How America Lost the War on Drugs

**Lemur** · 12-03-2007, 23:56

[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.

**Papewaio** · 12-04-2007, 00:30

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.

**Blodrast** · 12-04-2007, 00:34

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.

Damn, you beat me to it, too, I wanted to scream Bias as well!
Oh well.

Well done, Pape, you win this time...

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 12-04-2007, 00:34

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.

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.

**Blodrast** · 12-04-2007, 00:36

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.

**Papewaio** · 12-04-2007, 00:40

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.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 12-04-2007, 02:27

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.

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

**Blodrast** · 12-04-2007, 02:38

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.)

**Lemur** · 12-04-2007, 04:30

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-

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.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 12-04-2007, 04:43

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

**PanzerJaeger** · 12-04-2007, 07:40

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.

**Geoffrey S** · 12-04-2007, 09:45

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.

**Vladimir** · 12-04-2007, 02:06

Hey Lemur, I have a thread idea for you: How America Lost the War in Iraq...

...Wait a minute, we're still fighting it.

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

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.