War on Drugs = failure

[Supracentral]

:: begin sarcasam ::
In a totally unexpected development in the War on Drugs, shutting down the redneck meth labs has just resulted in Mexican gangs filling the void with a cheaper and more pure form of meth. Mission accomplished.
:: end sarcasam ::

C'mon people. When are you going to realize this so called "War on Drugs" is a failure.

Just look at that article as an exampe. The results of your efforts:

1. It's a pain in the ass for normal people like me to get an over the counter decongestant that actually works.

2. The drugs are now outsourced to Mexico.

3. The drugs are now cheaper.

4. The money spent on them now strenghens a foreign economy.

Please stop this silliness. Just tax the drugs and get it over with.

 

[fandffan]

Solution... Take down the fence. And the mexicans will no longer be angry. There for less drugs...


My line of reasoning is ridiculous, I know this.

 

[ValgeKotkas]

nuke em?

 

[phoenix6]

nuke em?

Too close, carpet bombs:evil2:

 

[Brewster]

:: begin sarcasam ::
In a totally unexpected development in the War on Drugs, shutting down the redneck meth labs has just resulted in Mexican gangs filling the void with a cheaper and more pure form of meth. Mission accomplished.
:: end sarcasam ::

C'mon people. When are you going to realize this so called "War on Drugs" is a failure.

Just look at that article as an exampe. The results of your efforts:

1. It's a pain in the ass for normal people like me to get an over the counter decongestant that actually works.

2. The drugs are now outsourced to Mexico.

3. The drugs are now cheaper.

4. The money spent on them now strenghens a foreign economy.

Please stop this silliness. Just tax the drugs and get it over with.

Totally agree with you.

 

[ValgeKotkas]

missile em?

Too close, carpet bombs:evil2:

Heh, far away from me...

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

I seriously wish it were as simple as "just tax it", but there are a couple of problems, and I will jump on the biggest one first:

1. It is inaccurate to say that drugs/drug addiction only hurt the addicted, and it is a disservice to every spouse, child, parent, sibling, or friend who suffers watching someone they love destroy themselves to suggest that it is.

2. Maybe this should have preceeded #1, but what you suggest is really a major, untried experiment. We don't really know what the outcome of legalizing "inherently bad" drugs like heroin, meth and crack would be, but if it meant more addiction, then we would be, in fact, creating more innocent victims like I mention above. Is it worth the risk considering the fact that it would be almost impossible to ever go back?

3. Taxes make things expensive. How much is an addict who is incapable of holding a job going to spend on legal meth? He would be more likely to try and manufacture it himself or look for black market garbage. It might be that he would end up buying cheaper, more potent stuff from Mexico - just like the situation we have now, only with more addicts.

Is the war on drugs working? I'm not sure - maybe not. I do know I that prescription pain meds work absolute magic on me, and to be honest I'm thankful opiates are illegal. I think I have the potential to develop a problem with them fairly easily, and that a lot of people around me would suffer with me if I did.

I'm not sure the war on drugs is in fact working, but of all the things that could be done, I'm not sure across the board legalization is the answer. Some things don't have an easy answer. Some evil things are simply going to exist, and we have to try to make sure as few people fall victim to them as possible. Across the board legalization and the potential to drag more people into addiction seems scarier than having more potent shit from Mexico available for those who have already fallen, imo.

 

[thesandymancan]

solution: build a wall between mexico and the us, then make cocaine cheaper than meth. regulate the production and distribution, then tax the shit out of it.

and in the end we would come out on top. in the end, enough tax revenue would be produced to get the country out of it's 3 trilion dollar debt.

 

[ToyoHabu]

I seriously wish it were as simple as "just tax it", but there are a couple of problems, and I will jump on the biggest one first:

1. It is inaccurate to say that drugs/drug addiction only hurt the addicted, and it is a disservice to every spouse, child, parent, sibling, or friend who suffers watching someone they love destroy themselves to suggest that it is.

