So...Can We End the War on Drugs Now?

Post Reply New Topic

The basic news story is http://blog.chron.com/narcoconfidential/2015/04/judge-feds-owe-trucking-company-nothing-over-dea-informant-murder/#17365101=0:

That is, secretly working without the owner's knowledge.

The court document and a little more detail is here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-pays-when-dea-destroys-your-vehicle-kills-your-employee-during-botched-sting-hint-not-dea.shtml



When the government can basically destroy your entire life (as well as put whatever connections you have in danger, without you even trying to get the attention of one of the most dangerous drug cartels in Texas), that's a problem.

Don't forget minimum mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenses, all the money wasted on it and how it contributes to a number of problems in society....But yes all that just sounds like even more reason to do away with it, so I agree.

No.

The War is not yet over. There is no 'defend' option; there is only attack, attack, and attack again and again until we've crushed your enemies, seen them driven before us, and heard the lamentations of their women.

I like the war on drugs, it keeps crackheads in line while offering them a chance to turn their life around.

I say let it continue, till the cartel is hunted down and their heads are on pikes.

Really now...it more appears to be the other way around, the drug war helps continue abuse of cocaine/crack...while creating much stigma towards people with an addiction to it or any other drug, making it harder to actually get help...increasing stress, which can increase drug abuse, it is really a vicious circle.

There would likely not be cartels if there where more reasonable drug laws/policies....if anything the war on drugs is great for cartels. Its purpose has never been to 'stop the cartels'....

So shooting drug lords in the head doesn't put the brakes on anything?
Wow, you learn something everyday...

Ok, but these times of high adventure happened in Texas, not California.

Not really low level dealers and middle men aren't that hard to replace and those are much of the time the ones who die in the crossfire so to speak, and the higher ups don't mind counting the losses as long as the profits still high...hell they don't mind shooting people themselves.

And there are also plenty of power hungry higher ups that would be eager to replace any dead drug lords. Oh and don't forget the government corruption, where do you think government officials/politicians around the world get their drugs?

Sure, let's make opium, meth, and pcp legal for everyone 16 and up to enjoy at their leisure!
It'll be so much better knowing my kids are going to be meth heads!

"Meth" is already legal for children if Ritalin doesn't work:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm088582.pdf

I am willing to bet the cooks don't bother to try to separate the racemic mixture if you make it haphazardly (the freebase and salt versions have the same properties).

A lot of people won't try the hard stuff due to stable family and personal environments - the more a user thinks it is hopeless in real life, the more willing they'll try it (like the fetanyl-heroin epidemic rashes in the Midwest or Krokodil). So if housing discrimination is eliminated or reduced, etc., it would go a lot farther in reducing drug crime and incarceration rates (although throwing all the users out of prison doesn't do much for them - a lot go back to the same environment that got them in the trouble the first time around).

That stigma is going to be there regardless of a war on drugs being active or not.

Sorry charlie, but I take an amphetamine and it sure doesn't do to me what meth does to others.
You've got your chemicals mixed up.

The "war on drugs". The "war on cancer". The "war on autism" - that A$ is conducting.

War war war - military terminology is always somehow suspect to me when applied to civilian situations. I understand that the US was flooded with drugs after signing NAFTA with Mexico some years ago and that it was foreseen as a likely outcome by US officials - but they signed anyway, because commercial interests prevailed. So I can't help feeling very cynical about the "war on drugs". NAFTA has been disastrous for Mexico in other ways, leading to a takeover of whole provinces by the drug gangs. What a circus...

That's probably because what you take is a smaller dose - because amphetamines are alkaloids, the euphoric reaction is actually a sign of it poisoning the user. That, and you didn't click on the link I gave (which would also be a smaller dose), which has "methamphetamine hydrochloride" in bold on the top of the first page.

There are ways to mitigate the deleterious effects of prohibition short of total legalisation. Something like cutting dealers out of the equation completely by providing drugs to addicts under government medicare, but under restricted circumstances.

Treating Drug addiction like a mental health issue and government controlling every facet of it, instead of a criminal one, would help to resolve the following:

-The corrupting influence of illicit drugs on law enforcement.
-The coercive power of drugs used by pimps to enslave women.
-The spread of Aids and Hepatitis from sharing needles.
-The dangers that dropped needles pose to the public.
-The fact that addicts often need to steal or prostitute themselves to support their habit.
-Addicts not feeling as though they have any stake in in their communities and hence acting in an irresponsible manner.

It would also give aid groups more information and access to addicts in order to provide rehabilitation opportunities.

Various arrangements could be set up to make addicts pay for this, lets call it medicine, and this could provide a lot of government revenue. Or not. Whatever works.

All of this could be accompanied by sincere and honest anti drug campaigns...

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 03 May 2015, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's too much money in it, and besides, too many morons think it's a good idea, evidence be damned.