War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

[Samurai Waki]

Interestingly enough the Mexican cartels already grow marijuana in the US.

Yeah... I knew that for some reason. Now I know why everyone is always so happy after walking through our state parks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dealers should be prosecuted, and efforts should be made to strangle supply, that will drive up prices not just for users, but for dealers as well. The real problem though is that we can't easily attack the growers, so as prices rise on the street in the West so do their profits.

Still, these substances are life-destroying and legitimising and de-stigmatising them is not an answer.

And continuing the polices of the past decades that have lead to such a catastrophic failure is the answer?

drugs should not be destigmatized. They are not good for you and should never be encouraged...... also not all drugs should be legalized. Do you really want legal meth and crack heads running around.

Do you drink? For a fun exercise, try replacing all references to drugs with 'alcohol'.

Are you sure it's worse, or rather worse than it would be with legal drugs?

As far as I can see the stigma has already gone, and that's why we see rising use - so the solution is to re-stigmatise it; as well as cutting the supply chain.

The problem is with the term "war", we have a constant "war" on murder and a "war" of burglery, I'm sure if you checked the stats you'd find more burgleries today as well, but I don't see anyone saying we should stop enforcing those laws. There is not, so far as I can see, a problem with the current situation except in the minds of the general public.

A couple points - unlike murder and robberies, no one is hurt by the act of someone getting high.

And cutting the supply chain? That's no solution - it is not impractical, it's impossible. The mightiest superpower in the history of the world has tried to do so for decades and has always failed. Always.

Legal drugs are much better for society - just like legal alcohol. See also Portugal's experience after legalizing drugs.

Testimony by cops against the drug war:


CR

[HopAlongBunny]

A good start to the "War on Terror" would have been to end the "War on Drugs"

[rory_20_uk]

Another good article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We should end our disastrous war on drugs

By Martin Wolf

Published: June 3 2011 22:39 | Last updated: June 3 2011 22:39

The global war on drugs has failed. Readers should not take my word for this. It is the opening sentence of a report on the failures of prohibition from an independent Global Commission on Drug Policy. What makes this report astonishing is not its content, now widely accepted among disinterested people, but who is associated with it.

Among signatories are George Shultz, former US secretary of state, Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico and Javier Solana, former European Union high representative for foreign and security policy. Salute them all. They are honourable people prepared to state that the policy on which the world has engaged for decades, at the behest of the US, is a disaster.

While failing to reduce the ills of drug use at which it is addressed, it has created massive “collateral damage”: the spread of avoidable diseases; use of drugs in dangerous forms; mass criminalisation and incarceration; a gigantic waste of public resources; corruption; creation of a cross-border network of organised crime; and the subversion of states. Mexico is perhaps the most important contemporary victim. It is a war with myriad innocent victims.

The argument for prohibition is that it would lead to an ever-diminishing market in controlled drugs. In practice, the opposite has happened: in the 10 years to 2008, according to the UN, global use of opiates has risen by 34.5 per cent, of cocaine by 27 per cent and of cannabis by 8.5 per cent. If this is a successful policy, what would a failed one look like?

The thrust of the report is that the challenges associated with the use and abuse of drugs – a pervasive feature of human societies – should be approached pragmatically, as a problem in public health, not moralistically, as a problem of crime.

The report offers powerful specific recommendations: have an open debate on the failure of current policy; replace the criminalisation and punishment of users with evidence-based treatment; encourage experimentation with a regulated legal supply of less harmful drugs, such as cannabis, and decriminalisation of use, along with supply via prescription, of more harmful drugs such as heroin; stop measuring the number of people in prison or drugs seized and focus on outcomes, such as the levels of drug dependence, violence, disease and death by overdose; challenge the misconceptions fed by panic-mongers; shift the focus of the criminal justice system toward violent organised crime; develop alternatives to incarceration for small-scale and first-time drug dealers; and, above all, focus on what actually works.

