Josh Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) I fail to see how The War On Drugs has significantly reduced their availability. Most people seem to avoid them for the stigma of use more than any fear of incarceration. If we simply used the DEAs money for treatment instead of enforcement I think the problem could be handled, with the side benefit that most of the violent crime globally associated with drug trafficing would disappear. I fail to see a down side. Edited January 19, 2009 by jua
Catalan Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 * Violence along the border is cutting into the tourista biz and the potential growth of Mex. employment from relocating U.S. industries. I just moved back to San Diego, California, and I was surprised to see the decrease in tourism to Tijuana. Tijuana has been particularly violent lately; even during the day. An ex-co-worker of a friend of mine told us that you can see heavily armed gunmen (body guards) in broad daylight now, if there is something important going on (a meeting). I at first thought that the violence targeted specifically policemen, but apparently adolescents going over the border to party (since drinking age is 18) have been killed, as well. A friend of mine got the s*** beat out of him down there; he got lucky.
Paul in Qatar Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Hmmm, I'd rather logically conclude from this that "therefore" we ought to start willing. Say... kill every single Afghani found closer than 10km to the nearest poppy field... OK, so I can put you down in the "Bigger Hammer" camp then?
Guest aevans Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 I fail to see how The War On Drugs has significantly reduced their availability. Most people seem to avoid them for the stigma of use more than any fear of incarceration. If we simply used the DEAs money for treatment instead of enforcement I think the problem could be handled, with the side benefit that most of the violent crime globally associated with drug trafficing would disappear. I fail to see a down side. Because we don't fightthe war in a way that would reduce availability. If we were serious about it being a war, we would summarily execute as distributors anybody caught with more than a single dose on their persons. That would dry up supply pretty quickly. Tryingto treat users is humane but ultimately folley. Addicts do drugs because they have problems that don't go away just because you put them in rehab for a month. You want them to stay clean? Take away the supply, because they'll get high, most of them, no matter how much or how many times you "cure" them.
Guest aevans Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 OK, so I can put you down in the "Bigger Hammer" camp then? It's your camp when it comes to anything other than drugs. Like I said, you're not exactly consistent.
Jeff Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Some battles are worth fighting even if there is no end point likely to be found because the unbridled effects of capitulation are far worse.
Paul in Qatar Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Yep. Doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.
JWB Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Incorrect. The reason you are incorrect is contained in this little gem of misanalysis:The problem with the drugs on the DEA Schedule of controlled substances is that they are far more potent than nicotine or even alcohol. They are not recreational. Taken strictly from the pharmacological standpoint, their pathology is remarkable. They predictably destroy lives at a far greater rate than tobacco or alcohol, and much more quickly. The big problem with the War on Drugs is that we call it a war but are unwilling to fight it as one. You decry the violence and the cost, Paul? What is war but violence and cost? You, of all people, given you previous statements about what we should be doing to win the war against Islamic extremism, should be calling for exactly the same approach to the War on Drugs. But you don't, because it hits a little too close to home. Some people you know might get hurt. You're a hypocrite, Paul.A little bit of research.> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/ma...drugsandalcohol Professor Nutt and his team analysed the evidence of harm caused by 20 drugs including heroin, cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy, LSD and tobacco. They asked a group of 29 consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction to rate the drugs in nine categories. Three of these related to physical harm, three to the likelihood of addiction and three to social harms such as healthcare costs. The team also extended the analysis to another group of 16 experts spanning several fields including chemistry, pharmacology, psychiatry, forensics, police and legal services. The final rankings placed heroin and cocaine as the most dangerous of the 20 drugs. Alcohol was fifth, the class C drug ketamine sixth and tobacco was in ninth place, just behind amphetamine or "speed". Cannabis was 11th, while LSD and ecstasy were 14th and 18th respectively. The rankings do take into account new evidence that specially cultivated "skunk" varieties of cannabis available now are two to three times stronger than traditional cannabis resin. Probably the ultimate solution is to develop anti-drugs, chemicals that block the drug in question from even getting into the brain.
Vasiliy Fofanov Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 OK, so I can put you down in the "Bigger Hammer" camp then? As far as I am concerned no hammer is too big against this scourge. Many more lives will be saved if we eliminated the drug supply chains than can ever be saved in the WOT (which, if you are looking for wars that can be safely abandoned, is one of them )
Paul in Qatar Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I think you are wrong, but suspect at this point the statistics can prove either point of view. Let me ask you this; did the repeal of (American) Prohibition (of alcohol) increase or decrease the amount of human suffering? Is this not a close model to legalization of recreational drugs?
