The War on Drugs is Useless

Alt+F4 said:
I should have rewritten that. I meant to say American gun sellers, not American gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...

That's a lot better, but how much influence do they hold on the decisions of the US government?

McHrozni
 
Homicide Rates per 100,000

The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
preceeding begins 1920 ends 1933
Prohibition

1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
1932 - 9.0
Prohibition increases crime and has other negative impacts on the community. Can you imagine what would happen to the homicide rates of Juarez Mexico if we changed our drug policy? Not to mention the overall quality of life?
 
What are the key differences between these two bans?
Click to expand...
Child pornography is the distribution of imagery of abused children. This is simply a disgusting practice, and neither government nor private actors have any business doing it. None of the problems revolving around child porn would be solved by its legalization.

The ban on alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, on the other hand, causes a whole range of societal ills that do go away when/if it's legalized, as we saw during the prohibition era.
 
Virus said:
Knock it off with your self-righteous prattle dtugg. You admitted to using every piece of gear under the sun with your druggie friends. You admitted to buying their product. You put that money in their hands because you felt like zonking your neurons. You're the one that created the demand for their product. Now you've got the audacity to tell others that the cartels are their fault? Here's an idea; take responsibility for your actions before blaming everyone else.
Click to expand...

We share some of the blame too. I don't use illegal drugs anymore and when I did, it was rarely drugs that came from the Mexican cartels.

But it is also a fact that if it were not for moral crusaders like you who feel they have the right to tell others what the can and cannot do with their own bodies, pieces of crap like Guzman could not make billions of dollars selling drugs and wouldn't be killing people to protect their trade. Yes, the same would be true if not for the demand for illegal drugs. But the demand is clearly not going to disappear. So we have a choice. We can let murderous thugs like Guzman makes billions of dollars a year meeting that demand, which you apparently want to do. Or we could do the sensible thing and let adults do with their own bodies as they please.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
There was organized crime before and after prohibition.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle.
Click to expand...

http://hubpages.com/hub/Prohibitions-Boost-to-Organized-Crime

“The onset of Prohibition unleashed an unsurpassed level of criminal violence, and violence is the specialty of the gangs” (Abadinksky, 2003, p. 67). Prohibition provided opportunities for gangs to grow into organized crime empires and “led to a new level of criminal organization” (Abadinksky, 2003, p. 67). Prohibition acted as a catalyst for the growth of organized crime by providing an illegal structure for organized crime to generate revenue while denying the government tax revenue on alcohol.

… snip ...

Prohibition resulted in a significant loss in government revenue. “From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing” (Blocker, 2006, p. 236). The “cost of enforcing prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers” . Prohibition’s attempt to clean up America resulted in significant revenue loss for the government and significant revenue gain for organized crime.

… snip ...

The government finally realized prohibition was ineffective and only resulted in an increase in organized crime, a decrease in government revenue, and numerous health problems as a result of unregulated alcohol manufacturing practices. “The conclusive proof of Prohibition’s failure is, of course, the fact that the Eighteenth Amendment became the only constitutional amendment to be repealed” (Blocker, 2006, p. 233).
Click to expand...
 
Wow. Great thread so far! Some good points on both sides. It's been a while since I've given this issue much thought. I am generally in favor of legalization, but I also favor a rather strictly regulated environment rather than the libertarian vision of no prescriptions required.

Among the things that are impacting my opinion, there's a trial going on in my local area about a "pill mill" clinic that is associated with a very high number of overdose deaths. You can access details about the trial here:

http://pd.kansas.com/sp?aff=1100&keywords=Schneider&submit.x=17&submit.y=11&submit=Search

I don't know any more about this that what I read in the papers and on the web about it. If the trial stories are true, then this couple deserves to go to jail for a long time IMO. I want legalization, but I want the same sort of review and regulation of providers as we currently have on pharmaceuticals, not the sort we have on alcohol and tobacco. I certainly don't want to see any less regulation of these sorts of potentially lethal and addictive substances.

