The War on Drugs

[California Mountain Snake]

This topic was somewhat broached in the seatbelt law thread in this forum, but rather than sidetrack that discussion I thought I would move the discussion here.

Recreational drugs create a lot of problems in the world. They themselves are dangerous in excess or with especially powerful ones even small quantities can be deadly, but above that there are even more dangerous crimes committed around the production, transport, and selling of illegal recreational drugs on an underground market. Most recently, thousands of people have been killed in Mexico due to increased government crackdowns on Mexico-US border drug-smuggling towns, with an estimated 4000 people killed in Mexico this year alone, and 12,000 total since 2006. In a particularly illustrative article here, it's easy to see how drug use in the US has had major spillover effects; creating gang controlled border towns, facilitating illegal drug trade and in turn increasing illegal gun exports to Mexican gangs, resulting in increased violence and crime levels.

In terms of national security, most terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda, have funded their operations almost exclusively from illegal drug trading, with countries like Afghanistan and North Korea collecting huge portions of their GDP from illegal drug trade. The United States' "War on Drugs," largely regarded as an utter failure, has done little to curb this violence, and in fact by eliminating smaller, less efficient drug operations, the United States has allowed large cartels to do business as never before, vastly increasing the value of their products. This extreme profitability means that the United States would have to seize over 75% of all drug shipments before they drug leaders saw any loss, and in reality only 10-30% of shipments are being seized now, despite ramped up efforts.

The question is, what can be done about this? I am interested to hear your opinions, and below I have detailed mine:

To see an effective end to the vast criminal network associated with the production, distribution, and sale of illegal recreational drugs, the only complete solution that exists is simple: across the board drug legalization. If drugs could be purchased in the same way we buy cigarettes and alcohol, the demand for dangerous, underground drugs would virtually vanish, along with any profit margins that drug lords once enjoyed. Countries like Afghanistan and North Korea would no longer have markets to sell their drugs on if everyone could produce their own for cheap, and an easy source of income for organized crime and terrorist organizations would be abolished, severely weakening these organizations. This decrease in crime, as well as the elimination of drug related arrests, would also leave our police forces more free to deal with other concerns and offer better protection, while reducing tax dollars spend on catching marijuana users.

Moreover, the legalization of drugs has not been proven to lead to an increase in abuse, and in fact countries such as the Netherlands have seen a decrease in the number of hard drug abusers and a vast increase in the number of people who seek help, which can be funded by the government without conflict of interest, resulting in a very low percentage of "problem drug-users" compared to other countries (source). The gateway drug theory, arguing that people who start smoking marijuana will move on to more dangerous drugs for a greater high, has been largely disproven. Moreover, by selling drugs legally they will be subject to the same quality control that regulates all other legally sold products, reducing the chance that dangerous chemicals will be inserted into the drugs.

The final argument is one of freedom. As discussed briefly in the other thread, drug use a consensual crime, where both the seller and the user agree to the act, but the government has outlawed the activity. Using a drug in its own right affects no one but the voluntary consumer. If we are to accept that all people are equal, then it makes no sense that another person can tell you what you are allowed to do to yourself, anymore than you can force another person to do something against their choosing. Only when drug use is combined with activities such as driving can it be made illegal, because of the significant dangers it poses to other people. In addition, although some people may destroy their lives with drugs, being convicted of a even a consensual crime such as smoking pot by the government will ruin a persons' life guaranteed, by spoiling future job opportunities,ability to get insurance and credit, and forcing them to waste their time away in jail on our tax dollars. This makes little sense.

I'm sure that many people will not agree with what I've said, but I would be curious to hear from everyone, especially those who may not agree entirely with what I propose but may agree in part. Widely discussed is the possible legalization of marijuana, which is largely proved to be a mostly harmless drug in comparison with cigarettes; impossible to overdose on and yielding relatively mild results that do not increase violent behavior. Most drug related arrests in the US are related to Marijuana, and for certain it's legalization would have a significant impact on drug crime in the US. If we're going to move in baby steps, I think that marijuana is certainly the first place to start.

