The "War on Drugs" is defeating the "war on terror."

[Puppycow]

The Lost War is an excellent article that reveals how futile and counterproductive the so-called "War on Drugs" is. This is not to suggest that illicit drugs or drug addiction are harmless, but rather that our punative approach to dealing with them causes more harm than it prevents. Simply put: the cure is worse than the disease.

The war on drugs:
1) Does not reduce drug abuse rates significantly more than a non-punative regulate-and-tax approach could
2) Puts money in the hands of criminals and terrorists
3) Takes money out of the regular economy and puts it into the shadow economy
4) Represents a large opportunity cost in tax money and government resources that could be put to other uses such as improving infrastructure, lowering taxes, or other public goods

An alternative policy that makes more sense would be to legalize and regulate narcotics. Their use would still be discouraged, and advertising would be banned. Only pharmacies could sell the harder stuff like heroin or cocaine, in plain packaging with information warning of the dangers. It would all be purchased from approved producers and an appropriate level of taxation would be set. Some of the tax proceeds would be used to pay for any harmful effects of drug abuse, as well as treatment and education efforts. Money would also be saved on police, courts, lawyers and prisons, which could also be used for other public goods.

 

[volatile]

There's a Number 5 you forgot - the War on Drugs increases crime. Through the simple laws of supply and demand, cracking down on drug dealers and busting drug imports increases the prices of drugs on the street, meaning those who steal to fund their addiction have to steal more.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Number 6, turns casual drug users into felons, crowding our prisons with drug users with unduly lengthy sentences mandated by strict laws.

 

[Upchurch]

What is the "War on Terror" connection from the thread title?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What is the "War on Terror" connection from the thread title?

Considering it's the Washington Post I think the hidden premise is that those wasted resources being used in the War on Drugs should naturally go to fighting the War on Terrorism.

 

[volatile]

What is the "War on Terror" connection from the thread title?

Read the article; it talks about the connection between "The War on Terror" ( which isn't the same thing as combating terrorism, of course) and drugs, particularly in reference to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

[Upchurch]

I totally missed that there was a link in the OP. Thanks.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Read the article; it talks about the connection between "The War on Terror" ( which isn't the same thing as combating terrorism, of course) and drugs, particularly in reference to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Oh. I suppose I really should read TFM. Well, what else are they supposed to grow? It's the best cash crop they can grow.

 

[Segnosaur]

An alternative policy that makes more sense would be to legalize and regulate narcotics. Their use would still be discouraged, and advertising would be banned. Only pharmacies could sell the harder stuff like heroin or cocaine, in plain packaging with information warning of the dangers. It would all be purchased from approved producers and an appropriate level of taxation would be set. Some of the tax proceeds would be used to pay for any harmful effects of drug abuse, as well as treatment and education efforts. Money would also be saved on police, courts, lawyers and prisons, which could also be used for other public goods.

I do think there is some merit to the idea of legalizing drugs...

However, I do question the notion that it would somehow 'clean up' the crime associated with drugs. After all, if you tax/regulate drugs, you'd be artificially increasing the price of drugs over what the market charges. This will still allow drug dealers to come in and market cocaine, heroin, etc. at a lower price than that offered by pharmacies. (We've seen that with cigarettes here in Canada... there was, for a time, a rather large market for smuggled cigarretes from the U.S., despite tobacco being totally legal here, because the smuggled cigarretes could be purhased with lower taxes.)

 

[jimlintott]

I do think there is some merit to the idea of legalizing drugs...

However, I do question the notion that it would somehow 'clean up' the crime associated with drugs. After all, if you tax/regulate drugs, you'd be artificially increasing the price of drugs over what the market charges. This will still allow drug dealers to come in and market cocaine, heroin, etc. at a lower price than that offered by pharmacies. (We've seen that with cigarettes here in Canada... there was, for a time, a rather large market for smuggled cigarretes from the U.S., despite tobacco being totally legal here, because the smuggled cigarretes could be purhased with lower taxes.)

Why the assumption that the price would have to increase? Someone who supplies illegal goods is going to charge enough to compensate for the risk he takes. Legal drugs wouldn't carry this risk. Why couldn't prices drop? (I suspect that they would probably be close to the same.)

It is correct that there will still be a black market. There is a black market for almost every product. Satellite TV, car stereos, construction materials, etc. all have their own black markets.

What I find humourous is that over ten years ago I kept saying that the war on drugs should end and the DEA should be re-mandated into anti-terrorist work.

 

[pgwenthold]

I do think there is some merit to the idea of legalizing drugs...

