• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

End the War on Drugs

dtugg

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
7,885
The so called War on Drugs is a sham. It has accomplished precisely nothing; drugs are as plentiful as ever. Untold billions of dollars wasted and millions of lives ruined for precisely nothing. The best thing that our country could do about drugs, both morally and pragmatically is end their prohibition.

To me, the best reason to end drug prohibition is the issue of personal freedom. Do people own their own bodies, or do they belong to the state? If the answer is the former, how can anybody justify criminalizing the ingestion of chemicals that make you feel good?

I fully realize that many people are fully willing to let individual freedom go out the window if it means keeping drugs off the streets. But the thing is, it hasn't. Drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever.

And the fact of the matter is that the War on Drugs has benefited most the people that the government is fighting against: drug dealers. Most notably, Mexican drug cartels. Because of drug prohibition, these people are making literally billions of dollars a year. And these people are willing to do anything, to kill anybody who gets in their way. More than 15,000 people have been killed in Mexico alone as a result of the drug wars there since Dec 2006. But I suppose that's OK, so long as kids in the USA have a slightly harder time obtaining cocaine. :rolleyes:

In the US, streets gangs are huge problem in many cities. And these gangs are, of course, funded primarily through the sale of illegal drugs. FSM knows how many people have been killed in the US at the hand of gang violence fueled by drugs and drug money.

If drugs were legalized these drug cartels and street gangs would lose their source of income and likely fall apart for the most part. I think everybody besides them would agree that this would be a very good thing.

Back to the drugs themselves. I fully recognize that many drugs can be very dangerous, but this problem is exasperated by prohibition. Because drugs are illegal, they are not regulated at all, which means one can never be sure what one is getting. Meth is often full of toxic by-products. Heroin can be cut with fentanyl or even be unusually pure, both of which makes overdoses much more likely. Virtually anything can be in "Ecstasy" pills, most of it more dangerous than MDMA - caffeine, (meth)amphetamine, DMX, exotic research chemicals including deadly PMA. If drugs were legal, they could be regulated and purity and dosage could be assured, making them much safer.

While I think that they are misguided, I can understand why people would want dangerous drugs like heroin and meth to be illegal. But I am baffled as to why people would want relatively safe drugs like marijuana, MDMA (the stuff that is supposed to be in Ecstasy), LSD, and psilocybin (magic) mushrooms are be illegal. Those drugs are all less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It just makes no sense to me.

I suppose that is enough rambling for now. In short, all drugs should be legal because it is morally wrong to make somebody a criminal for putting chemicals in their body and because the costs far outweigh any possible perceived benefits.

Thoughts?
 
Pretty much the standard arguments for decriminalizing drug use. Ain't gonna happen, though.

I don't want decriminalization, I want legalization. With the former, drug gangs would still control the drug trade.

And I am under no illusion that this is going to happen, at least anytime soon. I have far too little faith in our leaders and the public in general. Rather I will continue to use drugs if I feel like it (although it's been a long time), be careful to not get caught if I do, and hold in contempt the law and those who write and support it.
 
I agree and I would very much like anyone who is in favour of prohibition to make a case for it here. I am sure they have an argument: I just don't know what it is
 
OK, I actually agree with the OP, but I can play Devil's advocate.

Perhaps it's because the harm from drug use isn't necessarily limited to the user.

Pathological drug addicts cause harm to other people.

Yes, in theory some people may be able to experiment with drugs and not abuse them, but too many become abusers.

Anyone see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happens to the baby while her parents are on a heroin binge?

Tired of sobriety, Sick Boy, Spud and Renton decide to get back on heroin. Through a montage we see them taking and dealing drugs and stealing to fund their habit. Renton narrates that they tried all chemicals available in the streets, claiming "we would've injected Vitamin C if only they'd made it illegal." Depressed after having been dumped by his girlfriend, Tommy also takes up heroin, which Renton reluctantly supplies him with. Their heroin-induced stupor is violently interrupted when fellow junkie Allison discovers that her baby daughter, Dawn, has died from neglect; Dawn had stayed in the flat with them but they had been too high to look after her. All are horrified, especially Sick Boy, who is revealed as Dawn's father.
 
Trouble is that that happens with alcohol as well: and it can happen from other causes such as mental illness, too. It does not really establish a case against drugs in particular, does it?
 
The entrenched oppressive powers that be need a face-saving out.

How about "The war on rugs"?

Only one letter needs to be removed.
Rugs gather dust and are breeding grounds for mites and fleas.
 
OK, I actually agree with the OP, but I can play Devil's advocate.

Perhaps it's because the harm from drug use isn't necessarily limited to the user.

Pathological drug addicts cause harm to other people.

