The War on Drugs is an Epic Fail.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Nobel group decries war on drugs.

 

 

The war on drugs must end and the battle to change international drug policies must begin, says a new report from the London School of Economics.

 

Five Nobel Prize-winning economists signed off on the 84-page report entitled Ending the Drug Wars: Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy authored by leading drug policy experts and supported by political figures from around the world calling for drug law reform.

 

And expensive bust.  Bafflegab and failure.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Well as long as human exist, illegal drugs will also exist. It's a war against humanity. I don't think the government or any person can totally do anything about that. This problem has existed for immemorial but its good to see some people actually do something about it. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

it wont be long till its legal in every state in the US.

they will see the tax money it generates and it will be passed quickly.

heck it might ever free up some jobs from the chronic potheads who will go to work high and wonder why they got fired.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Well changing times. As the old saying goes, if you can't beat your enemy, join them. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Basically concludes what some people have been saying for a while: a lot of money and resources spent and in the end it hasn't been successful in cutting back on drug abuse.

 

It is encouraging to see that minds are starting to change, though.

 

While it is tough to argue that recreational drug use does no harm, it will happen whether it is legal or not since there will always be a demand. Given this, having it legal and closely regulated is a lesser evil than having it illegal and happening outside of the government's watch, where additional harm comes to consumers on account of illegal practices (HIV from sharing needles, nasty fillers in drugs sold on the street, violence from gangs fighting over control of the black market, etc.).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Might as well give up on all "illegal" drugs.  None of them were illegal in Canada before 1923.  If someone wants to kill himself with heroin, let him.  It is a form of natural selection.

 

The tax revenue from all this should assuage any parliamentary consciences.  The blue stocking era has passed.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It is such a terrible idea to just let all drugs become legal. Do you have any idea what you are opening your doors for? Big Drugs. Can you imagine, adds on tv for the latest shot of heroin or crystal meth? Advertisements on the road? Shops selling all that $%&^!? Big corporations with a monetary incentive to sell as much drugs to as many people as possible? And you know whats best? Their product is addictive so they can be sure that once they get someone started, those people will become life time customers. Just look at Colorado. Legalizing pot there didnt just mean that people could sell weed and smoke it, but it immediately spawned a whole business where weed becomes the ingredient for other things as well. Pot lollies, pot cake, pot bread, pot everything. Smoking it is one thing, but to be able to use pot as an ingredient in pretty much everything else? Stupid. 

 

Of course, once they are in place and making tons of money they will make sure that the rules benefit them, and that they cannot be held responsible for what their customers do while high on their products. 

 

Alcohol and to a certain extend pot are relatively benign drugs. Alcohol generally is to watered down and therefor requires quite a lot of consumption before people become addicted, and the effects of pot are not to extensive either. But the heavier drugs? Not only are they extremely addictive, they also make you behave unpredictably and really, someone high on smack cannot function in society. They cannot do a job and provide themselves with a stable income. And that is where the real problems of drug abuse stem from. Not the abuse itself, but the fact that the abusers are generally without an income and as a result resort to criminal behavior such as stealing or prostitution to get the money for their next hit. So what legalizing hard drugs actually does is increase the number of people who use said hard drugs and who in return get turned into addicts who cannot function in society anymore. 

 

The war on drugs doesn't work, sure, but the answer is not to therefor just legalize everything. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Take a longer view.  It is one way to eliminate the excess population of damned fools.  The period of disruption shouldn't be more than two or three decades.  As far as advertising is concerned, treat it all like tobacco.  Package warnings, etc. etc.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Take a longer view.  It is one way to eliminate the excess population of damned fools.  The period of disruption shouldn't be more than two or three decades.  As far as advertising is concerned, treat it all like tobacco.  Package warnings, etc. etc.

Except that the only quality this would filter would be your ability to say no to drugs. So it doesn't actually filter out any kind of really negative qualities such as actual stupidity. 