If people are able to function, hold down their responsibilities, then I don't have a problem with recreational use. But we need providers that will listen when their loved ones ask the doctor not to prescribe those medications anymore.

Virus said:
There was organized crime before and after prohibition.
Click to expand...

The less harm argument for legalization is pretty persuasive to me. portlandatheist kindly posted the homicide rates by year for 1910 through 1944.
portlandatheist said:
Homicide Rates per 100,000
Click to expand...
Thanks for the numbers. Can you provide a cite? I find that a picture is better than a thousand numbers. I thought it would also be interesting to overlay economic statistics on this chart as well. I've attached a file with a graph that also includes economic indicators for the US. I only found data back to 1929 at Bureau of Economic Analysis . I've attached a file with a graph, but I can't seem to make it display. If someone can tell me the instruction to display it, I will.

There’s clearly an interesting inverse correlation between the GDP and the homicide rate from 1929 on. It has a correlation coefficient of -0.84.

In addition, I notice that the GDP began an upward climb in 1934, just after prohibition was lifted. I think this adds support to the argument that legalization is an effective strategy for harm reduction.

All in all, I find this to be fairly compelling evidence that legalization of other drugs could lead to harm reduction for our current society. Correlation is not causation, but it is an indication of a relationship between the two variables. Clearly the homicide rate and the economy are linked. It's possible that the economy was negatively impacted by prohibition and positive impacted by it's repeal.

dtugg said:
Child abuse has victims. Drug use is a victimless crime.
Click to expand...

I think drug abuse has victims, but victims in the sense that adultery and prostitution have victims and not the way that child abuse has victims. I think these recreational activities are more appropriately classed as ‘sins’ (please ignore the religious connotations, I’m thinking of the social connotations) than ‘crimes’. I do think that there are some similarities with child abuse; specifically, child abuse is also an area where we should focus public policy on harm reduction rather than punishment of offenders.

Tatyana said:
There have been several trials of giving junkies medical grade heroin and safe shooting galleries, and not only does crime decrease, but so do some of the health related issues, like overdose and infection.

In fact, there is some good evidence this method is more effective in getting people off heroin.
Click to expand...
I find this a powerful argument for legalization as well.
It would be far better to have users and addicts being supervised by medical professionals, rather than the bathtub chemistry, illegal labs and illegal trade.
Click to expand...
If they are held to the current standards of good practice, such as the sort of standards that the Schneiders (see link above) are being prosecuted for failing to uphold, I agree with this as well.
I don't know about you, but having drugs being legal is not going to compel me to become a heroin-injecting, coke sniffing, roid head, and I don't think that the situation would differ than much for others.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it wouldn’t be a huge immediate upsurge, I do think there is a problem with an increase in addiction. Legalization makes it more culturally acceptable. With cultural acceptance, the closet users come out in the open and that openness influences others. I don’t see this increase as being sufficient to justify continued prohibition, but I do think it needs to be acknowledged. More people will try them and thus, more people will eventually become problem drug abusers.

dtugg said:
Do you think that the act of drinking alcohol has victims?
Click to expand...

The act of drinking alcohol? No. But I think that alcoholism has many. Prohibition of alcohol is one method that many cultures have used to attempt to prevent those tragedies. Such policies only appear to be successful in regimes of such repressiveness that I’d rather live in an open society and deal with the problems of alcoholism. I support legalization of drugs for the same reason I think it's best to keep alcohol and tobacco legal.

McHrozni said:
Safe-Keeper said:
Child porn is a form of child abuse and a crime where somebody profits, plus it hasn't been weeded out, despite ferocious efforts.

Shall we legalize that as well?

McHrozni
Click to expand...
Child pornography is the distribution of imagery of abused children. This is simply a disgusting practice, and neither government nor private actors have any business doing it. None of the problems revolving around child porn would be solved by its legalization.
Click to expand...

