The Drug War Seems to Have Failed

[Puppycow]

The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.

Agreed. The only thing they really care about is what's the politically safe position.

It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question...

Er, that still hasn't happened:

A high-powered panel of former heads of states and United Nations officials says it is time for governments to find new ways to deal with the world’s drug problem.

“The fact is that the war on drugs is a failure,” former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso said Thursday at the unveiling of a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Along with Mr. Cardoso, the commission includes former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan and Canadian Louise Arbour, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Current members of the government continue to play it safe. Canadian, US and Mexican government spokespeople all hand-waved it away. Oh, and calling it a "high-powered panel" is dubious too for the same reason.

I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:



It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Yup. Maybe once they retire from politics and have no power, they will admit the truth too.

 

[keale]

I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:



It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Well in many places in Mexico the government and the cartels are on the same side and in many cases the same people.

 

[Praktik]

No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp.

Ya and I think people don't realize those racist roots... or like to think "we're so past that now". And if you're talking about the people implementing current policy I can actually agree with that: I don't think the current drug czar, or any of the most recent czars, have approached drug use with that same brand of antique racism. Maybe on the lower levels, like street level, you'll see more instances of racism but it's nowhere near as pervasive - or overt - as it was (for the most part).

That being said, the laws surely were rooted in racism - but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day.

To my mind its still a glaring irrationality at the root of our drug laws: whether that's a racist irrationality or some misguided application of pious morality, its all flim flam and flawed reasoning underneath. I have difficulty conceiving of an evidence-based position in support of the Drug War - by definition it is a Crusade and a Religious Obligation for those fighting the good fight.

Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!

 

[Barsdamian]

Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!

Its interesting how as society changes, the prohibitionist message changes. In Anslingers day it was "Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers". Nowadays its terrorists. Consider this quote from John Walters the US drug czar in 2007.

the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties.

The message changes but its no less ridiculous.

 

[andyandy]

What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention.

I wish that was true - but i don't think there's any evidence, any report, any peer reviewed data or any body of celebrities or ex politicians who would make even a gnat sized dent in the political status quo over prohibition....

Maybe give it another 50 years.......

 

[Joey McGee]

The people still run the government, no?

I am actually rather optimistic for a tipping point on this issue.

 

[WildCat]

It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities and corrupt Mexican officials is a bad idea.

ftfy

 

[ThunderChunky]

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

A lot of people get rich off of the drug war. Seems they would have a vested interest in keeping the program running.

 

[Earthborn]

Seems this commission has the right idea...

The commission is especially critical of the United States, which its members say must lead changing its anti-drug policies from being guided by anti-crime approaches to ones rooted in health care and human rights.

... oh, well. It was a nice thought anyway. The United States can't even get healthcare coverage for all it citizens it doesn't consider lowlife junkies, so this is a bit much to ask of them.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing (snip)

Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"

 

[GreyArea]

...but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day.

I think that's part of it, but I don't quite understand the last step in their reasoning. Is intoxication (by whatever means) wrong because it clouds one's mental abilities to contemplate God? Or is it wrong because it leads to dis-inhibited behaviors and a poor work ethic?

Arguably, only the former reason would be religious/theological. The latter reasons would be, respectively, for reasons of civic harmony and for reasons of industry (in the old sense of the word) versus idleness. I think these would make a stronger case for prohibition than a purely religious reason, if anyone was pressed to spell out the case (which is hardly ever done).

 

[Mycroft]

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

Wouldn't you agree it's at least a contributing factor?

 

[Taarkin]

Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

 

[Mark6]

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Precisely.

Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

 

[JFrankA]

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there?

(I once read, though I can't confirm this, that a lot of deaths from E is because what they took wasn't E, or there was very little E in it, and the death was from the impurities in the pill and not the E itself).

Combine these two things, that makes the product much less profitable for criminals to produce and sell. In effect, that takes the product away from the criminal.

 

[JFrankA]

Precisely.

Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

Mark beat me to it and put it more succinctly.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there?

The same people who buy herbal remedies, probably. Which may have a substantial overlap with the ones who use mind-altering substances.

Dave

 

[IDB87]

*ETA this post is strictly about cocaine.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

I find this incredibly far-fetched.

How will the government of Mexico A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

Decriminalizing cocaine, even making it legal, will do nothing to slow the production of the Cartels already in place. All you end up with is a government competing with the big boys.

I'm really honestly curious as to what your solution is.

 

[I Am The Scum]

*ETA this post is strictly about cocaine.




I find this incredibly far-fetched.

How will the government of Mexico A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

Decriminalizing cocaine, even making it legal, will do nothing to slow the production of the Cartels already in place. All you end up with is a government competing with the big boys.

I'm really honestly curious as to what your solution is.

Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.

Most arguments in favor of decriminalization will draw parallels with the prohibition fiasco back in the 20s. I'm pretty sure that most proponents would stick to that model.

 

[Earthborn]

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Will Walgreens decide to sell creepy drugs? Seems unlikely to me, if they would they certainly won't do so without prescription. Many addicts may prefer the more no-questions-asked approach by illegal drug dealers over having to ask permission from a doctor. In the US especially, having to go to a doctor to get a prescription may very well be more expensive than buying directly from someone on the street.

Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

If it worked like that, there would be no illegal market for any legal medication. And yet there is. There is also an illegal market for other legal products, such as cigarettes; often stolen from legitimate manufacturers and sold without tax.

 

[Earthborn]

Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.

Makes no difference whether it is a government run industry or entrepreneurs picking up the slack. The question remains the same: how will they A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

The entrepreneurs you are talking about may be able to do A, but will definitely need help from the government to do C. And that is assuming there are enough non-criminal entrepreneurs eager to start a business in selling dangerous hard drugs.