2. Maybe this should have preceeded #1, but what you suggest is really a major, untried experiment. We don't really know what the outcome of legalizing "inherently bad" drugs like heroin, meth and crack would be, but if it meant more addiction, then we would be, in fact, creating more innocent victims like I mention above. Is it worth the risk considering the fact that it would be almost impossible to ever go back?

3. Taxes make things expensive. How much is an addict who is incapable of holding a job going to spend on legal meth? He would be more likely to try and manufacture it himself or look for black market garbage. It might be that he would end up buying cheaper, more potent stuff from Mexico - just like the situation we have now, only with more addicts.

Is the war on drugs working? I'm not sure - maybe not. I do know I that prescription pain meds work absolute magic on me, and to be honest I'm thankful opiates are illegal. I think I have the potential to develop a problem with them fairly easily, and that a lot of people around me would suffer with me if I did.

I'm not sure the war on drugs is in fact working, but of all the things that could be done, I'm not sure across the board legalization is the answer. Some things don't have an easy answer. Some evil things are simply going to exist, and we have to try to make sure as few people fall victim to them as possible. Across the board legalization and the potential to drag more people into addiction seems scarier than having more potent shit from Mexico available for those who have already fallen, imo.

This experiment has already been undertaken in several countries in Europe with great results.

Without exception when a government tries to legislate morality in order to protect us from the evils of drugs/prostitution/gambling/insert evil practice here it has ended up hurting more people than it helps. In the US just look at what happened when prohibition was enacted, a small problem with drunkenness exploded into gang warfare and a sharp increase in binge style drinking whose effects still linger today.
The CATO institute published this. I like the 1930’s quote
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
Franklin P. Adams (1931)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

There's a big difference between alcohol (or even marijuana) and hardcore drugs. The former can be used moderately and reasonably - they can also be abused, but you're right - prohibition of alcohol was a really stupid idea. I travel for work quite a bit, and if there's one thing I hate, it's the dry counties of Alabama and Arkansas that I have to put up with.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no such thing as moderate or social use of meth/crack/heroin/etc. I consider these "inherently bad drugs" and addiction is all that can really ultimately come of their use. Since there's really nothing good that come come from using these drugs, I don't see it as "regulating morality" or from making them illegal. Show me the good that can come from using these drugs and maybe you can start to convince me, but I don't think that's really possible.

 

[Supracentral]

It is inaccurate to say that drugs/drug addiction only hurt the addicted, and it is a disservice to every spouse, child, parent, sibling, or friend who suffers watching someone they love destroy themselves to suggest that it is.

Logical Fallacy = Argumentum ad misericordiam - you are correct, but that's non-sequiter to this disuccion.

2. Maybe this should have preceeded #1, but what you suggest is really a major, untried experiment. We don't really know what the outcome of legalizing "inherently bad" drugs like heroin, meth and crack would be, but if it meant more addiction, then we would be, in fact, creating more innocent victims like I mention above. Is it worth the risk considering the fact that it would be almost impossible to ever go back?

Logical Fallacy = Argumentum ad ignorantiam

However, I can still reply that many places around the world, specifically in Northern Europe, have legalized drugs.

3. Taxes make things expensive. How much is an addict who is incapable of holding a job going to spend on legal meth? He would be more likely to try and manufacture it himself or look for black market garbage. It might be that he would end up buying cheaper, more potent stuff from Mexico - just like the situation we have now, only with more addicts.?

Nonsense... The war on drugs has raised the stakes far more than any tax ever could. Just as prohibition brought about the rise of organized crime and had alchohol making some very seedy people rich, so does the war on drugs. The price of drugs would come down dramatically if it were legal. Most of this stuff is easy to make/grow... It's the legal penalty that makes it expensive.

I'm not sure the war on drugs is in fact working

If you are serious, I worry for you... I'm sure the war on drugs has, and will continue to fail. Show me any success. There hasn't been any.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Logical Fallacy = Argumentum ad misericordiam - you are correct, but that's non-sequiter to this disuccion. .

I respectfully disagree. It does in fact harm many people other than the addicted. Lack of empathy does not change the fact, nor does pretending that it isn't true, nor does dehumanizing the victim.