Edited August 7, 2009 by California Mountain Snake

[Fei Mao]

I have to agree with your proposal.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Jason W.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I've always believed you should be able to fuck yourself up on any drug you want, for many of the reasons you mentioned, reduction of organized crime due to reduced funding, freedom, etc.

An additional argument that is provided is that if drugs become legalized, the government can tax them (since the price of drugs is going to fall SIGNIFICANTLY due to the fact that they're no longer illegal, which means they can tax them a fair bit). For some areas the amount of money that can be gained through the legalization of these drugs is astronomical.

[grandjackal]

Pretty hard not to agree with that. The question is, how soon will it be before that's reality? The courts are still politicized, and Congress seems to be busy trying to win games rather than be progressive.

When it does happen, do imagine it...Commercials for marijuana.

[Meteor]

I believe the main argument against total legalization is making it so much easier for it to get into young peoples' hands and subsequently addicting them. This already happens with cigarettes, so I guess it's not creating a problem that doesn't already exist.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Meteor

[-Cynthia-]

I actually find these arguments pretty reasonable, especially the freedom one. Using drugs is a personal decision, not something to be mandated by the government. I guess the argument is that if you use drugs, you will become more unsafe and more likely to cause harm to others, but this is very questionable.

It won't get passed anytime soon in the United States though, we're far too conservative at the moment. We can't even legalize marijuana or lower the drinking age to 18, legalizing heroine or whatever would be seen as preposterous.

[Robert]

So everybody get adicted? And more accidents happen because them?

[Crystal Shards]

So everybody get adicted? And more accidents happen because them?

There are quite a few people who would still not use drugs (like myself) if they were legalized, so no, not everyone would get addicted. And contrary to what the PSAs will tell you, not everyone who uses drugs becomes addicted or uses them while driving/working machinery.

My problem with drugs is the whole "doing them while on the job" thing, especially in manufacturing and other jobs where your performance potentially means someone else's life, but I think with hefty prices (fine, prison) and the proper education, that problem can be minimized. What really can't be minimized is the impact a lot of these drugs have on the body (and ultimately the health care system)... I really wouldn't know what to do with that, because some of it might be due to the fact that since a lot of these are illegal, there's other shit added in there. Even with the sale of "pure" drugs though, people can add in their own stuff at home, which makes me wonder if it's even worth it in the end. I know that a lot of health insurance companies would not want to cover a drug user, especially one who adds in his or her own "special ingredients." It's something to think about.

Legalization will never happen though, because of all the "Moms/Students Against Dangerous Decisions" lobbyist groups and politicians needing to get (re)elected.

[quanta]

I'd definitely be in favor of legalizing marijuana at the least. Even if for some crazy reason we paid for people's lung cancer treatment (which I would be very, very against), it'd still be worth cost wise and morally considering how much violence is caused by the illegal trade in it and how much it costs to enforce our current ban.

I don't think I'd be in favor of blanket no-holds barred legalization though. Some things should definitely be more restricted than others even if they become legal. I'd prefer any progressed be careful. Not all illegal drugs are equally profitable or equally harmful/harmless to people besides the user. A drug like PCP is far from being dangerous only to the user. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much more dangerous some of these things are than alcohol as a baseline, so I'd have to do more research if it ever came up as a serious issue.

EDIT: By serious, I mean in that the idea became mainstream enough that such a proposal could actually make it to the floor of congress. Or at least, have a better chance of succeeding than now.

Edited August 7, 2009 by quanta

[Phoenix Wright]

I agree with this, though I think there should be an age limit. The age limit is basically there to save a growing child's brain as much as possible.

Though, if drugs are legalized, how will the sports business work? Across the board more and more athletes will practically be forced to use steroids just to keep up with the ones who do.

[Shuuda]

I agree with this, though I think there should be an age limit. The age limit is basically there to save a growing child's brain as much as possible.