Gunguy Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 No Paul, it is not close to Prohibition. The drugs are far, far stronger and harm the body much quicker. I agree we do not fight the drug problem with any enthusiasm. Now with terrorists around every corner, the drug issue has been sidelined. The point is that you have to compare legalized drugs, to the opium dens at the turn of the century. They were so bad, and so destructive to the clientèle, that government finally had to ban them. Once caught in the snare of the opium smoke, people could not get out. There were no "recreational" users. Well, very few anyway. It is a matter of degree, the good drugs that people really like are dangerous in everyday use. Alcohol is also very dangerous and kills more than any war we are in. But, we tolerate it because people like it so much. It is not rational, but it is what it is!
Paul in Qatar Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 ... The drugs are far, far stronger and harm the body much quicker. ... Well cannabis is not, ecstasy is not, heroin (weirdly) is not, I don't know about cocaine. Further people do kick all sorts of addictions all the time. If these drugs were legal, people would only be hurting themselves. While they are illegal we are funding all these Bad Guys around the world.
Guest aevans Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 If these drugs were legal, people would only be hurting themselves. You really believe that, don't you?
toysoldier Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Well cannabis is not, ecstasy is not, heroin (weirdly) is not, I don't know about cocaine. Further people do kick all sorts of addictions all the time. Yup, drugs do no harm whatsoever
Old Tanker Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Yup, drugs do no harm whatsoever How much of a drug problem exists in Cuba today ?
Paul in Qatar Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 So your role model is Cuba? I am not ready to follow down that road.
Vasiliy Fofanov Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 If these drugs were legal, people would only be hurting themselves. My former school friend died from drug OD. This was 15 years ago and I am still mad as hell about this. You are telling me I should accept his "free, adult choice" to snuff out his life at 19? Well I am telling you you are nuts, no offense. How would it have helped him if the drugs were legal. What a load of bull.
Vasiliy Fofanov Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 So your role model is Cuba? I am not ready to follow down that road. My role model in this is Iran or China. Shoot the drug dealers in public, hang them from the cranes above city squares. That's the proper way of dealing with them.
Paul in Qatar Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 My former school friend died from drug OD. This was 15 years ago and I am still mad as hell about this. You are telling me I should accept his "free, adult choice" to snuff out his life at 19? Well I am telling you you are nuts, no offense. How would it have helped him if the drugs were legal. What a load of bull. If drugs were legal, your friend would most-likely be dead, but we would still have with us several dozen policemen, several hundred drug sellers and several thousand innocent bystanders who have been hurt in this war. My role model in this is Iran or China. Shoot the drug dealers in public, hang them from the cranes above city squares. That's the proper way of dealing with them. OK, so noted. You have no solution that is acceptable to the people of the United States or any civilized country. So good luck with that.
Guest aevans Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 If drugs were legal, your friend would most-likely be dead, but we would still have with us several dozen policemen, several hundred drug sellers and several thousand innocent bystanders who have been hurt in this war. And not have with us all of the people whose lives would have been ruined because drugs were "acceptable". Can't do math like that, Paul. Sometimes, as you are so fond of pointing out to us, you have to stand on principle, even...no, especially when there's a cost involved. OK, so noted. You have no solution that is acceptable to the people of the United States or any civilized country. So good luck with that. Who says we live in a civilized country. If you ask, me, we live in a post-civilization. We still have around us many of the benefits of civilization, but we don't do what truly civlized people do -- kill the barbarians without shedding a tear.
Josh Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Because we don't fightthe war in a way that would reduce availability. If we were serious about it being a war, we would summarily execute as distributors anybody caught with more than a single dose on their persons. That would dry up supply pretty quickly. Tryingto treat users is humane but ultimately folley. Addicts do drugs because they have problems that don't go away just because you put them in rehab for a month. You want them to stay clean? Take away the supply, because they'll get high, most of them, no matter how much or how many times you "cure" them. I'll file that as even more unlikely to happen than legalization, for political reasons. Also, unless you're throwing alcohol addiction in with that and willing to revisit prohibition, I fail to see how ultimately that would solve addiction problems. People will huff paint if that's whats available.
Josh Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 You really believe that, don't you? They'd be hurting far less anyway. Loved ones would still be affected, but if there's drug organization selling it (as opposed to the Government) there goes a big section of crime. If the price reflected actual raw materials cost and not the inflation of illegal transportation, the actually cost to the user goes way down and there goes some of the associated theft. For what DEA costs everyone who was a victom of drug related theft could get a new flat screen tv or laptop. That's ignoring the massive cost of incarceration which, I suspect, is larger than the DEAs budget. That ignores local law enforcement costs associated purely with drug related issues. The cost in dollar terms is staggering. All so that I can walk down the corner of whatever city I'm in and get what I want anyway. Shore of a draconian use of force, I fail to see law enforcement getting any traction or even limiting use; *my impression* is that they just up the price of the final product in terms of money and social cost. I suspect, as Paul noted, statistics could be used to prove either point. But having been around many people who use recreationally let me say I'm not impressed with The Wars results in anything other than financial cost.
Josh Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 And not have with us all of the people whose lives would have been ruined because drugs were "acceptable". So you advocate prohibition?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now