Logical Fallacy = Argumentum ad ignorantiam

However, I can still reply that many places around the world, specifically in Northern Europe, have legalized drugs. .

All drugs, really? Crack? And if so the benefits have been what, exactly? Have you reviewed the number of addictions before and after? Be sure to look at the big picture here - more addiction means more recovery programs, and these often come at taxpayer expense - something we both hate, Mike.

Nonsense... The war on drugs has raised the stakes far more than any tax ever could. Just as prohibition brought about the rise of organized crime and had alchohol making some very seedy people rich, so does the war on drugs. The price of drugs would come down dramatically if it were legal. Most of this stuff is easy to make/grow... It's the legal penalty that makes it expensive.



If you are serious, I worry for you... I'm sure the war on drugs has, and will continue to fail. Show me any success. There hasn't been any.

Again, the war on drugs certainly hasn't fixed it all, I agree. However, I think common sense says that welcoming a serious problem with open arms is just plain stupid. Since I don't think the current approach is perfect, if anybody has a more insightful idea on how to deal with the issue, I'm all ears.

 

[IJ.]

Alcohol

Tobacco

both would be illegal today if they were newly invented.......

 

[Supracentral]

I respectfully disagree. It does in fact harm many people other than the addicted. Lack of empathy does not change the fact, nor does pretending that it isn't true, nor does dehumanizing the victim.
---
All drugs, really? Crack? And if so the benefits have been what, exactly? Have you reviewed the number of addictions before and after? Be sure to look at the big picture here - more addiction means more recovery programs, and these often come at taxpayer expense - something we both hate, Mike.
---
Again, the war on drugs certainly hasn't fixed it all, I agree. However, I think common sense says that welcoming a serious problem with open arms is just plain stupid. Since I don't think the current approach is perfect, if anybody has a more insightful idea on how to deal with the issue, I'm all ears.

The COST of the "War on Drugs" is atronomical.

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars. State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Simply put, that buys a lot of education and rehabilitation.

In 2002, 45.3 percent of the 1,538,813 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 697,082. Of those, 613,986 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is a slight decrease from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.

That's even more money available.

You could take the idiotic "War on Drugs" budget, and put 25% of it into eduaction and rehabilitation, and have fewer problems...

It's simple logic. You will NEVER stop people from using them. period.

Once you face that fact, you start to realize there are better ways of dealing with the situation.

 

[thesandymancan]

The COST of the "War on Drugs" is atronomical.

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars. State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Simply put, that buys a lot of education and rehabilitation.

In 2002, 45.3 percent of the 1,538,813 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 697,082. Of those, 613,986 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is a slight decrease from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.

That's even more money available.

You could take the idiotic "War on Drugs" budget, and put 25% of it into eduaction and rehabilitation, and have fewer problems...

It's simple logic. You will NEVER stop people from using them. period.

Once you face that fact, you start to realize there are better ways of dealing with the situation.

so true. if it's out there someone will use it, nomatter how educated they may be. spending money on stoping drug use is as pointless as burning money so the "gods" will make it rain.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Argumentum whatthefukium: If you can find somebody who will do something, then legalize it.

Can anybody else see the problem with this line of thinking?

 

[Supracentral]

Argumentum whatthefukium: If you can find somebody who will do something, then legalize it.

Can anybody else see the problem with this line of thinking?

Arguementum lowestdenominator: If you can find someone who will IRRESPONSIBLY do something, make it illegal for everyone....

Can anyone see the problem with *this* line of thinking?

Following your line of reasoning, we should make alchohol use, owning of sharp objects and the operation of the motor vehicle illegal as well.

It's the misuse and abuse that is the problem, not usage...

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Ahhh, but I didn't say what the majority of people would do - just a very sad few.

Again, I would challenge you to show me "responsible" meth use. For things in which there is absolutely no value to society what-so-ever, make it illegal.

 

[thesandymancan]

a little off topic but did you know that caffeen was almost illegalized along with other narcotics in the harrison act?

 

[Nick M]

The dealers deal becuase there is demand.