The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure

I feel this is somewhat of a spin-off from our earlier debate, as much of it wound up focused on the hypothetical man smoking weed in his house. I shall argue that in principle the War on Drugs is Constitutional, partially moral, and neither success nor failure. Keeping in mind that NOT immoral and NOT failure do not indicate moral and success, I propose we retain our definition of moral as that which produces a just state, and attempt to provide some objective data concerning the purpose of the War on Drugs, which I consider to be the reduction of drug use and availability in America. Let us examine some legislation regarding the constitutionality of the War on Drugs (WoD if it pleases). Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is the primary legislation from which the right to privacy is taken, but Amendment 9 certainly helps too: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." There have been several court cases concerning this - Miranda v Arizona, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade... although Miranda deals more with search & seizure than privacy - but it is relevant to the man smoking in his house. This right to privacy is meant to protect the individual. The laws in place to further the WoD are there to protect society. I shall address your three points in this area below. 1) Health detriments as a result of drug use. If someone wishes to inject themselves with chemicals and addle their brain, that is none of my business. But as soon as they crash and are taken to the local hospital where they can't pay the bill, it becomes the taxpayers' problem. I, as the taxpayer, can't simply go take the chemicals from the other person - that violates his rights that protect him from other individuals. I'd be breaking and entering, stealing, probably assaulting... the list goes on. With no way to protect myself from the taxes I pay to support the medical care that druggies receive when they crash, I must then use my political power (the vote) to elect officials that will remove the other individual's right to use these chemicals. 2) Impairment of judgment due to drug use. I don't believe this is flawed at all. It's not a case of "the ends justify the means," but rather a case of "this has happened in the past, let's make sure it doesn't in the future." Some types of drugs impair the judgment more than others, and there are some that impair the judgment even when used in moderation. Granted, you will probably split hairs here, comparing alcohol and marijuana instead of caffeine and cocaine. I don't think the argument that arresting drug users based on their potential for harm is bad is valid. Should not a man with a bomb strapped to him be arrested before he detonates it? Or a man in a mall with an assault rifle be arrested before he fires it? How far back does that go? Do you arrest the man while he's making the bomb? Arrest the shooter as he cleans his rifle that morning? The legal system cannot prove intent - only show that there is the possibility for danger. That is why laws concerning possession and use of drugs stand. 3) Family values are in conflict with drug use. The inclusion of Christians and homosexuals utterly dumbfounds and baffles me. Family values are not dependent on religion. Religion is dependent on family values. An atheist family can be against drug use because it creates rifts in the family structure, makes the children less responsive to the parents, gets them into other drugs, gets them into other types of crime, the list goes on.... None of those are dependent on religion. The reason family values are in conflict with drug use is because drug use degrades the family structure. The WoD is not inherently immoral. Granted, SWAT raids on grandmas in wheelchairs smoking pot are excessive and stupid... I'm not sure where the destruction of civil liberties comes into play. Before you can argue that the WoD is immoral, you have to demonstrate that the laws governing it are immoral or unconstitutional. I agree that drug addicts need help. Perhaps you want to donate the money to build rehab centers? Drug distributors need to be placed in jail. The WoD is focused on creating a safer society - not persecuting the individual. How is a safer society immoral? Here is where I believe I might concede your point. Yes, the WoD has not been successful, but it is not a failure. Rather, I would view it as a work in progress. It is starting to get some better plans - as a result of the WoD, all 50 states now have drug courts - systems that allow users to go through rehab instead of being placed in prison. There is also some question (like you raise) about the morality of imprisoning non-violent drug users. I think we can both agree that violent drug users are a danger to society and need to be removed from it. Perhaps laws regarding the distribution of more potent drugs (cocaine, heroine, actually - the opiates) should stand. I also believe your solution of legalizing drugs to be in err - or at least the way you favor doing it. If we removed the drinking age requirement in the US, deaths from alcohol-related incidents would soar, especially among teens. The same would occur if drugs were suddenly legalized. The gradual release of the government's tight control on drugs could provide a source of new revenue - taxing marijuana would be an incredible source of income. However, the overnight solution is NOT correct - there needs to be some sort of socialization towards the concept at the family level. It is similar to drinking in Europe - it is part of family life there, and they don't have much of a problem. But overnight legalization is simply not a viable solution. "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." - Abraham Lincoln