It’s a bit off tangent, but my understanding is that current laws against child-porn make images created without using children illegal – i.e. drawings, photoshopping, etc. There’s no victim in that case.

I am undecided about whether or not it’s reasonable that owning and distributing material of that sort should be a crime. I’d like to hear others opinions on that.

Virus said:
Knock it off with your self-righteous prattle dtugg. You admitted to using every piece of gear under the sun with your druggie friends. You admitted to buying their product. You put that money in their hands because you felt like zonking your neurons. You're the one that created the demand for their product. Now you've got the audacity to tell others that the cartels are their fault? Here's an idea; take responsibility for your actions before blaming everyone else.
Click to expand...

This is a very weak argument in my opinion. I agree that purchasing illegal drugs contributes to perpetuating the crime-ridden system that supplies them. Just as purchasing gasoline is contributing to the global-warming problem that we all face. Some people take that responsibility seriously enough to live a lifestyle off the grid. Some people bike to work. Most of us find the costs of doing so too high. I think you and they are right about being anyone participating in those activities are also responsible in some small way for the problems.

The problem I have with these arguments is that social problems like these are not going to be solved by a voluntary change in behavior when that change has a large cost to the individual and the benefit is distributed across time and society.

I think social policy should focus on effective harm reduction with regard to recreational drug use and addiction. Right now, the most effective policy for achieving that goal appears to me to be legalization with strict oversight of providers and users of potentially lethal drugs.
 

Attachments

geni said:
That doesn't mean that there are not a fair number of people out there who want it.
Click to expand...

Oh? What percentage of the people? Bottom line is that it's not addictive, so it will become more than a minor nuisance. And as you said, it's really easy and cheap to make. So noone is going to make big money off it. Ever. It isn't going to be corrupting governments or financing terrorism. Ever.
 
Beth said:
The less harm argument for legalization is pretty persuasive to me.
Click to expand...

Speaking of harm ...

1. Banning drugs has caused the substances in question to become more valuable ... so valuable that people are willing to kill in order to make/distribute/sell them and so valuable that people must often commit crimes to pay for their use.

2. Banning them has led to more deaths than the drugs would ever have caused due to actual use (tens of thousands of innocents have died in Columbia alone and many, many thousands die in drug-distribution related bloodshed here in the US each year).

3. Banning them has resulted in the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars to the most despicable people in the world and in so doing destroyed the financial foundations of the cities and groups those dollars came from. Those TRILLIONS have been used to undermine OUR political system and been the seed money for other illegal activities.

4. Banning them has caused growing numbers of people (especially our youth) to disrespect our legal and judicial system in other regards.

5. Banning them has empowered the gangs that now infest and terrorize many of our cities.

6. Banning them has caused governments (including our own) to usurp the rights of those not involved in any way in the drug trade ... to significantly erode our freedoms and property rights.

7. Banning them has led to corruption in our legal, judicial and political systems ... so much so that even past and present Presidents are now implicated.

8. Banning them has caused the political systems of neighboring and producing countries to be corrupted and increasingly unstable.

9. Banning them has provided a mechanism for terrorists and groups like the KLA and CIA to fund themselves.

10. Banning them has made it more difficult (and risky) for those who want treatment, to get it.
 
BeAChooser said:
Speaking of harm ...

1. Banning drugs has caused the substances in question to become more valuable ... so valuable that people are willing to kill in order to make/distribute/sell them and so valuable that people must often commit crimes to pay for their use.

2. Banning them has led to more deaths than the drugs would ever have caused due to actual use (tens of thousands of innocents have died in Columbia alone and many, many thousands die in drug-distribution related bloodshed here in the US each year).

3. Banning them has resulted in the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars to the most despicable people in the world and in so doing destroyed the financial foundations of the cities and groups those dollars came from. Those TRILLIONS have been used to undermine OUR political system and been the seed money for other illegal activities.

4. Banning them has caused growing numbers of people (especially our youth) to disrespect our legal and judicial system in other regards.

