Happy 100th Anniversary, War on Drugs!

[Henry]

I wonder if that's why it's more palatable for European countries to spend more on treatment and less on punitive measures.

How about I keep my property and use it as I choose, and others do the same?

For example, if others want to spend money on treatment or punishment, let them do either with their own property...and leave me to do with mine what I choose.

 

[bonkers1919]

When police arrest someone, the state must provide housing, clothing, food and a lawyer to that person.

Since the 1980's we have been fighting this "war" on drugs. The drug war will never stop as long as the state can make money and create jobs. I see the drug war as a cottage industry that creates jobs. Some examples;

1. The state must now provide housing to the defendant. Construction jobs are created to build more jails and prisons.
2. The state must now provide clothing to the defendant. Clothing jobs are created for prisoner uniforms.
3. The state must now provide food to the defendant. Food industry jobs are created.
4. The state must provide a lawyer to those that can not afford an attorney. More lawyer jobs are created as more are needed as Public Defenders.
5. Elected officials promising more police to counter drug trafficking and use. Police jobs are created.
6. The state has to pass laws concerning drug trafficking. Which drugs are legal or illegal and the amount of a drug that constitutes a crime.

All this for some guy selling $10.00 worth of ( insert the name of any drug ) on a street corner is not going to make any difference in the drug war. You want to conduct a war on drugs? Give me an F-18 loaded with napalm. I'll roll in on a drug lab. Drop napalm on the target, wipe out XXX million dollars of the drug being produced before it can come to market. That's bringing the drug war to any country in the Far East, South American, Afghanistan, etc.

As long as there is money to be made by the state the drug war will continue.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think for a good portion of the pro drug war crowd, it's less about the war on drugs than it is the war on those they associate with drugs.

I think there's a correlation between drug use and wearing of sweatpants and/or yoga pants/leggings. If we stop one, the other will surely stop and there'd be less *****ing and/or ridiculing about both.

It's just a hypothesis at this moment...

 

[Destro]

Crack exists because better, safer drugs are unavailable or too expensive because of prohibition.

If they are legalized and mass produced, they can become as cheap as a box of wine from Costco and nobody will take a second glance at crack.

that seems like something that would have already been created? Drug companies are always trying to make a buck. The comparison of crack on society vs. moonshine is incompatible. And if "legalization" will make it ok for my neighbors to start cooking meth or John Q. Public being able to by crack rocks at Speedway, i'll never get behind it

 

[Destro]

In a justice system chock full of things that I don't understand, I totally can't get my mind around releasing people on the street who have committed terrible violent acts on others in order to make room for people whose greatest crime against humanity is growing a forbidden plant.

ahh if it were as simple as 1 lowly plant leaf. I do believe the conversation would be different.

 

[steveh_131]

that seems like something that would have already been created? Drug companies are always trying to make a buck. The comparison of crack on society vs. moonshine is incompatible. And if "legalization" will make it ok for my neighbors to start cooking meth or John Q. Public being able to by crack rocks at Speedway, i'll never get behind it

How can mass production be created when it's illegal?

How are they not compatible? Why aren't people still cooking moonshine in dangerous stills in their basements? Why aren't people still drinking it and going blind? Because they don't have to. It's gone. Disappeared. It was nothing but a product of the alcohol war.

 

[steveh_131]

What Explains Crystal Meth

Meth has been around for a long time. It is known as the 'poor man's cocaine'. It did not become widely popular until the drug war began.

This changed with Reagan's "War on Drugs," which was effective in raising prices for illegal drugs by imposing greater risks and thus higher costs on production, distribution, and consumption. The initial shock of the war on drugs sent black-market entrepreneurs back to the drawing board; they needed to reduce their risk and their costs. What they came back with included highly potent marijuana, crack cocaine, and crystal meth.

End the drug war and watch crystal meth and crack go the way of blindness-inducing moonshine.

 

[Destro]

How can mass production be created when it's illegal?

How are they not compatible? Why aren't people still cooking moonshine in dangerous stills in their basements? Why aren't people still drinking it and going blind?

Apparently it hasn't since we have TV shows about people who do it and the government agencies to regulate it are still around

 

[Destro]

How can mass production be created when it's illegal?

Mass production of dangerous drugs already takes place, there's nothing stopping the development and mass production of "safe" crack other than a lack of demand

 

[steveh_131]

Apparently it hasn't since we have TV shows about people who do it and the government agencies to regulate it are still around

When is the last time someone went blind from drinking moonshine, destro? Where are the moonshine bootleggers, except in counties where prohibition is still active?

Mass production of dangerous drugs already takes place, there's nothing stopping the development and mass production of "safe" crack other than a lack of demand

What are you talking about? You can't cheaply mass-produce drugs. Why? Because they're illegal.

Are you really suggesting that there is no demand for cheaper, safer drugs?

I think it is becoming apparent that you are arguing in circles to protect the false worldview that you have permanently imprinted in your brain. That is your right, but it is patently incorrect.

 

[Destro]

When is the last time someone went blind from drinking moonshine, destro? Where are the moonshine bootleggers, except in counties where prohibition is still active?



What are you talking about? You can't cheaply mass-produce drugs. Why? Because they're illegal.