Though, if drugs are legalized, how will the sports business work? Across the board more and more athletes will practically be forced to use steroids just to keep up with the ones who do.

They don't have to legalise all drugs, nor do they have to stop doing drug tests to see if athletes are taking anything to enhance performance.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Shuuda

[Defeatist Elitist]

I mean, obviously if you legalized drugs they would be treated like alcohol or cigarettes. People wouldn't just be handing them to kids in the streets.

[Remmé]

I have something to add. First I should declare my stance. Definitely support legalization. Me? Not a drug person. Like pure blood. No drugs, caffeine, high sugars, etc. Though I have a lot friends into that stuff. They've even tasked me with preparing some of their favourite treats like oils (takes a lot of work to make it good) or simple edible treats. On the subject of marijuana specifically, I've been around to witness their highest highs. It makes them really dazed and tired. They don't want to like run out in public and cause mayhem. It's fine, really.

Legalization seems ideal on a lot of fronts. It's potentially dangerous and harmful to the public, but so are cigarettes. There's nothing I hate more when exiting a building then running into a pack of smokers. What do they do after they're done? Throw it on the ground. There are a lot of dangerous things people can buy from the store, even not licensed.

And of course, there's the growing part. I can't see any bad from that. Not that growing marijuana and stuff is wasted space on our lands.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Rhelm

[Divine Hero Nguyen]

On top of the civil liberty aspect, I support the legalization of marijuana also because of its numerous, possible applications such as biofuel and medicine.Current drug laws prevent full utilization of cannabis.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Divine Hero Nguyen

[Agro]

Doesn't marijuana make you schizo or something?

[Der Kommissar]

No.

Though, surprise surprise, it IS a cancer risk. (Wow, it's like inhaling smoke is BAD for you or something!)

Edited August 8, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Crystal Shards]

If I remember the research correctly, genetic factors, birth complications, and a fucked up childhood have a much stronger effect on whether someone becomes schizophrenic than marijuana (though other drugs like (you guessed it) hallucinogens can trigger episodes).

[Phoenix Wright]

I agree with this, though I think there should be an age limit. The age limit is basically there to save a growing child's brain as much as possible.

Though, if drugs are legalized, how will the sports business work? Across the board more and more athletes will practically be forced to use steroids just to keep up with the ones who do.

They don't have to legalise all drugs, nor do they have to stop doing drug tests to see if athletes are taking anything to enhance performance.

You're right, they don't have to legalize all drugs (I personally never want heroin to be legalized) but according to the topic I was replying to:

To see an effective end to the vast criminal network associated with the production, distribution, and sale of illegal recreational drugs, the only complete solution that exists is simple: across the board drug legalization.

Legalization seems ideal on a lot of fronts. It's potentially dangerous and harmful to the public, but so are cigarettes. There's nothing I hate more when exiting a building then running into a pack of smokers. What do they do after they're done? Throw it on the ground. There are a lot of dangerous things people can buy from the store, even not licensed.

The only problem I see with this is the short-term effect of the legalization. Hard drug users will increase, but only for a short time. Teens that are risk-takers and/or rebellious tend to be the ones who take drugs (according to a video I saw in Health, sorry if I'm incorrect. Though, these traits do seem like it). When drugs are legalized, eventually they'll move onto something else because they have nothing to rebel or take a risk on. Well, some risk-takers will still take drugs, but I see the rebellious group moving onto something completely different. Edited August 8, 2009 by Old Snake

[Agro]

No.

Though, surprise surprise, it IS a cancer risk. (Wow, it's like inhaling smoke is BAD for you or something!)

Actually, I did a little googling and found this and this. It's not proof per se, but it does show that there might be a connection.