None of this is new. But from such a group it is surely revolutionary.

Some of the points are particularly compelling. Consider the huge costs of criminalisation, for example. In the US, the number of people in prisons has risen from 300,000 in 1972 to 2.3m today, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, overwhelmingly because of the war on drugs. One in 31 US adults is now in jail, on probation or on parole. Though African Americans are just 14 per cent of regular drug users, they account for 37 per cent of drug arrests and 56 per cent of those in prison. It is amazing that more Americans do not find this scandalous. However other countries have followed a similar route, including the UK, with devastating consequences. In some countries, minor drug suppliers are even executed, which is truly horrifying.

Again, some of the experiments with harm-reduction approaches have been remarkably successful. The report notes, for example, that the Swiss heroin substitution approach, which targeted hard-core users, has substantially reduced consumption and the number of new addicts. It has also secured a 90 per cent reduction in property crimes by those participating in the programme. Countries such as the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Australia, with active needle-exchange programmes, have about a fifth of the US levels of HIV-prevalence among those who inject drugs.

In July 2001, Portugal became the first European country to decriminalise use and possession (as opposed to supply) of all illegal drugs. Since then, use has risen slightly, but fully in line with the increase in other similar countries. “Within this general trend,” says the report, “there has also been a specific decline in the use of heroin, which was in 2001 the main concern of the Portuguese government.”

Yet another important point is the irrationality of the categorisation of drugs. Expert ranking of the harmfulness of drugs puts alcohol, for example, well above many illegal substances, such as cannabis.

The report brings out some of the dire unintended consequences of the drugs war. One is the scale of the black market that now exists. Another is the creation of a vested interest in the maintenance of what we must call “the drugs suppression industry”. Yet another is the “geographical displacement”, as suppression of supply in one place leads to its almost inevitable shift to somewhere else. And another again is “substance displacement”, as consumers shift from one drug to another in response to changes in supply. All this is the inevitable consequence of efforts to suppress powerful market forces. In addition, there are dire social results from taking a punitive approach to the behaviour of users who have too often been the victims of abuse, suffer from mental illness, or come from marginalised social groups.

The biggest conclusion I draw from this report is that policies made in the grip of moral panic and punitive fervour are bound to be a catastrophe. So it has proved in this case: here we have a policy that has failed to achieve its main aims, but has imposed huge collateral costs.

The report calls for an urgent shift in approach, led, if possible, by the UN system. That is, alas, unlikely. But individual countries and groups of countries should shrug off the efforts of the US to export its punitive approach to the rest of the world and think for themselves, instead. Humanity does not have to be the victim of these savage efforts to prevent drug abuse. The time has come to think again. If we are brave, the publication of this report could mark a turn towards rationality.

Idealists like to ignore the last 50 years, or merely resort to screaming about morals and ignoring reality.

Of course, all that are backing re report are safely retired so can say what they think. Those with jobs - and hence vested interests - of course are dead against anything that would cut their power / funding.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sometimes the opponents of the drug war are there own worse enemies.

I was walking around downtown in a western Washington city yesterday. I happened upon a large crowd watching gravity powered derby vehicles go down a short section of blocked off road.

Throughout the crowd were a variety of people, from a guy in dress shirt and slacks to goth types wearing lots of black to people with lots of tattoos, though mostly just people wearing casual clothing.

One man stood out as being the sketchiest person there, by a huge margin. He made dirty grimy homeless people look cleaned up - his clothing was sewed together tatters (his pants looked like they were made of 50 separate pieces of cloth), he was unshaved and his long hair had formed dreadlocks (and he was white).

And he was trying to gather signatures for the marijuana legalization initiative; https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/about/



CR

[Samurai Waki]

Yes... Portland has their fair share of them as well. Whoever is in marketing needs to get his kicked.

[Ice]

Sometimes the opponents of the drug war are there own worse enemies.

