Why the war on drugs can't be won

[PeshakJang]

I want a million dollars, but I am not robbing a bank to get it.

A lot of people do... And liquor stores, and jewelry stores...

 

[shira]

The only proponents of that idea are those that choose to consciously ignore the many aspect of reality that would make it completely untenable as a way to combat drug violence.

Instead of vague, hand-waving shit like your post, why don't you list the "many aspects of reality" that would make untenable the legalization, regulation, controlled distribution, and taxation of illegal drugs? And explain to us why this exact same approach, when applied to alcohol, was extremely effective in eliminating the organized crime associated with Prohibition, yet would NOT be extremely effective for illegal drugs?

 

[xj0hnx]

The US is detaining accused terrorist without a trial, so where do we draw the line at?

Which one does more damage to society:

1 - someone sets off a bomb and kills a few people

2 - someone imports several tons of drugs which kills people

Why aren't people who import drugs treated the same way as people who try to import bombs?

There was a guy on the world news last night that was accused of trying to buy bomb making material. But when someone is arrested for importing drugs, it barely makes the news.

You do understand there is a universe of difference between a terrorist blowing up people that don't want to be blown up, and people choosing to take drugs? If you can't understand even the most fundamental differences between the things you are trying to compare then it is hopeless talking to you.

 

[JS80]

I want a million dollars, but I am not robbing a bank to get it.

There are plenty of people who want a million dollars who go start their own business or save money to achieve it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Instead of vague, hand-waving shit like your post, why don't you list the "many aspects of reality" that would make untenable the legalization, regulation, controlled distribution, and taxation of illegal drugs? And explain to us why this exact same approach, when applied to alcohol, was extremely effective in eliminating the organized crime associated with Prohibition, yet would NOT be extremely effective for illegal drugs?

This. A lot of the harm from illegal drugs comes from the fact that they are unregulated and often dirty and impure. It makes it really hard to judge doseage and is the primary cause for unnecessary overdose. If I go up to the bar and ask for a beer, and instead they give me a can of everclear with rat poison, you can't say 'alcohol is bad because techboyjk just overdosed on it'.

No. Had I gotten the dose I wanted and could handle, I would have been perfectly fine. Start wrapping up cocaine, which is pure and manufactured in a regulated lab, in labels that tell you exactly what you are getting, and overdoses would go down drastically.

With all the potential harms that would come from poorly made and impure alcohol, and unregulated doses, you could easily make it illegal, watch people start getting sick, and demonize it just the same as heroin.

 

[xj0hnx]

I can buy guns in a store. Has this solved gun trafficking and related crime?

Guns =/= drugs. Guns are a lot more expensive for one thing, and the trafficking of guns is in either illegal guns, or illegal buyers. Comparison fail.

When the government starts selling cocaine and heroine, who becomes responsible for the health costs and violence associated with it?

The same people that are responsible for the health cost and violence associated with liquor.

Will the government be held responsible for taking care of addicts that visit the cocaine store once a day? What happens when an addict is refused service? You can't really sell cocaine to somebody that is high on cocaine, after all. What happens when that person goes crazy? Will you have to have armed guards and fortified government drug distribution centers? Where will you put them?

That's just retarded. There is no "taking care of addicts that visit the cocaine store". You make it sound like drugs are some debilitating habit when the reality is that people are on drugs all around you. Whether it's illegal drugs, lawyers/businessmen snorting coke, people popping pills (much bigger "epidemic" than illegal drugs), drinking, etc...

What about lawsuits later? Tobacco companies have paid out the wazoo for selling a harmful product, and they still deal with the negative health consequences of their customers. Will the government do this?

That's a bridge to cross when we come to it, but once again, the same people that already have to deal with it, the companies that make the products. I thought you believed in the free market?

Or will the government require all users to sign a form stating that if they buy the heroine, nobody else is responsible for their health? What happens to universal health coverage? Will companies be prohibited from charging more to cover drug users? Who will pay the emergency room bills when they OD? Who will take care of their families when they die from usage?

I could go on, but you get the point.

