, not even North Korea, throws as many people in prison as we do. We spend TRILLIONS of tax dollars locking up young black men (the largest group affected here) for recreational use of illegal drugs.
Eliminating the war on drugs doesn't mean that everyone should do drugs. It does mean that we take a close, hard look at who is being affected, why they are being affected, and what's going on here. Those who support ending the war on drugs would NOT support releasing violent offenders, such as drug dealers found with guns on them, folks who robbed pharmacies for pills, etc. etc. It would support De-criminalizing small quantities and recreational use. Especially of drugs like marijuana whose effects are actually less than the effects of Alcohol which is legal in most of the country.
A common misconception is that those who support ending the war think people should use drugs. Some might, but many of us, myself included, don't. I don't think people should drink to excess. I also don't think people who drink to excess and don't get violent or drive a car (i.e., public intoxication) should go to prison for a year or more. If an alcoholic is found stumbling down the street, having harmed nobody, should he go to prison for several years? Why then, do we want to lock up a user of marijuana? Certainly, the dealer who bought the drugs from violent cartels or the guy who robbed a liquor store to pay for his addiction should be incarcerated; but overwhelmingly, our prisons are full of non-violent offenders arrested and convicted for possession. 51% of the U.S. prison population is drug related. Some of those are violent crimes; but overwhelmingly, they are not. Currently there are about 1.2 million prisoners in state prisoners who have been convicted of possession of Marijuana.
So I think people should not use drugs like marijuana. It's effect on the brain isn't good and despite what every hippy on social media says, it IS harmful, carcinogenic, and bad for your lungs. It contains more tar than cigarettes and plenty of carcinogenic chemicals. It's also damaging to the brain in sustained, long term use. I think people shouldn't drink to excess. I think people shouldn't smoke cigarettes; it's harmful to you and those around you and doesn't provide any real benefit. I don't think people should drive their cars without a seatbelt on. I don't think people should make a turn at a stop sign without using a turn signal. But in none of these situations do I think people should be taken out of the work-force and be thrown into a prison cell. This isn't soviet russia.
Citations are reasonable. If Marijuana, for example, remains illegal; a citation makes a lot more sense than prison (many states ALREADY do this). Just like you don't go to prison for speeding, you pay a fine. Although a SECONDARY issue, affecting blacks a lot more than whites, is warrants and prison time for unpaid traffic tickets. Citations and fines aren't income based. SOmeone making $12,000 a year pays the exact same fine for going 10mph over the speed limit as the person who makes $10m a year; except the latter can afford a lawyer so he doesn't get the points on his drivers license.
So anyway, there's my 'discussion'. It's possible to believe both that using drugs and narcotics is bad, perhaps even immoral; and believing it's also immoral to throw people in prison for it. Truth be told, the war on drugs is a made up issue. It INCREASED drug activity, SIGNIFICANTLY (because it made drugs more valuable, more incentive to traffick them), it created drug cartels, it's funded terrorism (importing drugs into the U.S. is a major funding source for terrorist groups; before the war on drugs, the drugs weren't valuable enough for importing them illegally to make sense). It was created, though, so some politicians had dead-ringer easy to get support for issues to campaign on. "Vote for me, and I'll declare war on the drugs that your children are using!"
Personally, from a legal/judicial standpoint, one of the biggest problems with the war on drugs comes from how it has lowered the standards for evidence. Drugs in your car that nobody can prove you touched or had knowledge of? Guilty. More than an arbitrary fixed amount? Guilty of dealing drugs even if there is no evidence that you've sold drugs. Found with a lot of cash, but no drugs, and found near a common drug location? Guilty of drug dealing, even without a shred of illegal drugs on you. In all of these situations, cash and assets forfeited. That's police state stuff, not justice. Our nation was founded on a principle that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man serve time. Yet when it comes to drugs, we drastically lower the bar on what's required for evidence. Individuals are also regularly searched without consent or warrant. Police officers will tell you that as long as they say it's for "officer safety", they can search you and your car without your permission and without a warrant. When drugs are found, anyone nearby practically is arrested and there's basically no defense. Drugs were near you, so now you're going to prison.
Seriously. Scales, small baggies, and cash. That can land you a 10 year sentence even without any drugs. Sure, that's not something most people carry around with them; but are we really comfortable locking people up for major felonies for a decade because they were "PROBABLY" doing something illegal? I know I'm not. I believe innocent until proven guilty should apply to drug suspects as well as anyone else. What happened if someone you were mad at died suspiciously, and the fact that you were mad at them was sufficient evidence to convict you of murder? In the U.S., we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed them. But to convict someone of drug trafficking, we only have to prove that you had on your 'possession' (which can also mean anywhere near you) stuff that could've been used to maybe deal drugs at some point. Without any evidence that you ACTUALLY dealt drugs.
