War on Drugs Over

[dex]

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

"The war on drugs is a failure," Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Cesar Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo -- the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico -- wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization … simply haven't worked," they wrote.

+++++

I think what hasn't worked is that the USA hasn't taken responsibility for its citizens' actions. US drug users pay the drug cartels for the drugs.

We treat drug users as a victim of a flu - not that they chose to take the drug in the first place but they somehow caught a disease. This is an outcrop of the 60s thinking - they are not responsible - they are a victim of their environment.

We should have a progressive system of drug enforcement for users
- treatment/with followup testing
- treatment/minor incarceration/followup testing
- longer incarceration/treatment
- very long incarceration - in the jungles of Columbia

Failing all that - Soma should be given to all that want it.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Make a state. Seal it in. Give them all they want. Keep video footage of what happens and show it to each generation. Eventually it would stop.

 

[Urchina]

Dex, I think the title of your post is misleading. The War on Drugs IS failing, but it's by no means over.

I think a good step would be to re-evaluate our draconian drug laws. Why is it that tobacco and alcohol are legal, and marijuana isn't, despite its relatively safe profile for users? Why is it that we incarcerate drug users who have no other offenses (ie, they didn't commit another crime while under the influence of drugs)? It seems crazy, to me, to put someone in jail for simply using LSD or cocaine.

Why is it that we send millions and millions of dollars in aid to South American and Central American governments to fight the war on drugs, but don't hold them accountable for how they treat their civilian populations in the process? Why are we spending tax dollars to destroy one of the best cash crops poor Bolivian farmers can get, instead of helping them to build robust local economies that pay living wages?

I could go on, but I just remembered the Soap Box is closed. Pity.

 

[dex]

Why is it that tobacco and alcohol are legal, and marijuana isn't, despite its relatively safe profile for users?

They are committing another crime supporting, corruption, murder, slavery and a whole host of other crimes with the money they spend on drugs. They chose to take the drugs and in doing so hurt many other people. Taking illegal drugs is not a victimless activity.

 

[Khan]

They are committing another crime supporting, corruption, murder, slavery and a whole host of other crimes with the money they spend on drugs. They chose to take the drugs and in doing so hurt many other people. Taking illegal drugs is not a victimless activity.

If I could grow marijuana in my window box, I wouldn't be supporting any criminals.

 

[HFWR]

If I could grow marijuana in my window box, I wouldn't be supporting any criminals.

And you'd have some really happy squirrels...

 

[Payin-the-Toll]

Has anyone watched that CNBC special on Marijuana Inc., or what ever it was called, concerning the emerald triangle in northern California. Very interesting show. Don't have high-def for that channel, but the guy who was selling medicinal stuff, looked like it was $45 a 'gram'--oh-chi-wa-wa----man, that's expensive. They also mentioned that people in California are allowed to grow 6-18 plants or possess a certain amount for medicinal or 'recreational' purposes--is that right??

 

[jug]

Perhaps we should take all the foreclosed houses and turn them into "hot houses" for MJ and then perhaps this country will start to make a profit to dig us out of the hole.

We could also produce as much addictive goodies as we can so that we can hook the denizens of oil rich arab states on dope and get some of our cash back.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, fire up the meth labs and ship the goodies to the middle east, give em a treat, and charge them through the nose for the return business.

Jug

 

[aaronc879]

Has anyone watched that CNBC special on Marijuana Inc., or what ever it was called, concerning the emerald triangle in northern California. Very interesting show. Don't have high-def for that channel, but the guy who was selling medicinal stuff, looked like it was $45 a 'gram'--oh-chi-wa-wa----man, that's expensive. They also mentioned that people in California are allowed to grow 6-18 plants or possess a certain amount for medicinal or 'recreational' purposes--is that right??

$45 a gram? That's crazy. That's over $150 for 1/8 ounce. 3x as much as the good stuff should cost and 10x and much as cheap stuff. It has been almost a decade since i've been in the market but prices couldn't've gone up that much, could they?

 

[harley]

All we would have to do is legalize and tax a natural product with medicinal uses that makes people feel good, drive slow, and listen closely to records backwards. There would be massive tax revenues, and a huge decrease in crime (especially violent ones). Some people (me for one) would grow our own, but most would buy it at the Safeway or 7-11 and pay the taxes.