[jmsepe 2,038]

I'd spent the money on drug wars to different aspects instead (education, health, social security, etc). Legalizing drugs will not only save money, it will also add a positive cash flow and best of all, no need to deal with illegal operators unless we are talking about smuggling. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I'd spend the money on drug wars to different aspects instead (education, health, social security, etc). Legalizing drugs will not only save money, it will also add a positive cash flow and best of all, no need to deal with illegal operators unless we are talking about smuggling. {typo fixed -anm}

Not only would this expense be done away with, but the taxation of recreational drugs would result in serious revenue as well as the savings you've noted.  The economy of Afghanistan would be improved because it would no longer be necessary for the farmers to sell their opium to drug cartels, but on the open market.

 

Availability of purified opiates would also be of considerable benefit to the Pharmaceutical Industry as well as to Medicine.  Artificial drugs like Demerol could be done away with, and more products like Paregoric for topical oral pain could be brought back.  It was in use when I was a kid for teething pain.  (Paregoric is a tincture of opium).

 

The effect on the Cocaine cartels would be drastic.  They would be wiped out or incorporated into the Pharmaceutical World Conglomerate.

 

A general campaign against the use of 'designer drugs' could be quite effective since the real thing, in purified forms, could be had.  We could even return Coca-Cola to its original formula using Coca leaves.  Wouldn't need so much sugar in it to get a rush.

 

The part of the population that went around high would soon find out they were generally unemployable.  No welfare payments for dopes would reduce them to a (brief) life of crime before they were sent to the appropriate concentration camps.  Somewhere north of 60 I think.

 

And a bit of social stigma should be attached to dopes.  I remember a bumper sticker from long ago:

I'd rather be a goat roper than a doper.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Positive changes indeed, now we just need more liberal people to approve of this policy. The problem with this is that people have different degree of tolerance brought about by culture, religion and traditions. Not many will see other side of the coin, its not like all policies only have positive effects but a beneficial compromise against something we could virtually do nothing about is already a package treat in itself. 

 

Pardon the typos. I haven't been getting sleep lately, effects of drugs? 

[LexusInfernus 908]

Such a blatant overestimation of the benefits and underestimation of the costs. If hard drugs became freely available like cigarettes or alcohol, crime will go up, unemployment will go up, economic performance will drop (drastically reducing the tax revenue), healthcare costs would rise dramatically, teenage pregnancy rates would go up, school performance would decrease and more people would drop out. And if you were to cut out all drug addicts from the social security system, you would essentially be advocating a policy of drug induced genocide. 

 

Congratulations, you sorta stopped illegal drug trafficking, and you ruined the economy and the country in the process. 

 

Seriously, your medicine is worse than the disease. 

[jmsepe 2,038]

It's a matter of moderation. Too much of everything would result to those stated opinions above whether it is drugs, alcohol or anything else for that matter. It's not like only drugs are responsible for those, although likely to happen but to blame drugs as a main catalyst for it is more of an assumption either. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

It's a matter of moderation. Too much of everything would result to those stated opinions above whether it is drugs, alcohol or anything else for that matter. It's not like only drugs are responsible for those, although likely to happen but to blame drugs as a main catalyst for it is more of an assumption either. 

Drugs, especially hard drugs can be extremely addicting. Its not a question of moderation when you are dealing with Crack. Use it once and BOOM, you're addicted. Crystal Meth, same thing, use it a few times and you are addicted. You do not want those things to be legal and freely available to almost everyone. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Depends on what you mean by freely available.  Hard drugs can be controlled the same way as hard liquor.  Just stop all the waste of the war on drugs, legalize them, and slap on some taxes and controls.  Is that so hard? 

 

You have to be careful with the tax level or you will cause a black market, but a lot of this can be shut down at the borders.  Getting the appropriate legislation through various governments will be the big problem, but dangling the carrot of budgetary advantage should help.

 

The gradual introduction of such a policy will result in some dislocations, but then look at the harm that resulted from the Volstead Act in the U.S.  The same thing is going on now with the hard drugs to say nothing of the designer drugs you can make in your basement.  This has got to stop if only to eliminate the criminal element.

 

So, my Dutch friend, how would you approach this failed solution, and solve it?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Depends on what you mean by freely available.  Hard drugs can be controlled the same way as hard liquor.  Just stop all the waste of the war on drugs, legalize them, and slap on some taxes and controls.  Is that so hard? 