Yes, but how does prohibition solve this problem? As far as I can tell it doesn't, at all. And actually, I think that with prohibition, addicts cause more harm to others than they would if drugs were legal. Drugs are currently sold on the black market at outrageous prices and many addicts steal in order to get their fix. If drugs were legal they could be sold for very cheap or even be given away for free, completely eliminating this problem.

Yes, in theory some people may be able to experiment with drugs and not abuse them, but too many become abusers.

In my experience, the vast majority of drug users never become addicts. And many illegal drugs are not physically addictive anyway.
 
This new publication might be of interest:

After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation


There is a growing recognition around the world that the prohibition of drugs is a counterproductive failure. However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been a widespread fear of the unknown—just what could a post-prohibition regime look like?

For the first time, ‘After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' answers that question by proposing specific models of regulation for each main type and preparation of prohibited drug, coupled with the principles and rationale for doing so.​



We demonstrate that moving to the legal regulation of drugs is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a sensible, pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply and use.​
 
Last edited:
Trouble is that that happens with alcohol as well: and it can happen from other causes such as mental illness, too. It does not really establish a case against drugs in particular, does it?

The comparison with alcohol is legitimate but not mental illness.
I can't think of any reasonable way to make mental illness illegal, so let's set that aside.

The question then is: would more harm be caused by other drugs than by alcohol? If as many people tried heroin and methamphetamine as alcohol, and it was easily available, you might end up with as many junkies and meth-heads as there are alcoholics.

Mark Kleiman is a good arguer for continued prohibition. Although he is open to marijuana decriminalization.

He makes the following points:
1. Alcohol – the drug we decided to legalize and regulate – kills about 100,000 people a year: several times as many as all the illicit drugs combined.
Another 440,000 die from tobacco. This implies that a lot of lives are saved by the fact that illegal drugs are illegal. If 100,000 people die a year from legal alcohol and 440,000 from legal tobacco, how many would die from legal heroin? 1 million? And another half a million from legal meth? And another half a million from legal cocaine/crack, etc.? I just made up those numbers of course, but the point is that the two drugs that are legal kill more people than the drugs are illegal, so it appears that prohibition saves lives.

2. The notion that there’s a set of taxes and regulations that would avoid creating a big illicit market while not increasing drug abuse substantially doesn’t pass the giggle test. (Licit pharmaceutical-grade cocaine costs about a tenth as much as street cocaine. So legalization means either a huge price drop or a set of taxes crying out for profitable evasion, and thus requiring enforcement.)

3. Counting all the overdoses as costs of prohibition would make sense – if no one ever died of alcohol poisoning or overdosed on prescdription drugs (often mixed with alcohol).

4. Yes, street gangs do some drug dealing. But it’s absurd to imagine that the gang killings would disappear if the drug market became legal.
 
I have commented before that I feel much the same way; the expense and human costs of the War On Drugs has been staggering and utterly ineffective.

Still, try to find a single senator or congressman who will even speak off the record about decriminalizing marijuana, much less other drugs.
Heaven forbid...That would be "soft on crime" (or insert other aphorism of choice...).

States are talking about not imprisoning people convicted of minor, non-violent drug crimes, but that's only to save money.
 
It seems to me that it is not at all clear what “The Drug Problem” actually is.

Politicians and their hangers-on want to portray it as major damage done to that Holy Grail “The Family”. This also seems to me to ignore the damage to this mythical entity by the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco. These two kill more people each year than the all the illegal drugs put together. But one Ecstasy related death hits the headlines in the tabloids, whilst the many alcohol/tobacco related deaths do not.

Moreover, politicians seem to be completely unaware of history. The prohibition of alcohol in the USA from (about) 1919 (it depended on the specific State) to 1933 was a major contributor to the growth of organised crime. It does seem to me that making the currently illegal drugs illegal has done just the same. It’s not the addiction which is the problem: it is the secondary, often criminal, behaviour which is.

At one time the British approach was that an addict registered with a (medical) doctor, who managed their health – and prescribed the drugs on the NHS. The advantages were:

1. The addict got drugs cheaply – standard NHS prescription charge, currently about £7.
2. The were of known quality and strength.
3. The addict’s health was monitored. It is, apparently, relatively simple to stabilise addicts on eg heroin.

Moreover, the addict did not have to indulge in criminal behaviour to satisfy their addiction.

Result: no secondary crime, less police time wasted on it, less gang related violence.
 
The comparison with alcohol is legitimate but not mental illness.
I can't think of any reasonable way to make mental illness illegal, so let's set that aside.

The question then is: would more harm be caused by other drugs than by alcohol? If as many people tried heroin and methamphetamine as alcohol, and it was easily available, you might end up with as many junkies and meth-heads as there are alcoholics.

Mark Kleiman is a good arguer for continued prohibition. Although he is open to marijuana decriminalization.