They are committing another crime supporting, corruption, murder, slavery and a whole host of other crimes with the money they spend on drugs. They chose to take the drugs and in doing so hurt many other people. Taking illegal drugs is not a victimless activity.

These problems are a result of the prohibition, not the drugs. Very obviously drug use will continue as it has since the implmentation of prohibition and the War on Drug Users. Abusing drugs is not a victimless activity, but it's certainly no worse than alcohol abuse, gambling abuse, crazed weight lifting, market timing, or any other activity that folks are allowed to do. If you don't like it, just be like Clinton or Bush. Don't inhale, or at least lie about it.

Having said that, how is this related to FIRE? Except if you need some to light the doobie.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Or just legalize it all. You know how everyone would be responsible..

 

[bssc]

Or just legalize it all. You know how everyone would be responsible..

Legalize it and tax it. Cigarettes are $70 a carton. Charge $100. Let the money pay off the deficit instead of going to the drug cartels. As mentioned it worked for gambling, liquor and tobacco.

 

[harley]

Even better. No more violence at all. And less hard stuff abuse, because when you buy from 7-11 the clerk isn't going to be telling you "hey, you like that weed, try some of this meth, you'll love it". He'll just take your money and go back to talking on his cell phone.

Seriously, I think taking the criminals out of the picture (except the ones spending the tax money) will only make things better.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Legalize it and tax it. Cigarettes are $70 a carton. Charge $100. Let the money pay off the deficit instead of going to the drug cartels. As mentioned it worked for gambling, liquor and tobacco.

Those 3 things do not do what meth does.

 

[haha]

Even better. No more violence at all. And less hard stuff abuse, because when you buy from 7-11 the clerk isn't going to be telling you "hey, you like that weed, try some of this meth, you'll love it". He'll just take your money and go back to talking on his cell phone.

Seriously, I think taking the criminals out of the picture (except the ones spending the tax money) will only make things better.

Total agreement from me. For most of history in the US anyway drugs were legal. They were mildly abused for the most part- laudanum was popular with the ladies, Cola wasn't called Coca-Cola for nothing, people smoked reefer. But not very many.

Opium dens in China seem kind of rough, but then conditions in China were kind of rough all around.

IMO the war on drugs will never end, becasue it fits the police state mind-set of too many politicoes, law-enforcers and authoritarians of all stripes.

Of course drug usage is not problem free, but look at the alternative. Much of Latin America becoming narco-states, US being corrupted by drug financed graft, personal liberties trampled into the ground, a lot of fairly harmless people rotting in jail, huge amount of street violence, etc., etc. No sane state would act this way IMO.

Ha

 

[bssc]

Those 3 things do not do what meth does.

I was talking about pot.

 

[bbbamI]

And you'd have some really happy squirrels...

that craved chocolate chip cookies....

 

[dex]

Seriously, I think taking the criminals out of the picture (except the ones spending the tax money) will only make things better.

The problem is that you are using a generic term "drugs" for a whole range of products. What do you allow to be manufactured, sold and taxed?

Marijuana
cocaine
heroin

crack
pcp
speed
LSD
Ecstasy
Methamphetamine

Prescription drugs currently used illegally - Oxycontin etc

Instead of saying what should not be done or just legalize "drugs" propose a system that address the complexity of the issue and how it will make things better.

 

[ziggy29]

While I don't support the wholesale decriminalization of drugs, I do think the "War on Drugs" as a law enforcement/military style attempt to choke off supply is, and should be declared, a miserable failure. I think all it does is escalate the violence; the more supply you choke off, the more lucrative the remaining trade, leading to people willing to resort to more violent means to engage the drug trade. Why isn't there any gang violence in the alcohol or tobacco trade?

I think back to alcohol prohibition in the U.S. in the early 20th century. When it was prohibited, suddenly you saw a rise in gangland violence among groups looking to control the market on black-market booze. Why, given that history, would we expect this "war" to be different than the War On Booze in the 1920s?

Furthermore, thinking back again to alcohol prohibition, a lot of people got seriously sick (and some even died) because of bad booze. Drive the supply underground and there is little to no safety or product quality standards and quality and safety varied widely depending on the supplier, the method, and how honest the producers were about their product. Same is true with drugs. You simply can't regulate product safety on an illegal product.