5. Banning them has empowered the gangs that now infest and terrorize many of our cities.

6. Banning them has caused governments (including our own) to usurp the rights of those not involved in any way in the drug trade ... to significantly erode our freedoms and property rights.

7. Banning them has led to corruption in our legal, judicial and political systems ... so much so that even past and present Presidents are now implicated.

8. Banning them has caused the political systems of neighboring and producing countries to be corrupted and increasingly unstable.

9. Banning them has provided a mechanism for terrorists and groups like the KLA and CIA to fund themselves.

10. Banning them has made it more difficult (and risky) for those who want treatment, to get it.
Click to expand...

All great points BAC and to put things in perspective, Mexico is more violent than Iraq right now and the plague of corruption in Afghanistan is partially due to the drug trade. I especially like your fourth point. The law is unenforceable, unjust and unequally enforced breeding contempt for the law in general which I think is tragic. The war on drugs isn't a metaphor, its real and like any war, many innocent people are being killed as a result.
 
beth said:
The less harm argument for legalization is pretty persuasive to me.
Click to expand...

You must be pretty easily persuaded then. In fact I feel as though I've wandered into a thread full of anarchists given the amount of terminal naivety.

One legalized drug; alcohol, kills 75,000 people a year in the US. It's the third leading cause of death. How about America's other favorite legalized drug? Cigarettes kill 440,000 people a year. It's the leading cause of preventable death. The Mexican drug war killed 10,000 in three years. How many gang-related deaths are there in America every year? Anyone wanna take a shot at that? Just take a guess, is it more or less than 500,000? Need another hint? There's 16,000 murders total every year in the US. So drug related murders are a fraction of that.

So given that legal drugs are the leading cause of death let's turn the government into a nationalized drug cartel to dispense even harder gear that's even more addictive. Good one. If we make hard drugs freely available and cheaper then less people will use them. Sure they will. On Planet X where economic laws run in reverse.


Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/no...r-10000-dead-mexican-drug-war-violence-ebbing
http://www.med.upenn.edu/cirna/pdf/USA_Figures.pdf
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
You must be pretty easily persuaded then. In fact I feel as though I've wandered into a thread full of anarchists given the amount of terminal naivety.

One legalized drug; alcohol, kills 75,000 people a year in the US. It's the third leading cause of death. How about America's other favorite legalized drug? Cigarettes kill 440,000 people a year. It's the leading cause of preventable death. The Mexican drug war killed 10,000 in three years. How many gang-related deaths are there in America every year? Anyone wanna take a shot at that?

So given that legal drugs are the leading cause of death let's turn the government into a nationalized drug cartel to dispense even harder gear that's even more addictive. Good one. If we make hard drugs freely available and cheaper then less people will use them. Sure they will. On Planet X where economic laws run in reverse.


Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/no...r-10000-dead-mexican-drug-war-violence-ebbing
http://www.med.upenn.edu/cirna/pdf/USA_Figures.pdf
Click to expand...

Therefore we should ban alcohol and tobacco, right? That would surely solve the problem.
 
dtugg said:
Therefore we should ban alcohol and tobacco, right? That would surely solve the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should do anything. I'm saying we shouldn't implement your harebrained idea and I'm using the best model of drug legalization we have to poke holes in it. Hack away at that straw all you want. Play bait-and-switch all you want. It won't help you.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
I'm not saying we should do anything. I'm saying we shouldn't implement your harebrained idea and I'm using the best model of drug legalization we have to poke holes in it. Hack away at that straw all you want. Play bait-and-switch all you want. It won't help you.
Click to expand...

You haven't poked holes in anything. All you have is stuff you made up. You have no evidence whatsoever that currently illegal drugs would cause harm at rates similar to currently legal drugs if made legal. None. At. All.

Anyway, the point is that if you think that illegal drugs should remain illegal because they harm people, you should also believe currently legal drugs that harm people should be made illegal. At least if you don't want to be an inconsistent hypocrite. Which is obviously why you refuse to answer the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom