The Problem With The War On Drugs

[Vuk]

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

[HoreTore]

Yes, China became a glorious paradise after Mao eradicated all those who stood in the way of that paradise.

No, Vuk, the demonization you represent is a much bigger problem. Narcotics is a mixed issue, but the problem stems mostly from social issues and poverty. Eradicate those, and you won't have much of a drug problem anymore. And as a bonus, you won't become a sadist in the process.

And lower the age requirement on booze. Getting drunk is a natural part of growing up, and you would want teenagers to get off on those things with the least side-effects, ie. alcohol.

[Vuk]

Yes, China became a glorious paradise after Mao eradicated all those who stood in the way of that paradise.

No, Vuk, the demonization you represent is a much bigger problem. Narcotics is a mixed issue, but the problem stems mostly from social issues and poverty. Eradicate those, and you won't have much of a drug problem anymore. And as a bonus, you won't become a sadist in the process.

And lower the age requirement on booze. Getting drunk is a natural part of growing up, and you would want teenagers to get off on those things with the least side-effects, ie. alcohol.

No, they are a very real problem, and better left out of society. There is nothing sadistic about it. The types of people you would be disposing off (murderous drug lords and the occasional dopey college student or small time street punk) would be the types of trash who would only create problems in society anyway.
Lower the age requirement? Why, because hormone loaded teenagers are not stupid and dangerous enough to themselves and the rest of society now? Now you want them sloshed as well? BRILLIANT!

[PanzerJaeger]

The punishments you suggest would drastically reduce the rate of virtually any crime committed in a given country.

[Vuk]

The punishments you suggest would drastically reduce the rate of virtually any crime committed in a given country.

Exactly.
And the great thing is that after you killed the first few drug smugglers to show that you were serious, you would probably never or virtually never have to dish out the punishment again. Do you know how many lives are lost because of drugs that would be saved?
Think of all the poor Mexicans being killed by drug lords trying to supply OUR market! That would no longer be happening, and we and most of Latin America would be much happier for it. :)

[Ironside]

Exactly.
And the great thing is that after you killed the first few drug smugglers to show that you were serious, you would probably never or virtually never have to dish out the punishment again. Do you know how many lives are lost because of drugs that would be saved?
Think of all the poor Mexicans being killed by drug lords trying to supply OUR market! That would no longer be happening, and we and most of Latin America would be much happier for it. :)

After the first dip, the drug crime ratio rises again, since people remember that getting punished also involves getting caught. Tension between the police and population increases, with more violent lethal arrests, since more people got nothing to lose.
CR is getting a field day/becomes broken and possibly dies in a raid, having a stack of drugs "found" at his home.
Some internet smartass concludes that the buying drugs=murder logic can be applied on the guns industry. Some crazy guy spectacularly kills a gun suppplier to the police, and being clear of his intent that the police are now oppressors.

The US goverment decleare this anti-gun trend to be treason towards the second ammendment, punishable by death. Since drug use is already considered treason, this is easy. The anti gun lobby is rounded up and executed. Civil war erupts.

Traumatized former soldiers are drowning thier memories by alchohol and drugs. A few more entreprenouric soldiers takes control of the drug market with help of their former comrades in arms. One charismatic oppotunistic cynical is using that drug money to finance a successful coup against the surviving US goverment, making a drug lord as the new ruler of the US.

Going more and more speculative the further down I go, but yep it's a really bad idea from the beginning.

[HoreTore]

The punishments you suggest would drastically reduce the rate of virtually any crime committed in a given country.

Indeed. It would also create a living hell.

"I want them sloshed as well"? What world are you living in? Teenagers do get hammered. The question isn't whther we want them "sloshed" or not, but whether we want them high on meth or drunk on beer. Those are your two choices.

[Vuk]

Indeed. It would also create a living hell.

"I want them sloshed as well"? What world are you living in? Teenagers do get hammered. The question isn't whther we want them "sloshed" or not, but whether we want them high on meth or drunk on beer. Those are your two choices.

It would create a living hell? lmao...you are amusing my friend...How so? Because there would be less criminals, less crime, less drug related deaths, no turmoil over drugs in Latin America (but who cares about the Mexicans, huh?), less of a burden on our health care system, and we would have smarter, more sober citizens making better choices and enjoying better lives? That is your definition of a living hell?
You are right, they do get sloshed, but with better enforcement and harsher punishments they would not.

[HoreTore]

It would create a living hell? lmao...you are amusing my friend...How so? Because there would be less criminals, less crime, less drug related deaths, no turmoil over drugs in Latin America (but who cares about the Mexicans, huh?), less of a burden on our health care system, and we would have smarter, more sober citizens making better choices and enjoying better lives? That is your definition of a living hell?
You are right, they do get sloshed, but with better enforcement and harsher punishments they would not.

I don't feel such nonsense deserves a proper reply.

Have fun.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hey guys, I have this idea. So people don't want to be killed right? Well if we just made the punishment for every crime the death penalty, no one would do anything bad right. So we just need to execute everyone for any wrong doing and we won't have any crime anymore.

You disagree HoreTore? I guess that means you want our society to die in an orgy of drugs and mexicans.

[Vuk]

Hey guys, I have this idea. So people don't want to be killed right? Well if we just made the punishment for every crime the death penalty, no one would do anything bad right. So we just need to execute everyone for any wrong doing and we won't have any crime anymore.

You disagree HoreTore? I guess that means you want our society to die in an orgy of drugs and mexicans.

Not every crime deserves the death penalty, but I believe that murder does. When you kill a murderer, you are saving lives. People who buy drugs and who sell drugs are not only funding world terrorism, but they are causing unfathomable cruelty and death in 'third-world' countries where drug lords exploit and murder people so that our pathetic, useless pot-head college kids can get their blood-fix.

[Louis VI the Fat]

See, this is the problem with meddling with language. With too big words, too casually tossed about.

If you call a 'coordinated and intense effort' a 'War' on Drugs, then inevitably it will become thought of in terms of war. Inevitably people will come to understand the project in martial terms. So when it isn't being 'won', the question is perfectly logical and legitimate to ask why the marines aren't send in to shoot drug using college kids.

After all, it is a war, right?


Vuk is right. Vuk is perfectly logical. It is the language of Washington that is wrong. Its projects to steer reality through langauge and terminology are mistaken, are having a debilitating effect on public discourse.

Hey guys, I have this idea. So people don't want to be killed right? Well if we just made the punishment for every crime the death penalty, no one would do anything bad right. So we just need to execute everyone for any wrong doing and we won't have any crime anymore.

Summat like this, yes.

[Ice]

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

.... or we could just legalize drugs and allow people to take responsbility for their own decisions?

[Jaguara]

OMG, I figured this was going to be a revoke-the-war-on-drugs, reel in the powers of police, and give us back our civil liberties (War on Drugs does not just impact druggies, just like 99.99% of the people affected by the Patriot act are not terrorists, terrorist-sympathysers or have even read a book about terrorism)

You want a country where the Death Penalty is used for all sorts of things...well, take a look at such paradises as North Korea and Iran.

The biggest problem with the Death Penalty, especially in the US, is wrongful conviction. You can't just say "oops, we made a mistake, turns out you were innocent after all, have a nice time trying to put back together your life...", no instead it is telling a family "Oops, sorry, but when we killed him we reasonably thought he was guilty...".

Drugs are bad..OK, but so is alcohol. Some studies would say alcohol is much worse than several drugs...and very few would disagree that alcohol is responsible for more societal problems and violence than cannibis. Remember how well prohibition worked?

As long as there is money to be made, there will be people who are despirate enough, stupid enough, or greedy enough to try. And Mexico and Colombia do not need to be torn apart even further by more violence trying to purge them of drug production. We can't even stop drug production within the US, what makes you think you can stop it in the bloody jungle.

All of this is very naieve, if you ask me.

.... or we could just legalize drugs and allow people to take responsbility for their own decisions?

Well, legalization combined wih treatment has worked in some places.

One key element of legalization is that you both effectively eliminate the criminal component (since you make it unprofitable for them). If anyone who wanted could grow a Cannibis plant in their backyard, do you think drug dealers could make anything selling it?

Another is that you remove a lot of the very dangerous elements from drug use - dirty needles, drugs being misrepresented, being pushed harder drugs without knowing (A lot of different things are sold as ecstacy...).

Anyway, to quote Princess Leia,

the more you tighten your grip, the more systems that slip through your fingers...

. To be honest, it is true. Study after study has shown that treatment and regulation work better than the authoritarian hard-line punishment approach.

But I know this post is 99.9% likely to be a waste of time and energy, but what the heck, maybe someone in here has an open mind.

[Vuk]

One key element of legalization is that you both effectively eliminate the criminal component (since you make it unprofitable for them). If anyone who wanted could grow a Cannibis plant in their backyard, do you think drug dealers could make anything selling it?