I was walking around downtown in a western Washington city yesterday. I happened upon a large crowd watching gravity powered derby vehicles go down a short section of blocked off road.

Throughout the crowd were a variety of people, from a guy in dress shirt and slacks to goth types wearing lots of black to people with lots of tattoos, though mostly just people wearing casual clothing.

One man stood out as being the sketchiest person there, by a huge margin. He made dirty grimy homeless people look cleaned up - his clothing was sewed together tatters (his pants looked like they were made of 50 separate pieces of cloth), he was unshaved and his long hair had formed dreadlocks (and he was white).

And he was trying to gather signatures for the marijuana legalization initiative; https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/about/



CR

I know. It really sucks because people will see them and say "see, I told you all these guys are just stupid pothead losers". They are doing more harm than good.

[phonicsmonkey]

I'm amazed you would rather lock people in jail often ruining their lives and breaking up families rather than let them indulge in a habit that hurts no one besides themselves. Legalizing drugs would often have the added benefit of allowing the government easier access to tracking them and offering the treatment they need to get clean.

You are ignoring the fact that addicts of drugs like meth, crack and heroin will steal to support their habit regardless of whether they are buying from a legal or an illegal source.

Just look at the social harm caused by gambling addiction in places where high-stakes gambling is both legal and easily accessible. Australia for example.

Once again, please for the love of god, stop lumping all drugs together. Drugs like cannabis, LSD, mushrooms, escstasy, khat, and other soft drugs have been shown to be relatively harmless in moderation and much less dangerous than alcohol.

I agree that it's important to distinguish between the effects and level of harm associated with different drugs. However you also seem to be lumping a group of different substances together and generalising over them. It's not at all correct to say that these drugs you mention, as a group, have been shown to be 'relatively harmless', whatever that means.

Just as an example, cannabis has been shown in clinical research to have a strong link with schizophrenia. (we'll ignore for a second the strong link between cannabis use and lung cancer because of the complicating effect of tobacco inhalation). LSD use has strong associations with mental illness. MDMA is theorised to lead to long-term seratonin depletion and depression. Khat causes mouth cancer.

Of course none of these links are more than theories backed by evidence but it just isn't correct to say that the use of these substances is unproblematic. And I'm not sure that something's being 'less dangerous than alcohol' is a good testament to its harmlessness, when alcohol is so terribly dangerous itself for so many reasons.

You seem to live in a fantasy world where obtaining these hard drugs is impossible simply because they are illegal; this is simply not true.

For large numbers of people it is simply extremely difficult to purchase some illegal drugs because they are illegal and these people don't move in circles in which they will come into contact with dealers. Of course if someone is determined it would be relatively trivial, but it's hard to imagine a situation where (for example) an office worker with no previous drug experience and whose wife leaves him turns to crystal meth for comfort and becomes an addict, the way it can currently happen with alcohol or gambling.

[Ice]

You are ignoring the fact that addicts of drugs like meth, crack and heroin will steal to support their habit regardless of whether they are buying from a legal or an illegal source.

Just look at the social harm caused by gambling addiction in places where high-stakes gambling is both legal and easily accessible. Australia for example.

I'm not ignoring anything. I realize that these drugs will often make people become desperate for their next fix. Like I said though, I'd rather the drug be legal so it would be easier to track who is buying what and allow these addicts to seek treatment.

I agree that it's important to distinguish between the effects and level of harm associated with different drugs. However you also seem to be lumping a group of different substances together and generalizing over them. It's not at all correct to say that these drugs you mention, as a group, have been shown to be 'relatively harmless', whatever that means.

You missed the part about moderation.

Just as an example, cannabis has been shown in clinical research to have a strong link with schizophrenia.

You are missing the part about the person already being prone to schizophrenia for this link to occur. Smoking cannabis doesn't all of a sudden turn someone into a schizophrenic... that's plain [censored].

