How America Lost the War on Drugs

Good read.

[A]fter U.S. drug agents began systematically busting up the Colombian cartels — doubt was replaced with hard data. Thanks to new research, U.S. policy-makers knew with increasing certainty what would work and what wouldn’t. The tragedy of the War on Drugs is that this knowledge hasn’t been heeded. We continue to treat marijuana as a major threat to public health, even though we know it isn’t. We continue to lock up generations of teenage drug dealers, even though we know imprisonment does little to reduce the amount of drugs sold on the street. And we continue to spend billions to fight drugs abroad, even though we know that military efforts are an ineffective way to cut the supply of narcotics in America or raise the price.

All told, the United States has spent an estimated $500 billion to fight drugs — with very little to show for it. […]

Even by conservative estimates, the War on Drugs now costs the United States $50 billion each year and has overcrowded prisons to the breaking point — all with little discernible impact on the drug trade.

BIAS!

If it was from the economist it would be one thing, but Rolling Stone magazine. Who else would want to stick it to the man!

Sweet looks like I bet CR and Xiahou to the punchline. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BIAS!

If it was from the economist it would be one thing, but Rolling Stone magazine. Who else would want to stick it to the man!

Sweet looks like I bet CR and Xiahou to the punchline. :2thumbsup:

---

Damn, you beat me to it, too, I wanted to scream Bias as well!
Oh well.:shame:
Well done, Pape, you win this time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BIAS!

If it was from the economist it would be one thing, but Rolling Stone magazine. Who else would want to stick it to the man!

Sweet looks like I bet CR and Xiahou to the punchline. :2thumbsup:

---

Don't forget how the good, honest, hardworking americans will have to pay for these "reefers" health care costs if it was legal...since obviously money is more important than personal freedoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Don't forget how the good, honest, hardworking americans will have to pay for these "reefers" health care costs if it was legal...since obviously money is more important than personal freedoms.

---

And the damn liberals will only get their grubby paws on my money if they can pry them from my cold, gun-grabbing hands. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Don't forget how the good, honest, hardworking americans will have to pay for these "reefers" health care costs if it was legal...since obviously money is more important than personal freedoms.

---

Yeah, it would be terrible if chemotherapy patients actually had an appetite.

Mind you I can see it being used as a food additive at all the fast food joints. KFC would add an extra herb and McDonald's hash browns would now be chocolate cookies.

Hey Lemur, I have a thread idea for you: How America Lost the War in Iraq...:stupido2:...Wait a minute, we're still fighting it. :idea2:

Rolling Stone as a credible news source? That's not bias, it's idiocy. Hold on here, I love this the best:

Quote:

---

Thanks to new research, U.S. policy-makers knew with increasing certainty what would work and what wouldn’t. The tragedy of the War on Drugs is that this knowledge hasn’t been heeded. We continue to treat marijuana as a major threat to public health, even though we know it isn’t.

---

So "legalize it" is the point of the article? It's a good thing that smoking isn't bad for your health, even less so if it's an unfiltered hallucinogenic. I'm glad that mind affecting drugs aren't either. A few drinks never hurt anyone, right?

I should quote your entire post for its foolishness. We're supposed to be impressed with numbers in the billions. Place it in the context of a $2.2 trillion annual budget and 50 billion isn't very impressive, is it?

What this article means to suggest is that we can win the war on illegal drugs by making them legal. That would eliminate reason for Dutch existence and cause chaos in the streets (sorry, I needed that).




I'm done. Never get AT&T wireless people. I'll have to wrap this post up early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BIAS!

If it was from the economist it would be one thing, but Rolling Stone magazine. Who else would want to stick it to the man!

Sweet looks like I bet CR and Xiahou to the punchline. :2thumbsup:

---

You don't even know my views on this issue. Way to knock down that strawman.

Thanks for the link Lemur, I'll post again after I read it.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You don't even know my views on this issue. Way to knock down that strawman.
CR

---

Rabbit, did you know my views on the issue in the other post ?

(Come to think of it, I still don't think you do, because I haven't _said_ yet what I thought on the article. I usually like to let other people comment before I give my own thoughts, I find that it makes for more unexpected and interesting conversations, than attempting to steer the discussion on a certain path.)

In fairness, there are few major magazines that will publish an article of this length. Vanity Fair (occasionally), The New Yorker and Rolling Stone. My beloved Economist will do multi-article profiles of a region or trend, but they would never allow one journo to meditate on a subject for 10,000 words.

So Vladimir, why not give it a read before you pronounce it worthless? Even if the journo arrives at conclusions with which you disagree, there may be some interesting facts to glean from this kind of reporting.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I should quote your entire post for its foolishness.

---

Then why not do so? My post consisted of the words, "Good read," followed by a clip from the article. I must have been using condensed foolishness.

I think it's something to say that we haven't lost the war on drugs, we're just losing it right now - we still have the opportunity to change way we're doing things.