[Jyosua]

This has got to be the most retarded proposal I have ever read. Legalize all drugs? That's basically letting people become addicted to them and destroy their lives. Do you really think the government wants to shoulder responsibility for that? Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit, but legalizing ecstasy, crack, cocaine, etc? Sorry, but are you fucking stupid? You assume that usage will go down because it's accessible. The problem with addictive drugs, is that it WON'T go down. Not to mention the effects that shit has on your body...

[California Mountain Snake]

This has got to be the most retarded proposal I have ever read. Legalize all drugs? That's basically letting people become addicted to them and destroy their lives. Do you really think the government wants to shoulder responsibility for that? Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit, but legalizing ecstasy, crack, cocaine, etc? Sorry, but are you fucking stupid? You assume that usage will go down because it's accessible. The problem with addictive drugs, is that it WON'T go down. Not to mention the effects that shit has on your body...

It's not my proposal to be "fucking stupid" about.

Taking a look at numerous examples, it's evident that drug legalization doesn't always have the same effect as you predict. Reasons for this are numerous, but may include increased likelihood for people to seek treatment with the legal complications removed, and increased likelihood that a family member will seek treatment for a loved one because they now no longer have to fear getting them thrown in jail. This is not a case of me "assuming" anything, this is an opinion formed largely from statistical analysis.

It's also easy enough to argue that with double edged policies and ineffective treatment options, the government is already "letting people become addicted to drugs." The ability for our government to fight addiction is deplorable, and mostly relies on backwards, disproven treatment methods which comply best with the law (cold turkey quitting) rather than gradual moderation, a safer and more successful method.

And finally, civil liberties. It doesn't matter that it has shit effects on your body, because the no one, including the government, should have the right to dictate what a consenting adult does to themselves, because what more often happens is that one particular senator's moral view ends up affecting everyone's lives. It is for this reason that our country has had so much trouble getting medical marijuana bills passed, despite the OBVIOUS and PROVEN benefits it provides to the critically or terminally ill. You say "Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit..." Can you not understand that just because you disagree with something, or something is potentially unhealthy, that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal? If you think they're unhealthy, don't do them! It's no excuse for anyone to foist their moral prerogatives onto another just because they think that's the best way to go.

Edited August 13, 2009 by California Mountain Snake

[Jyosua]

This has got to be the most retarded proposal I have ever read. Legalize all drugs? That's basically letting people become addicted to them and destroy their lives. Do you really think the government wants to shoulder responsibility for that? Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit, but legalizing ecstasy, crack, cocaine, etc? Sorry, but are you fucking stupid? You assume that usage will go down because it's accessible. The problem with addictive drugs, is that it WON'T go down. Not to mention the effects that shit has on your body...

And finally, civil liberties. It doesn't matter that it has shit effects on your body, because the no one, including the government, should have the right to dictate what a consenting adult does to themselves, because what more often happens is that one particular senator's moral view ends up affecting everyone's lives. It is for this reason that our country has had so much trouble getting medical marijuana bills passed, despite the OBVIOUS and PROVEN benefits it provides to the critically or terminally ill. You say "Legalizing Marijuana is one thing, though I'm still against that due to cancer risks and shit..." Can you not understand that just because you disagree with something, or something is potentially unhealthy, that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal? If you think they're unhealthy, don't do them! It's no excuse for anyone to foist their moral prerogatives onto another just because they think that's the best way to go.

Actually if your moral perogatives suck or don't exist on a matter, I feel it's my duty to correct them. I'm sorry but drug legalization is retarded because it's going to allow something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Drugs are illegal because they are such a volatile substance. Legalizing them in an attempt to get rid of them isn't going to help! People are still going to be stupid, and are still going to do them. You overestimate the intelligence of the common drug addict. If they had enough intelligence to go seek out help, they likely wouldn't have tried the damn drug in the first place! I do not believe addictive drugs should be allowed on a legal market. This is the same reason I think that certain painkilling drugs like Oxycodone and Oxycontin, which are highly addictive, should be taken off the market and new drugs should be researched to replace them. I think you people should go get addicted to something, so you can personally experience it destroy your life, and then come back here and tell me we should legalize this shit. You're clearly ignorant of what these things do to people.