(we'll ignore for a second the strong link between cannabis use and lung cancer because of the complicating effect of tobacco inhalation).

What strong link? You just said it yourself, any study that attempts to prove this often does not control for certain variables like tobacco or other drug use. I'm all eyes if you want to provide one.

LSD use has strong associations with mental illness.

Key word, MODERATION. Show me a study that backs up the claim that occasional LSD uses causes one to lose their mind. I realize that if someone is dropping 10 tabs of acid per day, there probably will be adverse effects just as if someone drinks 10 cups of coffee a day or a case of beer bad things will happen.

MDMA is theorised to lead to long-term seratonin depletion and depression.

Moderation.

Khat causes mouth cancer.

So does tobacco, yet I can go buy a pick of cigarettes, a can of a chew, or a box of cigars from a local vendor down the street. Is Khat worse than tobacco? Why isn't tobacco illegal if it's so bad?

Of course none of these links are more than theories backed by evidence but it just isn't correct to say that the use of these substances is unproblematic. And I'm not sure that something's being 'less dangerous than alcohol' is a good testament to its harmlessness, when alcohol is so terribly dangerous itself for so many reasons.

If booze is so bad make it illegal. Oh wait, we tried that and it failed miserably kind of like the current war on drugs. So you admit that alcohol is so terribly dangerous, yet legal, but argue that other drugs that aren't as dangerous should stay illegal? I don't understand the logic.

For large numbers of people it is simply extremely difficult to purchase some illegal drugs because they are illegal and these people don't move in circles in which they will come into contact with dealers. Of course if someone is determined it would be relatively trivial, but it's hard to imagine a situation where (for example) an office worker with no previous drug experience and whose wife leaves him turns to crystal meth for comfort and becomes an addict, the way it can currently happen with alcohol or gambling.

You just proved my point. If someone really wants something, they will get it. However, even if legal, I highly doubt the troubled office worker will turn to meth or heroin to comfort themselves; Gambling and alcohol are generally more accepted by society.

Bottom line is either make all drugs illegal or make them legal. I'd lean towards making them all legal as we have seen what trying enforce probation on society has accomplished via the report I just posted.

Edit:

See Page 15 of the report for an assessment of the dangers of certain drugs.

[phonicsmonkey]

You are missing the part about the person already being prone to schizophrenia for this link to occur. Smoking cannabis doesn't all of a sudden turn someone into a schizophrenic... that's plain .

Actually it's not clear from the broader research whether there is such a thing as being 'prone' to schizophrenia.

But that aside, even a drug which triggers schizophrenia in people who have a tendency towards it (and might not otherwise suffer from it) cannot be said to be harmless.

Key word, MODERATION.

Whatever that means in practice. My point is you used the word 'harmless' and I don't think it's appropriate.

So does tobacco, yet I can go buy a pick of cigarettes, a can of a chew, or a box of cigars from a local vendor down the street. Is Khat worse than tobacco? Why isn't tobacco illegal if it's so bad?

Perhaps it should be. Governments around the world seem to be slowly coming to that view, banning its use in public places, banning advertising and even (in Australia) hiding it from view in shops and forcing tobacco companies to use plain packaging. Everything short of banning it in fact.

But this is irrelevant - my point was you said Khat is 'relatively harmless in moderation'. I don't think that's factual, accurate, or a helpful description of the substance and its effects in the context of this discussion.

If booze is so bad make it illegal. Oh wait, we tried that and it failed miserably kind of like the current war on drugs. So you admit that alcohol is so terribly dangerous, yet legal, but argue that other drugs that aren't as dangerous should stay illegal? I don't understand the logic.

Actually I think you are misconstruing my point. At no point did I say I wanted drugs to be illegal or legal. I just sought to outline some of the hazards which in your posts so far did not get an airing.

In fact the debate around legalising (or decriminalising) drugs is rightly framed in terms of a cost / benefit analysis between the harm which would be caused by increased access and reduction of social stigma versus the ongoing harm to communities, individuals and society from enforcement activities and other issues related to criminalisation.