But the article seems to make sense, assuming they have their sources right. They highlight a lot of problems with the way we've been doing this. Of course, I am against the war on drugs as it is currently waged.

CR
EDIT: Lemur - not just condensed, but concentrated and fortified ~;p

Weed+Jagermister=A happy SFTS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Weed+Jagermister=A happy SFTS

---

You forgot the red bull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

You forgot the red bull.

---

Only if youre a pussy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Only if youre a pussy

---

Wrong.

Try drinking energy drinks with alcohol. It's quite the opposite effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Wrong.

Try drinking energy drinks with alcohol. It's quite the opposite effect.

---

I was drowinig my sorrows. Of course it didnt work but eh, I think Im becoming an acholic. Jager sounds good with my breakfeast....damn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Rabbit, did you know my views on the issue in the other post ?

---

Certainly not a good comparison.

In any event, why are you so bitter over your last thread? Its pretty standard backroom protocol to question sources, and it turned out there was another side to the story. I don't think it was anything personal.

Just like in this thread... the article makes good points supported by data, but its important to remember Rolling Stone has an agenda.

It seems to me that it isn't so much a War on Drugs, but a War on Drug Users and (small-scale) Dealers, or in other words the publically visible side of things; it's doing very, very little to halt the actual production and circulation. Perhaps that's part of the problem.

Edit: oh, and way to go on the instant accusations of bias. In this case attacking the messenger does a disservice to what I think is a clear, well-written article on the War on Drugs.

PJ, Vladimir, as you're the biggest criers of "Bias!" so far, I trust you are both aware that Rolling Stone is P.J. O'Rourke's primary publisher? In fact, I would never have gotten hip to O'Rourke if I hadn't stumbled across one of his articles in there.

Yes, it's customary to question sources, but there is a certain broadness of the net which you boys cast, and a reflexiveness to it that's creating the push-back you're feeling. When everyone except for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is biased, well, people get a little tired of hearing about it.

Nothing new here, but a fairly decent summary of the events of the war on drugs.

I have always believed that the effort to combat drugs was mis-focused from the outset. It is next to impossible to prevent a product from reaching the customer if there is a thriving market for that product -- only the price is affected. John Hancock made his fortune on that fact and, despite the Continental System imposed by Napoleon and British laws against importing Napoleon's products, the British consumption of French wine and Brandy did not really decrease all that much between 1796 and 1815.....

Efforts that do not place primary effort on eradicating that market are doomed to failure. Any war on drugs had to attack the market -- the user -- to make the cost of use so exorbitent as to deter usage and thereby diminish the market. So, until either education or punishment diminish the market, the sale of these drugs will continue.

The re-focusing of police effort to minimize violent crime and to force illegal drug salespersons to keep quiet and avoid violence (in order to keep their costs down and profits up) is a rational response.

Legalizing it all -- however repugnant and howevermuch damage would occur to the first generation so exposed -- will eventually provide the broad knowledge of result that can self-correct the problem. A sad situation....

Decent article. It doesn't go too much into the "legalize it!" mantra, but had some informative tidbits. Not too surprised about the meth/pharmaceutical connection, business interests rule this country. I thought it was hilarious that RAND Corp was involved, and actually came out on the side of treatment instead of enforcement.

So much moralizing and "think of the children" knee-jerk reactions clouding the reasoning of top officials. What a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yes, it's customary to question sources, but there is a certain broadness of the net which you boys cast, and a reflexiveness to it that's creating the push-back you're feeling. When everyone except for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is biased, well, people get a little tired of hearing about it.

---

I, for one, am kinda sick of these "oh he's just calling bias again" defenses. They're weak and a complete cop out. I can say "Well, I have several problems with this story" and proceed to list the things I take issue with, but then Lemur or someone else comes along "Oh look, he's claiming bias again!" and completely dodge the issues raised by the poster. It's intellectually lazy.

Quote:

---

When everyone except for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is biased

---

Nice strawman you've set up there. When's the last time anyone has posted either of those as unassailable references (or at all)? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

When everyone except for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is biased, well, people get a little tired of hearing about it.

---

I don´t consider Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to be biased news sources...

I don´t consider them to be news sources at all!....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I don´t consider Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to be biased news sources...

I don´t consider them to be news sources at all!....

---

:inquisitive:


Limbaugh -- as he himself repeatedly asserts -- is MC'ing an entertainment program. Using him as a news source is, therefore, questionable. He is at best a pundit and should be taken that way.


Fox News, the last I checked, reports current events in much the same fashion as CNN or CBS or any of the other broadcast outlets. It's content is pretty much the same -- including the penchant for lots of time spent on "fluff" pieces and the usual broadcast media preference for image over substance. These are problems inherent with the medium, however. You may loathe the "right-wing" (USA def.) tone and agenda-setting slant of their reportage as much as I loathe the "left-wing" (USA def.) tone and agenda-setting slant of PBS or CNN, but in terms of actual news content I'd argue that it's pretty much a tie. A miserable, semi-vapid, let's cater to the ignorance of our audiences, tie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

PJ, Vladimir, as you're the biggest criers of "Bias!" so far...