No you can't. Hard liquor is freely available to all who are old enough and go to a bar or liquor store. And great, you tax it, but you can spend all that tax money on rehab and law enforcement because suddenly there are a lot more addicts and criminals around. And your tax base decreases as less people work and don't have any taxable income and also consume less products other than drugs. Economic performance decreases as more people drop out of high school and the workforce further hitting your tax base. Seriously, its just extremely stupid policy to legalize highly addictive and highly disruptive substances. 

 

So, my Dutch friend, how would you approach this failed solution, and solve it?

 

De-criminalize the possession and use of soft drugs like weed, regulate the production and sale of weed, lower penalties on the possession and use of hard drugs (instead of jail, how about mandatory rehab?), but keep going after the production and sale of hard drugs. Also, shift the focus from reactive punishment to proactive prevention of drug use, and reduce the demand part of drugs. No demand = no more drug pushers.  

[jmsepe 2,038]

Impossible, as long as there are people, there will be demand, there will be suppliers and one thing left is to make a compromise against this or leave it as is. The government can continue to wage war but its not like there will be ending, otherwise this problem should have already been solved. 

 

I have one solution though and this might be literally brutal, if I can't stop drugs in the world at least I can stop it in my country. How? By authoritarian government. Kill all drug suppliers and rehabilitate drug user but with sanctions to be provided later on. Inflict fear in the people about what illegal drugs can do and what the government will do if you get caught. Also, give incentives to those who will help in removing drugs in the country. Drugs just like any other addictions only have two extreme sides, either you eliminate it all or legalize it. Pick your choice. 

 

The scenario I gave is not a theory, it is a working system in the City of Davao, one of the safest place in the planet. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Alcohol and to a certain extend pot are relatively benign drugs. Alcohol generally is to watered down and therefor requires quite a lot of consumption before people become addicted, and the effects of pot are not to extensive either. But the heavier drugs? Not only are they extremely addictive, they also make you behave unpredictably and really, someone high on smack cannot function in society. They cannot do a job and provide themselves with a stable income. And that is where the real problems of drug abuse stem from. Not the abuse itself, but the fact that the abusers are generally without an income and as a result resort to criminal behavior such as stealing or prostitution to get the money for their next hit. So what legalizing hard drugs actually does is increase the number of people who use said hard drugs and who in return get turned into addicts who cannot function in society anymore. 

 

The war on drugs doesn't work, sure, but the answer is not to therefor just legalize everything. 

And when they have no money left they sellers( Big drug dealer) will leave them to rot or not bother with those types  hyper addictive  drugs since their client base will not have the ability to pay in the long term. Pot will be something  the tobacco companies will embrace as a cash cow for them, the other types would probably not be appealing to them.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Such a blatant overestimation of the benefits and underestimation of the costs. If hard drugs became freely available like cigarettes or alcohol, crime will go up, unemployment will go up, economic performance will drop (drastically reducing the tax revenue), healthcare costs would rise dramatically, teenage pregnancy rates would go up, school performance would decrease and more people would drop out. And if you were to cut out all drug addicts from the social security system, you would essentially be advocating a policy of drug induced genocide.

Congratulations, you sorta stopped illegal drug trafficking, and you ruined the economy and the country in the process.

Seriously, your medicine is worse than the disease.

1. Those that are unemployable because of arrests from drug usage or posession will no longer be able afford to buy drugs; if they spend the last of their money on drugs instead of food, they will deserve the consequences.

2. If welfare is completely cut do those who are addicted to any drug they are not prescribed to or fail a drug test for any hard drugs, spending will plummet. Scum like drug addicts don't deserve to have their lives paid for by the hardworking taxpayers. This is not genocide, it is mass suicide. I also think that suicide and euthanasia should be legalized before hard drugs are. Our world is already overpopulated. If we let people kill themselves and don't give support to those that do it slowly (through drug abuse), only the bad people will be gone.