Governments are supposed to protect their people. Sometimes, this entails protecting them from themselves. In these cases, the right to do whatever you want to yourself is given up in exchange for keeping you safe via laws.

[California Mountain Snake]

Actually if your moral perogatives suck or don't exist on a matter, I feel it's my duty to correct them. I'm sorry but drug legalization is retarded because it's going to allow something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Drugs are illegal because they are such a volatile substance. Legalizing them in an attempt to get rid of them isn't going to help! People are still going to be stupid, and are still going to do them. You overestimate the intelligence of the common drug addict. If they had enough intelligence to go seek out help, they likely wouldn't have tried the damn drug in the first place! I do not believe addictive drugs should be allowed on a legal market. This is the same reason I think that certain painkilling drugs like Oxycodone and Oxycontin, which are highly addictive, should be taken off the market and new drugs should be researched to replace them. I think you people should go get addicted to something, so you can personally experience it destroy your life, and then come back here and tell me we should legalize this shit. You're clearly ignorant of what these things do to people.

Governments are supposed to protect their people. Sometimes, this entails protecting them from themselves. In these cases, the right to do whatever you want to yourself is given up in exchange for keeping you safe via laws.

Again, I am making none of my own claims about how people seek treatment for drugs, so stop using the pronoun "you" and ease up on out of my face. Studies have repeatedly shown that the way drug use is punished in this country, with jail time (and let's be clear, that IS the alternative you are talking about) is completely ineffective at combating addiction. Let's take a look at a legal drug, alcohol. Public endangerment due to alcohol consumption, including drunk driving, is still a crime, and can trigger mandatory treatment from the government in signs of frequent abuse, which is proven much more effective than just locking people up. Even with these monitoring processes and government attempts at forcing moderation, all of this is done without making alcohol illegal. There is no reason that this can't be true for other drugs. Treating addiction with therapy rather than jail time (again, the alternative you seem to support) is thousands of times more effective at actually solving the problem, and universally in countries with increased drug decriminalization, the number of people seeking treatment has skyrocketed. Fact. Having drug use be a punishable crime is literally retarded, even outside of the fact that it causes untold amounts of crime in the US responsible for an estimated 10,000 deaths yearly. Your argument also operates under the claim that somehow current US policy is effective in any way at significant drug deterence, when in fact, as said earlier, US policies have actually worked to make the drug trade more efficient and offer the ability to more widely distribute drugs at cheaper prices than ever before. More laws will not solve the problem, and even the current laws are arguably part of the problem.

Also, despite how happy I am that you have opinions, and this makes special, your view that you somehow have a right to control others' moral prerogatives is completely inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, documents which outline US legal philosophy.

[Jyosua]

Also, despite how happy I am that you have opinions, and this makes special, your view that you somehow have a right to control others' moral prerogatives is completely inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, documents which outline US legal philosophy.

I've read the bill of rights. And exercising my right to lobby against something I view as retarded, and succeed in doing so, thus making your proposal ineffective, is in no way violating that bill of rights.

I propose that if you want tolerance on drugs, you move to the Netherlands. They're more likely to try your proposal there.

[California Mountain Snake]

Also, despite how happy I am that you have opinions, and this makes special, your view that you somehow have a right to control others' moral prerogatives is completely inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, documents which outline US legal philosophy.

I've read the bill of rights. And exercising my right to lobby against something I view as retarded, and succeed in doing so, thus making your proposal ineffective, is in no way violating that bill of rights.

I propose that if you want tolerance on drugs, you move to the Netherlands. They're more likely to try your proposal there.

The right to persuade people to follow your beliefs and allowing them to make a choice is entirely different than shunting any illusions of choice by legally obligating them to conform to your ways. Understanding that all men are created equal is incompatible with the delusion that you somehow have the right to control another person's habits as they pertain to themselves.

Edited August 13, 2009 by California Mountain Snake