In that context it is crucially important to have a frank and honest assessment of harm and not to gloss over the potential ill effects of (eg.) 'soft' drugs or of making dangerously addictive substances more available to the population at large.

For something spine-chilling, imagine you suddenly decriminalised this and a local businessman decided to import and distribute it in your town under licence from government.

[Slyspy]

Yes that would be very bad for public health. Still, I guess we will just have to wait until it hits the streets via the normal illegal channels whereupon it becomes an issue for public health and law enforcement.

Edit:

I should say that in such a situation I have little faith in either the current health systems or the legal systems dealing with the issue.

[Fragony]

Simple question Ice, aren't you just looking for the recognision: 'weed smokers aren't bad'. To me it seems that you are a little bit to anxious to mess with the way of things. Bit egocentral perhaps?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Simple question Ice, aren't you just looking for the recognision: 'weed smokers aren't bad'. To me it seems that you are a little bit to anxious to mess with the way of things. Bit egocentral perhaps?

What the...?

Perhaps you should take a look at what the war on drug users has done to America. We don't want recognition, we want the war on American people to end. There's nothing egocentric to that, and to suggest so ignores basically everything said in this thread.

CR

[Ice]

Actually it's not clear from the broader research whether there is such a thing as being 'prone' to schizophrenia.

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...5559-1,00.html

But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population. (See a photoessay on a father with mental illness.)

One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana. Still, some studies suggest that smoking pot can actually trigger the disease earlier in individuals who are predisposed, and yet researchers still aren't seeing increases in the overall schizophrenia rate or decreases in the average age of onset.

In recent months, new research has explored some of these issues. One study led by Dr. Serge Sevy, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, looked at 100 patients between the ages of 16 and 40 with schizophrenia, half of whom smoked marijuana. Sevy and colleagues found that among the marijuana users, 75% had begun smoking before the onset of schizophrenia and that their disease appeared about two years earlier than in those who did not use the drug. But when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, including gender, education and socioeconomic status, the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared.

That being said, I'm done with this thread as I'm not turning this into a personal pissing contest. If you want to ignore this report and hundreds of other cases that suggest the current drug war is causing far more harm than good (I'd argue that it isn't causing any good) than be my guest. All I ask for is you read the relevant literature that I have posted.

[phonicsmonkey]

All I ask for is you read the relevant literature that I have posted.

I have read it and thank you for posting it. I am not decided myself on this issue and have enjoyed the discussion.

[B-Wing]

Very interesting thread! Haven't read all replies thoroughly, but I wanted to add my 2 cents. Firstly, I am libertarian in most of my political views, and therefore tend to favor as few laws as possible, so obviously my opinion of drug regulation is going to be pretty negative. But can we at least agree that there's no good reason to keep non-medical marijuana illegal? The only aspects of this drug that aren't basically harmless are the cartels that supply it. And they have to be dangerous because it's illegal. If it became perfectly legal for any company or individual to grow marijuana in their back yard, what happens to the cartel's power? I assume it would all but disappear.

I can see both sides of the debate about legalizing heroin or crack cocaine because they are highly addictive and have a tendency to ruin people's lives (without the law's involvement). But can we at least agree that legalizing marijuana could only do good for the country (speaking as a US citizen)?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't what we have now. Coca grow faster than bullets. The weapons industry has made an absolute killing from both sides.

And when, anytime in the last 6 millenia, has the weapons industry not found a way to thrive? The ploughshares folks have had a few rough patches, but Krupps et al seem to do just fine.

[PanzerJaeger]

A couple points - unlike murder and robberies, no one is hurt by the act of someone getting high.

I generally agree that our anti-drug strategy needs serious reform. It only takes a few minutes in Rabbit's thread to see the deadly excesses of the current approach. However, substance abuse, including that involving alcohol, tobacco, or drugs, has tremendous social costs - and those costs should be factored in to any public policy decisions on the subject.