I also think it's a mistake to keep treating drug use/addiction as a character flaw which prevents people from getting jobs and such; the more we stigmatize it, the more we drive it underground and the less people are willing to get help. (To some degree that's even true of alcoholism -- there's such a stigma that some people try to hide it instead of seeking help, and the "functioning" ones can sometimes hide it well.)

Our whole approach to drugs, IMO, is fantasyland. We're not going to ever eliminate the supply of illegal drugs, and we're never going to completely destroy demand no matter how much of a scarlet letter we put on people who use. We need to reconsider the status of some of the milder "forbidden" substances, I think.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why is it that tobacco and alcohol are legal, and marijuana isn't ...

They are committing another crime supporting, corruption, murder, slavery and a whole host of other crimes with the money they spend on drugs.

In the case of marijuana, this is ridiculous. In the case of the harder
drugs, it's true mostly because of their illegal status.

 

[dex]

In the case of marijuana, this is ridiculous.

Why?

 

[jug]

DAVID PEEL & THE LOWER EAST SIDE

Anyone remember this guy in NYC, from the late 60's early 70's.

Up against the wall motherf---ker.....


Jug

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

Has anyone watched that CNBC special on Marijuana Inc., or what ever it was called, concerning the emerald triangle in northern California. Very interesting show. Don't have high-def for that channel, but the guy who was selling medicinal stuff, looked like it was $45 a 'gram'--oh-chi-wa-wa----man, that's expensive. They also mentioned that people in California are allowed to grow 6-18 plants or possess a certain amount for medicinal or 'recreational' purposes--is that right??

Yes, I watched the show, and it's a vision of cash to me. I don't use any drugs, but if I get canned and can't find a job in the next year, I plan to head back to CA to learn the trade. BTW, in Oakland, you're allowed to grow 72 plants. At $5000/per plant, that's decent money.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/pot-school

 

[harley]

Instead of saying what should not be done or just legalize "drugs" propose a system that address the complexity of the issue and how it will make things better.

I still am not sure why this is FIRE related, but it is one of my hot button topics, so I'll respond. I personally believe we would be in a better position if all of the drugs on your list were legal. Managed by the government maybe (not my first choice), but not illegal creating black markets, criminal combines, street violence, opportunities for terrorist organizations to make money from us, huge numbers of relatively harmless individuals in prison, etc.

However, I know this isn't even remotely feasible in our society now, and maybe never will be. So I would be satisfied if the most harmless of all the standardly used drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), marijuana, was legalized. I don't have specific numbers. However, I suspect legalization of pot would wipe out more than 50% of all the drug related problems we are currently experiencing. That would leave coke/crack as the major issue. The rest are very minor in numbers.

So, anyway, there's my answer. My only comment about the War on Drugs is a quote (probably wrongly) attributed to Benjamin Franklin - The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that definition the War on Drugs is insane. By any definition except one used by the ONDCP the War on Drugs is a failure. I wish your thread title had some accuracy. It would be in the country's best interest if it was over.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Rusty said:

In the case of marijuana, this is ridiculous.

Why?

Most of it's grown in the USA these days, cirumventing much
of this unpleasantness (like corruption in foreign countries).
The really nasty guys are far more interested in trafficing
hard drugs, which are more profitable and easier to smuggle
(more compact and less odiferous).

There is a growing consensus that drugs should be treated more
as a medical problem than a legal one. I have a personal theory
that it'll require a Republican president to do this, much as it
required Nixon to normalize relations with China - because a
Democrat is just too vulnerable to right-wing trash (like Rush)
on this sort of issue. Of course, D or R, it'll take someone with
a LOT of integrity, like the old McCain (I miss him).

At any rate, there is enormous harm done by not recognizing
the difference between marijuana and other drugs. Never mind
the people who could be helped medically by it. I've read that
the Bush administration gave roughly equal priority to marijuana
and meth; as a consequence, the latter has become a huge problem.
(Does this sound familiar, ignoring something that is a HUGE problem,
because of wasting effort on somethinng that's not nearly as big a
problem, perhaps not a problem at all ?!?)