He makes the following points:
Another 440,000 die from tobacco. This implies that a lot of lives are saved by the fact that illegal drugs are illegal. If 100,000 people die a year from legal alcohol and 440,000 from legal tobacco, how many would die from legal heroin? 1 million? And another half a million from legal meth? And another half a million from legal cocaine/crack, etc.? I just made up those numbers of course, but the point is that the two drugs that are legal kill more people than the drugs are illegal, so it appears that prohibition saves lives.

First you need to establish that people would use heroin or meth or crack at rates comparable to those of alcohol and tobacco if they were suddenly legal. I highly doubt this would happen, even most drug users I know won't touch that stuff because of their social stigma attached and because of the known high risk of addiction. Then you need to establish that if this happened, these drugs would kill people at at high rates.
 
At one time the British approach was that an addict registered with a (medical) doctor, who managed their health – and prescribed the drugs on the NHS. The advantages were:

1. The addict got drugs cheaply – standard NHS prescription charge, currently about £7.
2. The were of known quality and strength.
3. The addict’s health was monitored. It is, apparently, relatively simple to stabilise addicts on eg heroin.

Moreover, the addict did not have to indulge in criminal behaviour to satisfy their addiction.

Result: no secondary crime, less police time wasted on it, less gang related violence.

When did that change? What is the approach now? How has the situation WRT drug abuse changed? Am I asking too many questions?
 
It all depends on how much they cost. If they cost too much for the average person then that person will resort to cheaper drugs that can be provided by gangs. Thus you still have a gang problem but now you can't bust them for drug sales.

I agree that all drugs should be made legal. I have no idea what the lasting effect will be though. More drug addicts? Less? More deaths? Less? More gangs? Less?

I think that the problem again is pricing. Drugs are cheap to make. If companies start producing drugs how will they be priced and will they be as strong as street drugs? If the answers are 'expensive' and 'not as strong' then gangs will still thrive. Also if made legal the government will want to put a tax on it making it more expensive to the users.
 
I think a model could be found that monopolises the sale of drugs to the state with a modest tax/profit, but without leaving a profit margin for private enterprise/gangs.

Marijuana may be an exception as it can be grown easily in huge amounts.
 
I agree that drugs should be at least decriminalized, if not legalized. To that end I participate in action alerts from the Marijuana Policy Project as well as other legalization groups in my state. I used to be a member of NORML, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws. The group that provides the most sign-and-send letters for lobbying is the DPA, the Drug Policy Alliance. My elected officials usually reply to my emails with carefully-crafted position pieces.

Mother Jones ran a series of articles about marijuana legalization a few months ago. The best one (imo) was The Patriot's Guide to Legalization and its most important message is this:
SO WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF LEGALIZATION? Slim. For starters, the United States, along with virtually every other country in the world, is a signatory to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (and its 1988 successor), which flatly prohibits legalization of cannabis. The only way around this is to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties or to withdraw and then reenter with reservations. That's not going to happen.
I think that legalization advocates overlook the big picture concerning this treaty and how it limits any real change in marijuana law. I'd never heard of it prior to reading about it in MJ and I've been an involved activist for many years. Any meaningful discussion about legalization must address the problems created by this international treaty.

Even if the Obama Administration allows individual states to set their own drug policy, we still have this treaty looming over our heads and ultimately preventing any real change from taking place in the USA and other countries.
 
I don't want decriminalization, I want legalization. With the former, drug gangs would still control the drug trade.

Ya actually had an interesting Gmail chat on this with my buddy yesterday, and I guess the problem is getting down to brass tacks and sorting out exactly how this would look.

Right now it can be a total pain to find a drink at 4am. But you could roam a location in a city and likely find any number of illicit drugs.

Were all those illicit drugs illegal, would it be possible to purchase them in the middle of the night?

There are illicit dial-a-bottle services filling the overnight gap. The restrictions we apply on a legal version of heroin, cocaine, speed and meth have to be balanced. We don't want people to be able to get them at 7/11, yet the more we restrict the more openings we leave for illicit exploitation of the gaps we leave behind in service and convenience.

What is that balance?

Perhaps it just points to idiocy in our alcohol control as well. I pine for European approaches here in North America, being able to license establishments to different end times - so you don't have an unleashing of thousands of drunks all at the same time at 2:30am...;)

So what is the architecture of a legal environment going to look like? And given the fact the stupid, backward, short-sighted puritanical bunch with their "think of the children" appeals will still be around, how can we be assured doing what makes sense in that kind of environment actually happens?

I would think that even if such a thing were to actually happen, the pull of that crowd would still place enough restrictions to leave open many opportunities for illegal distribution networks.

Anyway, I'm really very interested in reading some in-depth visions of the actual way a legal market would look like. Does anyone have any links?

My friend was pro-decriminalization, but reminded me that in the Wild West of Drug Use back before prohibition there was really very wide spread use of opiates by many, many people.

Is there a way to avoid that? Or is it a risk we have to take and a lower cost than the price we're paying now?
 

Back
Top Bottom