If anyone could grow a cornstalk in their backyard, do you think that rich, land-owning farmers could make anything selling it?
There is the matter of land needed (try growing it in a back alley), time needed, etc.

[ajaxfetish]

If anyone could grow a cornstalk in their backyard, do you think that rich, land-owning farmers could make anything selling it?
There is the matter of land needed (try growing it in a back alley), time needed, etc.

How's the black market corn trade doing?

Ajax

[Jaguara]

If anyone could grow a cornstalk in their backyard, do you think that rich, land-owning farmers could make anything selling it?
There is the matter of land needed (try growing it in a back alley), time needed, etc.

I am sorry, but that is about the most laughable comparison I have ever heard. Do you know what the wholesale price for corn is? The only way to make money on corn is with massive factory farms and economies of scale.

As Ajax, pointed out there is not a huge "blackmarket" trade in corn (though there is some small-time underground/roadside selling) and no criminal trade in corn.

Legalization & regulation of pot removes the criminal element from it's ditribution. It does not stop abuse, that is why you also need to fund treatment. Compare to alcohol, again since legalization, it is controlled and taxed, and the criminal element in alcohol distribution (which thrived during prohibition) has mostly been eliminated. The best part is that taxes on the controlled substance can fund the treatment programs.

So, if you legalize or at least de-criminalize these things, removing the profit for criminals, you also solve the problems of drug wars in Mexico and Colombia. If there is no longer the promise of ultra-profits, then you remove the incentive. They can either grow for legit distribution at a tiny fraction of previous profits, or plantations go back to producing coffee. There certainly is nothing to shoot each other over.

The other aspect that you are ignoring, while harping about drug crime deaths, are the deaths and lives destroyed due to the war on drugs itself. Until you get that far there is no point in trying to go into more difficult concepts such as "Is the war on Drugs intended to fail, and so to be a perpetual war never making gains". Ignore as well the corruption in institutions of Colombia & Mexico (?and even the US?) where they are tied into that same drug trade. In Mexico a General will raid one cartel, because he gets pay offs from their competitors. As long as there are ultra-profits in drugs, corruption will go hand-in-hand.

The only way to eliminate the criminal elements of drug production & distribution is to remove the ability to profit, or reduce the profit margins to the point where they are not worthwhile.

[Scienter]

One key element of legalization is that you both effectively eliminate the criminal component (since you make it unprofitable for them). If anyone who wanted could grow a Cannibis plant in their backyard, do you think drug dealers could make anything selling it?

Another is that you remove a lot of the very dangerous elements from drug use - dirty needles, drugs being misrepresented, being pushed harder drugs without knowing (A lot of different things are sold as ecstacy...).

Anyway, to quote Princess Leia, . To be honest, it is true. Study after study has shown that treatment and regulation work better than the authoritarian hard-line punishment approach.

But I know this post is 99.9% likely to be a waste of time and energy, but what the heck, maybe someone in here has an open mind.

I agree with your post.

I think that legalization + treatment is a good option. Alcohol is a drug, too. People can use it responsibly or not. There are laws in place to punish people who abuse alcohol and hurt other people as a result (DUI, etc.). Why not treat other drugs the same way? Mostly I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana first and then seeing what happens. I know that heroin is physically addictive and I don't know what kind of burden a legalization + treatment program would put on the gov't.

Yes, the black market will still exist. But I think for some drugs (marijuana, for example), people would be more willing to buy it at a store than from a drug dealer and I think that taking business away from drug dealers is a good thing.

Legalize it, tax the out of it, and slap a health warning on it like we do with alcohol and cigarettes. Make the penalties for driving while high the same as driving while drunk. In other words, treat it like the drug that is already legal.

[Strike For The South]

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

International relations

You're doing it wrong

[Beirut]

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

(a) - Why are you so frightened of someone getting high?
(b) - Why would you treat young people with such cruelty?
(c) - Why would you treat anyone with such cruelty?
(d) - Why would you volunteer such draconian powers over individuals to the state?
(e) - Now that the state has those draconian powers, where is the next area of personal behaviour they will be used upon?

[gaelic cowboy]

Ah the War on Drugs there's a Bill Hicks analogy in here somewhere but I'm a bit afraid Vuk's head might explode from real truth.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well... you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

I don't think Vuk's idea would work since as someone pointed out the root problem of drug abuse is poverty and until you eradicate that you will just be executing hordes of poor people. How can you try to be logical about it when they are addicts, they'll do what it takes to get their fix whatever the risks. And sure you can clamp down on the top dogs but so long as crime pays and they don't have many other opportunities in life, they're going to turn to crime.