---

I don't think I made my point as clearly as I'd have liked to.

By saying:

Quote:

---

Just like in this thread... the article makes good points supported by data, but its important to remember Rolling Stone has an agenda.

---

I was certainly not crying bias. I meant that the article itself was well written and had a lot of good information in it that seemed to be supported by fact. It is important to also note, however, that everything has an agenda, from RS to Fox News to PBS to your own mother.

If the editors at RS had 2 articles to chose from - one that supported legalizing marijuana and one that supported increased penalties, both with strong supporting arguments - which would they have chosen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

PJ, Vladimir, as you're the biggest criers of "Bias!" so far, I trust you are both aware that Rolling Stone is P.J. O'Rourke's primary publisher? In fact, I would never have gotten hip to O'Rourke if I hadn't stumbled across one of his articles in there.

Yes, it's customary to question sources, but there is a certain broadness of the net which you boys cast, and a reflexiveness to it that's creating the push-back you're feeling. When everyone except for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is biased, well, people get a little tired of hearing about it.

---

Anyone can scream "Bias!" because we all have one. Just because it matches your own doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The author is clearly expressing their bias and catering to the views of his readers. I also stated that it wasn't bias, but idiocy.

MOST IMPORTANTLY I didn't mean to call anyone here an idiot even if it seemed like that. Since "your post" was mostly a quote, that's what I was referring to.

PJ, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point. My bad.

Xiahou, you can call it "intellectually lazy" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that you have consistently overplayed the "Bias!" card. If you're getting hit with shells from the peanut gallery, shall we blame the audience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Xiahou, you can call it "intellectually lazy" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that you have consistently overplayed the "Bias!" card. If you're getting hit with shells from the peanut gallery, shall we blame the audience?

---

And you can scream "Bias!" and use it to obfuscate all you like, but I'm going to continue to point out flaws in articles when I see them. :yes:

Really, your bias allegation are largely a strawman of your own making. You're the one guilty of using bias charges for blanket dismissals of arguments that are put forth. I seldom even claim bias- I'll quote an article and point out flaws or inaccuracies. Instead of responding to the points, you'll just set up a strawman and claim "Xiahou's claiming bias again!" when I did no such thing.

See Lemur, this is how a debate is supposed to work. One side makes a case, the other side counters it or points out flaws. You seem to think we should all accept everything posted at first blush. That's not how things are supposed to work, but you can continue to try to take the easy way out if you like.

Sorta like you've been addressing flaws in the article I posted? Oh, wait, you haven't. Have you even read it?

Oh, let us not get all pissy about this.

Bias = as in a predilction for/preference for a given outcome or agenda = is virtually inevitable in any communication

Prejudice = regardless of data I will do/think/act/vote a given way = is the real problem.

So far, one may argue that the article is "biased" -- as are most [all?] but I don't think it fair to assert it as "prejudiced" toward one perspective. A case is made and data put forward in support. The data was not, to all appearances, edited to make evaluation impossible, so.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Bias = as in a predilction for/preference for a given outcome or agenda = is virtually inevitable in any communication

Prejudice = regardless of data I will do/think/act/vote a given way = is the real problem.

---

Meh. You're clearly biased against people of prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Oh, let us not get all pissy about this...

---

On the bright side, it saves me having to read 2-3 pages of questionable point/counter-point posting before the pissing match begins. This kind of "speed pissing" has got to be a real time saver for the moderators too. :2thumbsup:

Its my fault, I started the bias claim in jest. It did get to the endpoint quicker, it just missed the meat in the sandwich.

We could all do we actually reading the article as it has some very valid ideas concerning the war and drugs. Also with regards to community policing it would seem one of the ways to go forth with the war on terrorism.

Quote:

---

Cops can't do much without the trust of people in their communities, who are needed to turn in offenders and serve as witnesses at trial. Being a good cop meant understanding the everyday act of police work not as chasing crooks but as meeting people and making allies.

---

Also the reason the policy makers are waging the war this way is because they don't want to be seen as soft on drugs. If the community was better informed then they would be happier to be behind something that garners results and that would include treating drug use as a health issue, removing the amount of hardcore users by intervention, saving lives, saving lifestyles and drying up the demand side of the market.

Quote:

---

When Everingham's team looked more closely at drug treatment, they found that thirteen percent of hardcore cocaine users who receive help substantially reduced their use or kicked the habit completely. They also found that a larger and larger portion of illegal drugs in the U.S. were being used by a comparatively small group of hardcore addicts. There was, the study concluded, a fundamental imbalance: The crack epidemic was basically a domestic problem, but we had been fighting it more aggressively overseas. "What we began to realize," says Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who studied drug policy for RAND, "was that even if you only get a percentage of this small group of heavy drug users to abstain forever, it's still a really great deal."

---

Pareto principle stuff (pun intended).