Are you really suggesting that there is no demand for cheaper, safer drugs?

I think it is becoming apparent that you are arguing in circles to protect the false worldview that you have permanently imprinted in your brain. That is your right, but it is patently incorrect.

I don't really consider somebody going blind from moonshine newsworthy, and the dangers of moonshine you keep perpetuating are a bit of a reach.

The drug cartels seem to do a pretty good job of cost efficient mass production of illegal goods.

And if there is a demand for cheaper, safer drugs, why hasn't somebody met that demand? To say because it's illegal doesn't make sense.

I really thing the argument has nothing to do with the drugs and everything to do with "authority". I firmly believe the "regulate and tax" folks will be the FIRST to cry foul when we start enforcing the "tax" part. Do you have a problem with jailing people who make their own moonshine? Then, we will be back in the same, never ending circle.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't really consider somebody going blind from moonshine newsworthy, and the dangers of moonshine you keep perpetuating are a bit of a reach.

Have you been reading the thread?

"the death rate from poisoned liquor was appallingly high throughout the country. In 1925 the national toll was 4,154 as compared to 1,064 in 1920. And the increasing number of deaths created a public relations problem for . . . the drys because they weren't exactly accidental."

The drug cartels seem to do a pretty good job of cost efficient mass production of illegal goods.

And if there is a demand for cheaper, safer drugs, why hasn't somebody met that demand? To say because it's illegal doesn't make sense.

This is basic economics, Destro. There is nothing difficult about manufacturing these drugs. They could be stamped out at a factory the way we make aspirin.

Why are they expensive? Because they are illegal. Every detail in the process of manufacturing carries substantial risk with it, and therefore the price goes higher and higher each step of the way. Collecting the ingredients is expensive, securing a location to produce them is expensive, hiring people to do the work and keep their mouth shut is expensive. Hiring people to sell and distribute them is expensive. The larger the operation, the more risky it is and therefore the more expensive it is. There is no way to do it efficiently and cheaply. This is why the cheaper and easier to produce drugs have gained popularity.

I really thing the argument has nothing to do with the drugs and everything to do with "authority". I firmly believe the "regulate and tax" folks will be the FIRST to cry foul when we start enforcing the "tax" part. Do you have a problem with jailing people who make their own moonshine? Then, we will be back in the same, never ending circle.

I'm not a 'regulate and tax' person. I think they should be manufactured and distributed the same way we deal with aspirin.

That said, the less regulation we have the less lucrative the black market will be. Any step in this direction is a good one.

 

[Twangbanger]

...This is why the cheaper and easier to produce drugs have gained popularity.

The illegality of some recreational drugs must certainly discourage some people from using them. If legalization makes it cheaper and eases availability, more people will do it (hence your reference to gained popularity, above). How do we prevent these people from being an unemployable drag on society? The law holds that employers in free society are allowed to test for this stuff. It's a valid concern that we'll have an increasing pool of semi-unemployable people going on- and off-wagon, dodging employment tests.

 

[hornadylnl]

And some people are drawn to things simply because they are forbidden. Look at teenagers and alcohol and compare it to the youth in Europe.

 

[steveh_131]

The illegality of some recreational drugs must certainly discourage some people from using them. If legalization makes it cheaper and eases availability, more people will do it (hence your reference to gained popularity, above). How do we prevent these people from being an unemployable drag on society.

How do we prevent alcoholics from being an unemployable drag on society?

I vote that we focus on ridding ourselves of the entitlements, not throwing people in jail.

 

[Destro]

I think they should be manufactured and distributed the same way we deal with aspirin.

I couldn't imagine a world where you can buy crack for 2 quarters in a men's bathroom

 

[steveh_131]

I couldn't imagine a world where you can buy crack for 2 quarters in a men's bathroom

I feel like you aren't really reading the things that I'm writing.

 

[Twangbanger]

How do we prevent alcoholics from being an unemployable drag on society?

...

We don't; which is precisely why some people are hesitant to add more bodies to the wagon we're pulling. And you've admitted the popularity of these things will increase under legalization. And I've pointed out that employer drug screens aren't going anywhere.

So...

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

How about I keep my property and use it as I choose, and others do the same?

For example, if others want to spend money on treatment or punishment, let them do either with their own property...and leave me to do with mine what I choose.

I firmly believe that, even if you could prove to Americans that treatment is more effective at reducing drug dependency than prison, and at a much reduced cost to taxpayers (I don't know if that's true, I'm just postulating here), we still wouldn't implement it because darnit, it's just not right.

 

[steveh_131]

We don't; which is precisely why some people are hesitant to add more bodies to the wagon we're pulling.

Then I'd like these same people to acknowledge that their logic requires them to also support alcohol prohibition.

And you've admitted the popularity of these things will increase under legalization.

I said no such thing. They might, they might not. If I had to guess, I would guess that there would be a small increase in use with a simultaneous huge decrease in abuse. And the abuse of the ridiculously dangerous drugs would be nearly non-existent.

And I've pointed out that employer drug screens aren't going anywhere.

I doubt many employers would bother to screen for recreational use of legal drugs once we stop the drug war. We would have to see.