At the same time I think liberals are too smug with their utopian vision of liberalisation. Yeah, it will solve drug abuse... just like how there's no alcohol abuse when it is legal.

Nor will the black market disappear, the number of illegal cigarettes smuggled into the UK is phenomenal.

So... drug abuse will always suck whatever you do. If you are responsible then congratulations, but don't think it makes one bit of diference to an addict whether it is legal or not.

[Vuk]

I don't think Vuk's idea would work since as someone pointed out the root problem of drug abuse is poverty and until you eradicate that you will just be executing hordes of poor people. How can you try to be logical about it when they are addicts, they'll do what it takes to get their fix whatever the risks. And sure you can clamp down on the top dogs but so long as crime pays and they don't have many other opportunities in life, they're going to turn to crime.

Ah, so it is poor people who mostly buy expensive drugs? Good, now they will not be wasting all their money and driving themselves into poverty. Maybe when they are not wasting $1000s on a blood fix they will move up in the world. Also, I would be willing to bet that there is just as much drug use in the middle and upper class, but they are just not cracked down on as hard...and are harder to catch.

[Vuk]

(a) - Why are you so frightened of someone getting high?
(b) - Why would you treat young people with such cruelty?
(c) - Why would you treat anyone with such cruelty?
(d) - Why would you volunteer such draconian powers over individuals to the state?
(e) - Now that the state has those draconian powers, where is the next area of personal behavior they will be used upon?

(a) - I am not, I just don't agree with murdering people so that you can get high. Also, you are well aware of the other problems associated with drug use.
(b) - I don't think age is an excuse. If someone murders they deserve death...plain and simple. I do not discriminate.
(c) - Punishing someone for murder is not cruelty. They will be warned, and you will only end up having to kill people who (a) are dangerous criminals willing to risk it to make money or (b) desperate, dangerous individuals who will do anything for a fix...including risk their own life.
(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.
(e) - So you are saying that if the state is empowered to execute murderers who are convicted of murder by a jury, next thing they will be sending in the military because you complained about taxes? Really?

[ajaxfetish]

(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.

Just because we're already doing it wrong sometimes doesn't mean we should start doing it wrong more.

Ajax

[Beirut]

(a) - I am not, I just don't agree with murdering people so that you can get high. Also, you are well aware of the other problems associated with drug use.

I'm not sure any sentient being agrees with murdering someone in order to get high, but murder is not in question here. The issue is drug use.

(b) - I don't think age is an excuse. If someone murders they deserve death...plain and simple. I do not discriminate.

Indeed.

(c) - Punishing someone for murder is not cruelty. They will be warned, and you will only end up having to kill people who (a) are dangerous criminals willing to risk it to make money or (b) desperate, dangerous individuals who will do anything for a fix...including risk their own life.

You speak again of murder, but murder is not the issue. Drug use is. You spoke of executions for drug users in your original post, not executions for murderers.

(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.

I was speaking again to how drug users would be treated.

(e) - So you are saying that if the state is empowered to execute murderers who are convicted of murder by a jury, next thing they will be sending in the military because you complained about taxes? Really?

We must have a crossed wire here somewhere. I was speaking to the issue of drug use, as per your original post, but you are speaking to the issue of murder only.

All my questions were to the issue of how "you" would treat drug users. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post.

[Vuk]

I'm not sure any sentient being agrees with murdering someone in order to get high, but murder is not in question here. The issue is drug use.



Indeed.



You speak again of murder, but murder is not the issue. Drug use is. You spoke of executions for drug users in your original post, not executions for murderers.



I was speaking again to how drug users would be treated.



We must have a crossed wire here somewhere. I was speaking to the issue of drug use, as per your original post, but you are speaking to the issue of murder only.

All my questions were to the issue of how "you" would treat drug users. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post.

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

[Strike For The South]

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

You're a fool

[Beirut]

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

Aside from the point that I believe you are utterly and completey wrong - what about someone who grows his own pot? Should he face The Big Sleep courtesy of the state?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc.

Only because drugs are illegal. How many gangsters do we have shooting it out over alcohol? None, because alcohol is legal.

When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

And what about here in Washington, where most weed comes from Canada, where the worse gangsters do is act slightly less polite to each other?

Actually, don't bother answering. You make completely false assumptions, but the core problem seems to be binding together actions without any legal, moral, or philosophical basis. Buying something from a murderer does not make you a murderer.

...

As for your plan - the reason for the second amendment is in case people with 'ideas' like yours get in charge.

CR