People mock prohibition, but don't seem to understand the mindset behind it. Just because alcohol cannot effectively be banned does not mean that it does not constitute a huge detriment to the public health without offering any substantive benefits. We as a society have just decided that the hundreds of thousands of drunk driving deaths and the billions of dollars in property damage associated with it, the millions of lives lost and the social potential they represent, and the millions of broken families and dysfunctional children of alcohol abuse, are worth the ability to go out on the weekend and get wasted.

Also, I would suggest ending the use of the generic term "drugs" in crafting such future decisions. Individual drugs vary greatly in their effects, and lumping them all together is part of the current flawed public mindset. For example, making marijuana legal, and thus easily attainable, would involve a far different cost/benefit analysis than doing the same for crystal meth.

[phonicsmonkey]

I generally agree that our anti-drug strategy needs serious reform. It only takes a few minutes in Rabbit's thread to see the deadly excesses of the current approach. However, substance abuse, including that involving alcohol, tobacco, or drugs, has tremendous social costs - and those costs should be factored in to any public policy decisions on the subject.

People mock prohibition, but don't seem to understand the mindset behind it. Just because alcohol cannot effectively be banned does not mean that it does not constitute a huge detriment to the public health without offering any substantive benefits. We as a society have just decided that the hundreds of thousands of drunk driving deaths and the billions of dollars in property damage associated with it, the millions of lives lost and the social potential they represented, and the millions of broken families and dysfunctional children of alcohol abuse, are worth the ability to go out on the weekend and get wasted.

Also, I would suggest ending the use of the generic term "drugs" in crafting such future decisions. Individual drugs vary greatly in their effects, and lumping them all together is part of the current flawed public mindset. For example, making marijuana legal, and thus easily attainable, would involve a far different cost/benefit analysis than doing the same for crystal meth.

Hear hear.

[Fragony]

What the...?

Perhaps you should take a look at what the war on drug users has done to America. We don't want recognition, we want the war on American people to end. There's nothing egocentric to that, and to suggest so ignores basically everything said in this thread.

CR

I'm perfectly fine with stopping the war on users, but not the war on the substance. I thouroughly disagree with the state regulating it as it will be a bloodbath that can easily be avoided, do you want to import the Mexican problem just cause you get to say that it's legal the kartels won't accept it, it's a war in war kinda way there 40.000 dead in a few year over trade routes . Just allow small quantities and let the bad guys keep killing eachother over what is just a currency for them, everybody happy all problems avoided

edit, with recognision I meant personal recognision. Like a smoke or a sniff myself and I wouldn't want to be called a bad person over it, but it just isn't worth it

[rory_20_uk]

Was there a bloodbath when Prohibition ended? I don't recall there being one.

Legalise the drugs, tax them and move revenues to the governments, not the criminals. Only by placing the margins under pressure will the problems be improved.

[Slyspy]

Is there any value in legalising some drug but not others I wonder?

[Samurai Waki]

And when, anytime in the last 6 millenia, has the weapons industry not found a way to thrive? The ploughshares folks have had a few rough patches, but Krupps et al seem to do just fine.

One less avenue for major profit, the proliferation of guns is obviously not going to go away; Krupps will still do fine from the profits used to kill brown children from other nefarious reasons.. not Krupps fault, they're just supplying what's demanded.

[Fragony]

Was there a bloodbath when Prohibition ended? I don't recall there being one.

Legalise the drugs, tax them and move revenues to the governments, not the criminals. Only by placing the margins under pressure will the problems be improved.

How can you be so naive, as if these facilitaties that grow legal won't be attacked, wait for the for the first youtube video's of American necks meeting an electrical buzzsaw. Government will certainly be less hardcore than crime kartels they cut down

[Crazed Rabbit]

How can you be so naive, as if these facilitaties that grow legal won't be attacked, wait for the for the first youtube video's of American necks meeting an electrical buzzsaw. Government will certainly be less hardcore than crime kartels they cut down

That makes no sense.