However, I do question the notion that it would somehow 'clean up' the crime associated with drugs. After all, if you tax/regulate drugs, you'd be artificially increasing the price of drugs over what the market charges. This will still allow drug dealers to come in and market cocaine, heroin, etc. at a lower price than that offered by pharmacies. (We've seen that with cigarettes here in Canada... there was, for a time, a rather large market for smuggled cigarretes from the U.S., despite tobacco being totally legal here, because the smuggled cigarretes could be purhased with lower taxes.)

OTOH, compare it to total prohibition. We have already run that experiment in the US, with alcohol. Bootlegging pretty much came to a halt, except in those places that tried to maintain prohibition.

 

[Garrette]

OTOH, compare it to total prohibition. We have already run that experiment in the US, with alcohol. Bootlegging pretty much came to a halt, except in those places that tried to maintain prohibition.

We could see the proliferation of county line opium dens to complement the current spate of county line bars?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I totally missed that there was a link in the OP. Thanks.

To elaborate on the linkage, the Taliban is scaring the regional farmers to their side, by claiming that the US because of the "War on Drugs" is going to destroy the crops.

Which is basically correct. Nobody said the Taliban were stupid about local politics.

 

[Puppycow]

Sorry. I posted this and went to bed. Yes: the connection with terrorism has to do with narco-guerrillas and gangsters, such as the Taliban or FARC in Columbia (isn't it ironic that the Taliban managed to mostly stamp out drugs in Afganistan? Not that I have any love for the medieval thugs.) If you legalize drugs, you take away a lot of money from them.

I do think there is some merit to the idea of legalizing drugs...

However, I do question the notion that it would somehow 'clean up' the crime associated with drugs. After all, if you tax/regulate drugs, you'd be artificially increasing the price of drugs over what the market charges. This will still allow drug dealers to come in and market cocaine, heroin, etc. at a lower price than that offered by pharmacies. (We've seen that with cigarettes here in Canada... there was, for a time, a rather large market for smuggled cigarretes from the U.S., despite tobacco being totally legal here, because the smuggled cigarretes could be purhased with lower taxes.)

True. I don't claim this would be a perfect solution. There would still be crime. You would still need some level of enforcement to keep the black market supressed. Economists could probably figure out the right level of taxation to have. Too high and you increase black market activity and crimes by addicts who can't afford their fix. Too low and you get more drug abuse. I think an ideal level would probably be slighty less than what the street price is now. No policy will be perfect, but if we can keep the problem down to a dull roar like with alcohol and tobacco, I think that overall the situation would be better for society as a whole.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The Lost War is an excellent article that reveals how futile and counterproductive the so-called "War on Drugs" is. This is not to suggest that illicit drugs or drug addiction are harmless, but rather that our punative approach to dealing with them causes more harm than it prevents. Simply put: the cure is worse than the disease.

The war on drugs:
1) Does not reduce drug abuse rates significantly more than a non-punative regulate-and-tax approach could
2) Puts money in the hands of criminals and terrorists
3) Takes money out of the regular economy and puts it into the shadow economy
4) Represents a large opportunity cost in tax money and government resources that could be put to other uses such as improving infrastructure, lowering taxes, or other public goods

Basically, points 2,3 and 4 seem to me quite interconnected, but, I could not agree more

 

[Matteo Martini]

Number 7
Usually, drug provided by pushers may be adultered, which may cause permanent health damages to the user` s health
A legal and regulated mechanism for drug addicted ( I am not going into details here ), would probably take away most of this problem

 

[Modified]

3) Takes money out of the regular economy and puts it into the shadow economy

And takes it out of the country. I'm sure the US has a huge "illegal trade deficit".

 

[Joppy]

If drugs are legalized, I think drug dealers would probably go out of bussiness. I think it would be like Wal Mart replacing Mon and Pop stores. Big companies would probably be able to produce drugs much cheaper than any small operation. Unless the underground dealers can sell at a signigicantly lower price than big companies, I doubt consumers will buy from them. If they do sell cheaper, then criminals won't get as much money.

Although I worry about increased drug addictions if they are legalized.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Although I worry about increased drug addictions if they are legalized.

First, I am not to legalize drugs, but to include them at a reasonable price as a treatment to the already addicted.
Second, I do not think that the vast majority of the people would use cocaine, even if they pay them to do so.

 

[balrog666]

Why would anyone assume that the purpose of the "War on Drugs" is to reduce illegal drug use?

Wrong premise, wrong conclusion.