3. I honestly think that welfare and minimum wage should be improved to include a new form of currency: "Nutrition Credits," which all people working or receiving any type of welfare benefits are guaranteed that they can get at least a minimum of quality nutrition. This money cannot buy anything besides food. In Colorado, there are EBT withdrawal ATMs in dispensaries. Nutrition Credits would do away with this abuse.

--Ocram

[AkemiAzula 280]

I agree with Nonny. I want to try original Coke. And Holmes wasnt a bad person. Drugs arent even the problem. Winston Churchill liked cigars. Beethoven died from alcohol. Evil has its roots in socioeconomical problems not chemicals. And i also agree on letting Darwin off his leash. Typical dopeheads are worthless. Also i agree with legalizing suicide. Not only are the worlds resources tight as it is and extermination controversial but it would give would be villains an alternative route. This is why i hate religion.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1. Those that are unemployable because of arrests from drug usage or posession will no longer be able afford to buy drugs; if they spend the last of their money on drugs instead of food, they will deserve the consequences.

2. If welfare is completely cut do those who are addicted to any drug they are not prescribed to or fail a drug test for any hard drugs, spending will plummet. Scum like drug addicts don't deserve to have their lives paid for by the hardworking taxpayers. This is not genocide, it is mass suicide. I also think that suicide and euthanasia should be legalized before hard drugs are. Our world is already overpopulated. If we let people kill themselves and don't give support to those that do it slowly (through drug abuse), only the bad people will be gone.

3. I honestly think that welfare and minimum wage should be improved to include a new form of currency: "Nutrition Credits," which all people working or receiving any type of welfare benefits are guaranteed that they can get at least a minimum of quality nutrition. This money cannot buy anything besides food. In Colorado, there are EBT withdrawal ATMs in dispensaries. Nutrition Credits would do away with this abuse.

--Ocram

 

1. Only problem is that the addict is probably not going to just roll over and die. They will resort to stealing and other illegal activities to get money, just like they do right now. 

2. You are propagating a policy that actively tries to starve a group of people, that is not suicide, that is state sanctioned murder. And again, because those addicts will resort to crime first, all the money you no longer spend on welfare will be spend on the police and justice system. There is no net win. 

3. Such abuses are vastly overstated or in some cases out right lies told by right wing politicians and media outlets. 

[jmsepe 2,038]

Difference of culture of Mark, not everyone is liberal enough to accept those ideologies and whether you hate religion or not, they sure do make a vital impact on society. Drugs has never been problem, so is alcohol and all other chemicals, it's the blatant use and abuse of them. Some aren't just that well made enough to take them in. However, pinpointing individual cases does not always represent the majority but I guess this is what you call survival of the fittest right? 

[AkemiAzula 280]

It always struck me as odd we want to ban guns and jail people carrying knives and forbid posession of drugs. Surely punishing crimes which result from such things is enough. You dont ban people wearing toothbrush moustaches or flying jolly rogers. You tackle actual criminal incidents. All this anti smoking anti drugs etc strikes me as unecessary resource usage. As to the darwinian process and cleaning up society i think of drug abusers like dangerous dogs. One bite and gas em.

[jmsepe 2,038]

I think that is what they call precaution is better than cure. Most countries assume the damage of a particular hazard (for the lack of better term) and prevent it from happening. Just like murder and theft, you don't wait until someone is killed or robbed before you make sure it is illegal. Same goes with drugs, they don't want to deal with addicts anymore or more addicts for that matter and that is why they ban it to avoid the chaos and the problem it will further create. 

 

The use of drugs is really just a matter of cultural issue. 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. Those that are unemployable because of arrests from drug usage or posession will no longer be able afford to buy drugs; if they spend the last of their money on drugs instead of food, they will deserve the consequences.

2. If welfare is completely cut do those who are addicted to any drug they are not prescribed to or fail a drug test for any hard drugs, spending will plummet. Scum like drug addicts don't deserve to have their lives paid for by the hardworking taxpayers. This is not genocide, it is mass suicide. I also think that suicide and euthanasia should be legalized before hard drugs are. Our world is already overpopulated. If we let people kill themselves and don't give support to those that do it slowly (through drug abuse), only the bad people will be gone.