Why in the world would you have a gang and go out killing people when you could just grow your own weed legally?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Society is stronger than what most people think. People like to talk about how the newest generation is the worst to ever come about since Aristotle. People think that without a mommy and daddy that everything will fall apart, despite the fact there are more screw ups living in their parents (AKA mom and dad) basement's at 29 then there are kids broken because both their parents had the same genitals.

Drugs are not going to kill society. Like with most things, drugs are a symptom that society is broken not a cause of breakage. If you have rampant drug use, you might want to ask yourself why people want to escape so much. The real reason why Portugal has lower drug use despite it's liberal drug laws? It's because their society is healthier and it shows from it's interaction with their government. They don't need government to cover up the symptoms of a bad society.

Also, alcohol, a terrible, terrible drug is abused, has done more to bring people together than anything other human invention until the internet. Fact.

[phonicsmonkey]

Legalise the drugs, tax them and move revenues to the governments, not the criminals.

Why is everybody apparently comfortable with governments profiteering from the misery of drug addicts? Do we like the fact that they currently exploit the addictions of smokers, alcoholics and people with gambling problems? Does it put them in a good position to objectively judge the best public policy stance on these issues?

Or does it instead create a horrific conflict of interest?

[HopAlongBunny]

I would rather have the gov't profiteering from drug use, than selling arms to both sides and killing people world-wide. An addicted user would still be "within" the law, hence society. The problem can be treated (it might even be cheaper to put them on maintenance) the individual can be dealt with. Making the person a criminal has huge costs: food, shelter, clothing, security, security, security; and what does your druggie learn?
Why, how to be a better criminal! Hurray!!!

I think it was Foucault who noted that the criminal justice system excels at one function: the production of a criminal class.

[ajaxfetish]

Why is everybody apparently comfortable with governments profiteering from the misery of drug addicts? Do we like the fact that they currently exploit the addictions of smokers, alcoholics and people with gambling problems? Does it put them in a good position to objectively judge the best public policy stance on these issues?

Or does it instead create a horrific conflict of interest?

I'm okay with the government making a profit, particularly considering that drugs have society-wide costs (lost productivity, worse health, etc.) that are likely to fall to the taxpayer anyhow. If this is a particular worry, it could always be set up such that drug taxes go directly to drug treatment programs. The savings for the government in terms of law enforcement and corrections would make it financially beneficial to end the 'War on Drugs' even without drug tax revenues added in.

Ajax

[phonicsmonkey]

I would rather have the gov't profiteering from drug use, than selling arms to both sides and killing people world-wide.

I don't agree that it has to be one or the other!

The problem can be treated (it might even be cheaper to put them on maintenance) the individual can be dealt with.

Sure, but who is going to do this? The very same goverment that profits greatly from their addiction and has a vested interest in it continuing?

Making the person a criminal has huge costs: food, shelter, clothing, security, security, security; and what does your druggie learn?
Why, how to be a better criminal! Hurray!!!

Agreed, enforcement is enormously costly and we need to think of new approaches to the issue as a whole. But let's not naievely believe that our democratically elected, largely corrupt and unrepresentative western goverments would suddenly find themselves able to craft enlightened public policy around drug abatement when they have largely failed to address the issues of tobacco, alcohol and gambling addiction. Especially when (in the hypothesis) it is a massive new revenue source for them at a time when developed world fiscal positions are so utterly dire...

Also, let's get this straight. There is no-one that has been 'made' a criminal by the existing laws. Everyone who purchases, uses and deals drugs has at some stage made a positive decision to break the law in the full knowledge that they are committing a crime. This is not a moral judgement on my part, but simply a factual statement. So let's not pretend otherwise.