You could go on, but it would still be just as irrelevant because guess what? Keeping drugs illegal hasn't stopped any of those things at all. We already pay for the problems associated with it, such as People OD, though less would because they would have a clean, regulated product. Families already have to deal with losing loved ones, we already pay the emergency room bills

I could go on, but you get the point

These drugs are illegal for a reason. Government sanction will not change the nature of the drug or the negative consequences associated with using it. You may reduce one problem, but you then become responsible for a whole slew of other problems.

Most due to knee jerk reactions to unintended consequences. Keeping them illegal hasn't changed anything, or had any effect on the negative consequences associated with using.

 

[cybrsage]

There are obviously some drugs which should never be legalized. Meth is a very harmful drug, for example.

Onto the lighter drugs, such as pot, we need to create a roadside "breathalizer" type of test to see if you are currently under the influence of it while driving. We also need to make DUIs horrifically terrible to ever get. $5000 fine and a minimum of 6 months in prison for your first offense. Second offence is a $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison. Third offense is life in prison without parole.

DUI simply mains and kills WAY too many innocent people for us to flippantly increase the number of people who will drive while under the influence. We need to crush the current alcohol DUI while, at the same time, taking care of the newly created drug DUI increase caused by legalizing any of the mind altering drugs.

 

[Texashiker]

You do understand there is a universe of difference between a terrorist blowing up people that don't want to be blown up, and people choosing to take drugs? If you can't understand even the most fundamental differences between the things you are trying to compare then it is hopeless talking to you.

The acts might be different, but both have a negative affect on society.

I see no difference in someone who brings drugs into the US, and someone who tries to bring a bomb into the US. Both types of people harm society.

Is there a difference between being killed with a knife, and being killed with a gun? You are dead either way. Sure there is a difference between a knife and a gun, but the end result is the same, the victim is dead.

 

[blankslate]

On another note I heard a caller on a radio show who claimed to be an acquaintance to a few marijuana growers from northern California and he said that they would like that to still be illegal so they can make more profits...

interesting if it's true.

 

[xj0hnx]

The acts might be different, but both have a negative affect on society.

Not all effects of drugs are bad, so once again, comparison failure.

I see no difference in someone who brings drugs into the US, and someone who tries to bring a bomb into the US. Both types of people harm society.

That's just simplistic, and stupid, but wouldn't be an issue if drugs were legalized.

Is there a difference between being killed with a knife, and being killed with a gun? You are dead either way. Sure there is a difference between a knife and a gun, but the end result is the same, the victim is dead.

??? Irrelevant?

 

[xj0hnx]

On another note I heard a caller on a radio show who claimed to be an acquaintance to a few marijuana growers from northern California and he said that they would like that to still be illegal so they can make more profits...

interesting if it's true.

Yip. No one that is making tons of cash off drugs because they are illegal wants them legalized, because as has been said, when you take that from them, they have nothing.

 

[PeshakJang]

Guns =/= drugs. Guns are a lot more expensive for one thing, and the trafficking of guns is in either illegal guns, or illegal buyers. Comparison fail.

The comparison is valid. Something being legal in some form does not mean that illegal markets do not persist.

The same people that are responsible for the health cost and violence associated with liquor.

The health consequences of most illegal drugs are more immediate as well as longer lasting then alcohol. Equating the two as your main argument is idiotic. It would be equivalent to equating handgun sales to automatic weapon sales. We can all agree that some weapons do not belong in the hands of the everyday citizen. Same goes for drugs.

That's just retarded. There is no "taking care of addicts that visit the cocaine store". You make it sound like drugs are some debilitating habit when the reality is that people are on drugs all around you. Whether it's illegal drugs, lawyers/businessmen snorting coke, people popping pills (much bigger "epidemic" than illegal drugs), drinking, etc...

So are you going to write prescriptions? Or do you need a permit? What happens when you cannot get any more? How many people rob houses to be able to afford alcohol vs those that rob to afford heroin?

You attempt to cite the fact that many people use something without incident while simultaneously ignoring the fact that these drugs are extremely addictive and can be extremely deadly, even when used "properly". There are no medicinal uses. Those drugs already exist in pharmaceutical grade substances with controlled distribution.

That's a bridge to cross when we come to it, but once again, the same people that already have to deal with it, the companies that make the products. I thought you believed in the free market?