3. I honestly think that welfare and minimum wage should be improved to include a new form of currency: "Nutrition Credits," which all people working or receiving any type of welfare benefits are guaranteed that they can get at least a minimum of quality nutrition. This money cannot buy anything besides food. In Colorado, there are EBT withdrawal ATMs in dispensaries. Nutrition Credits would do away with this abuse.

1. Only problem is that the addict is probably not going to just roll over and die. They will resort to stealing and other illegal activities to get money, just like they do right now. 

2. You are propagating a policy that actively tries to starve a group of people, that is not suicide, that is state sanctioned murder. And again, because those addicts will resort to crime first, all the money you no longer spend on welfare will be spend on the police and justice system. There is no net win. 

3. Such abuses are vastly overstated or in some cases out right lies told by right wing politicians and media outlets.

1. If they are caught doing something illegal, they go to jail where they get fed and mandatory drug rehab.

2. I just love your loaded language where you said that now a state that does not provide free money to any group of people is now considered a mass murderer or a country guilty of genocide. Before the New Deal, the United States was doing pretty well without welfare and had better freedom, happiness, and quality of life than most of the rest of the world. Denying welfare to addicts is perfectly ethical according to most ethics and according to the morals of the majority of the planet, the alternative is immoral.

3. I watch local news stations here in the Seattle area and I have read some newspaper articles from Western Washington and Colorado based newspapers and I can tell you that there are a lot of abuses are real. I have yet to read an article that was proven to be fabricated. Of course, if persons are not in or from here and only get their information from fora and NBC, they will have a skewed source of info and get a tainted viewpoint.

4. I think that education and awareness on the dangers of legalized drugs should be first priority. Banning advertisements on TV, radio, and on billboards within 1000 meters from preschools and primary schools would also help.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Mark, Sherlock Holmes is pure fiction.  Get your grip on reality.  We must be able to differentiate between allegory and truth.  Arthur Conan Doyle invented forensic examination through the use of his fictional detective, and his works are required reading for would-be forensic analysts.  Best part of this "text book" is that it is entertaining and not just a dry tome.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1. If they are caught doing something illegal, they go to jail where they get fed and mandatory drug rehab.

2. I just love your loaded language where you said that now a state that does not provide free money to any group of people is now considered a mass murderer or a country guilty of genocide. Before the New Deal, the United States was doing pretty well without welfare and had better freedom, happiness, and quality of life than most of the rest of the world. Denying welfare to addicts is perfectly ethical according to most ethics and according to the morals of the majority of the planet, the alternative is immoral.

3. I watch local news stations here in the Seattle area and I have read some newspaper articles from Western Washington and Colorado based newspapers and I can tell you that there are a lot of abuses are real. I have yet to read an article that was proven to be fabricated. Of course, if persons are not in or from here and only get their information from fora and NBC, they will have a skewed source of info and get a tainted viewpoint.

4. I think that education and awareness on the dangers of legalized drugs should be first priority. Banning advertisements on TV, radio, and on billboards within 1000 meters from preschools and primary schools would also help.

--Ocram

 

1. Thus negating any and all costs you saved elsewhere. 

2. I just love how you speak for people who are long dead and claim to know about how they felt when they were without a job or any form of income. 

And while it might be considered okay to deny addicts welfare, that becomes a different business when it was the state who allowed companies to produce, sell and market highly addictive drugs legally to everyone. In essence, it is the state who produced the addicts in the first place, and who is then telling the people who become addicted that they are now on their own. 

3. The actual abuse rate of social security is between 1 and 2%. Of course, news papers will always find those few who are abusing the system, and by over representing them in the media it appears that the system is completely broken and open to abuse when in reality that is utter nonsense.

4. Oh yeah, because doing that has also totally stopped teens from smoking normal cigarettes and trying (and succeeding) to get alcohol. And again, we are dealing with substances that are instantly addicting. Its not like beer which you can drink without being instantly addicted to alcohol. 

[hym 358]

Discuss the issues, not each other.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Discuss the issues, not each other.

Hym, you beat me to it.  While I don't have your clout any more, I felt it was getting out of hand.