What company is going to step up and sell cocaine at Walgreens? How long will they be in business until they are sued out of existence? Who will force insurance companies to not drop coverage of known heroin users?

Free market has nothing to do with it, unless you also believe that the free market should rule firearms. You are taking the position that there is no difference between a handgun and a machine gun, when in reality there is, and regulations exist to protect society from those that would misuse them.

You could go on, but it would still be just as irrelevant because guess what? Keeping drugs illegal hasn't stopped any of those things at all. We already pay for the problems associated with it, such as People OD, though less would because they would have a clean, regulated product. Families already have to deal with losing loved ones, we already pay the emergency room bills

I could go on, but you get the point

Your point is nothing but false equivalences. People OD, so if we make it easier for them to get the product, they will OD less. There is no equating cocaine with alcohol or any other legal drug... Unless you think that every drug available right now in prescription form should be available over the counter. People are going to get Vicodin illegally, so if we make it easier, they won't use it. Right?


Most due to knee jerk reactions to unintended consequences. Keeping them illegal hasn't changed anything, or had any effect on the negative consequences associated with using.

You can't make that statement, because they haven't been legal at any comparable time. You can't point to a period and say, they were legal then and these problems today exist because they were made illegal. I can surmise what the consequences will be should they become legal, because we know full well the addictive and harmful nature of them.

And we Haven't even spoken about the cartels. Do you think they will just abandon their largest market and start farming?

You are the one not thinking this through. Your assumptions fly in the face of reality and are based entirely on your false equivalence between alcohol and coke/heroin.

See bolded

 

[PeshakJang]

Yip. No one that is making tons of cash off drugs because they are illegal wants them legalized, because as has been said, when you take that from them, they have nothing.

Goes along with my post... But do you think those same people would allow their business to dissolve because of legalization?

 

[dank69]

Goes along with my post... But do you think those same people would allow their business to dissolve because of legalization?

What other option is there? Move on to something else is the only option.

 

[bfdd]

Shouldn't drug dealers be treated as terrorist?

If so, lets round them up, and detain them forever without a trial.




My personal opinion would be to destroy everything and kill everyone associated with illegal drug productions - expect weed. I see no reason for marijuana to be illegal.

Instead of physically bombing the area, use a neutron bomb

Not unless their purpose is to cause terror should they be considered a terrorist. If they're selling something they think makes people feel good, what terror do they cause? none, so stop being a closed minded douche.

 

[PeshakJang]

What other option is there? Move on to something else is the only option.

They haves lot of guns, a lot of money, and cannot be stopped by law/government (as this whole argument is based on).

What would you do?

 

[dank69]

They haves lot of guns, a lot of money, and cannot be stopped by law/government (as this whole argument is based on).

What would you do?

If I had a lot of money, I'd quit my job and golf every day. :hmm: Is this the type of legal drug apocalypse you are trying to prevent?

 

[woolfe9999]

The acts might be different, but both have a negative affect on society.

I see no difference in someone who brings drugs into the US, and someone who tries to bring a bomb into the US. Both types of people harm society.

Is there a difference between being killed with a knife, and being killed with a gun? You are dead either way. Sure there is a difference between a knife and a gun, but the end result is the same, the victim is dead.

The difference between being killed with a gun or a knife is a bad analogy. The important difference here is being killed against your will versus voluntarily putting something into your body which might kill you.

Also, many of us think we shouldn't be detaining suspected terrorists without a trial either, so that is another reason this comparison fails.

- wolf

 

[PeshakJang]

If I had a lot of money, I'd quit my job and golf every day. :hmm: Is this the type of legal drug apocalypse you are trying to prevent?

How many CEOs quit when they have a lot of money?

 

[soundforbjt]

How many CEOs quit when they have a lot of money?

Not enough?

 

[sm625]

You just need to get with the program. The drug war has been a huge success! It has created an entire industry-- the prison industry. Thousands of jobs! And the gun sales? And the sales of security systems! And millions of police pensions are almost entirely justified by the drug war. Entire departments, like the DEA, would never be able to justify their budgets without a war on mary jane! And and and come on now it has helped the rich get richer. What is wrong with that!?