We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on what people are allowed to consume, for their own sake" and so is on par with the "war on raw milk" and who knows maybe the "war on fat" or the "war on meat" in a few years. I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment either and if they kill while hallucinating or steal to pay for their fix, being a drug-addict should not be treated as extenuating circumstances. Personal responsibility cuts both ways.
The reductionism isn't warranted. There are a group of people who liken drug use to drinking raw milk. I'm sorry, have you ever been to a town devastated by raw milk consumption? Do you see many kids born with birth defects because of raw milk consumption? Do you see raw milk addicts stealing to feed their raw milk habit?
I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.
We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on the communities of black and brown people" and so is on par with the US legal apparatus since the country's founding
"Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment..."
That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it.
That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.
>>I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases.
Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them.
Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too?
Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.
I'm curious as to your definition of 'being a drug addict'.
>In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia.
Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably.
A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'
What people consume has enormous impact on people around them. Ignoring the negative externalities doesn't make them go away, and it certainly won't convince those who have been affected by them.
Problem is: if you have a job in the DEA or your business in running prisons, you probably don't view the war on drugs as a broken business model at all. You'd even go so far as to hire lobbyists to keep it going...
From a political point of view, this brings the debate into much greater clarity. Either people support DEA employees and prison employees and are willing to subsidize their salaries, or they are not.
True, in general. But the prison population is also overwhelmingly non-white, and non-white people statistically vote Democrat. Prisoners can't vote. As one of the two ruling parties in America, it would be in the Democratic Party's best interest to liberalise drug laws to augment the racial minority vote.
If you never vote for a politician that is "tough on crime" by imprisoning kids that decided to smoke a joint, and so do everyone you know - and if you will treat anyone who says it's OK to do this as dangerously insane individual - you have a good chance to take it back. American society has undergone a lot of changes in the last 100 years with regard to many freedoms of many people who were persecuted by the government or denied their rights because of various government restrictions with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual conduct, etc. - and when people realized it is wrong the government eventually had to cave and clean up their act. It is time US realized as a society what horrendous wrong "war on drugs" is. Once they do, no prison industry would be able to resist.
That's true in the sense that "everyone" knew that gay people should be able to get married. If you're under 40 and in tech, you're likely to be in a bubble of social liberalism.
I came for an analysis of what the war on drugs business model is and why it is failing, but all I got was a press release for Sir Richard Branson attending some government conference.
There used to be an anti-alcohol war, alcohol was banned and has everybody stopped using it? No way! So what's the point in "war on drugs"? Putting the word "drugs" to as many posts possible? Making it more appealing and popular?
Maybe we should get McAfee to go back out to Belize and finish his work on some ultimate drug. Imagine something that gave the highs that heroin/cocaine/meth/whatever users seek, always giving as good a high as the first time and not ruining the user's body. If this 'soma' was really that good at hitting the spot for those that crave then there would be no need to dabble with anything else.
By analogy, the 'high grade' weed is always preferable to the 'squidgy black resin' cannabis that our grandparents used to smoke. There is no longer a market for the less effective stuff even if it is sold at a considerable discount.
I agree that the war on drugs should indeed not called a war and instead of strictly forbeeding all drugs it should instead put realistic boundaries given our society allowing and accepting some types of them! I also believe that limits and boundaries are useful in any society because having no lines does not only affect the one single person who is a heavily drug addict, but it is also affecting the entire society, thus having them completely uncontrollable is as bad as forbeeding it completely ! A state with out a police will be a joungle x
Politics isn't just about "business models". The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially Heroin and Methamphetamine, and underage consumption of many others should be severely regulated.
There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.
Heroin is presently illegal. Possession of heroin with intent to supply carries a prison sentence. Possession of heroin for personal use is a criminal offence.
Drug addicts take drugs. They're not deterred by the legal status of the drug. Heroin being illegal doesn't stop addicts taking heroin.
By making a drug hard to get illegally all you do is make a drug addict commit more crime to get it, or take more risks.
Heroin users inject contaminated drugs, using re-used (sometimes shared) needles, in dirty surroundings. This carries considerable risk of infection from diseases like hepatitis and HIV. It also carries significant risk of abscess or even amputation.
Heroin users need money to buy heroin. This money can come from sex working. Sex work is an unregulated semi-legal activity. There are risks of rape and assault. There are risks of sexually transmitted infections. People dislike the advertising associated with sex work. Because sex work is unregulated there are other vulnerable groups dragged into it - trafficked women, homeless people, and children.
Or the money comes from other crime - mugging, burglary, theft. And people spending all their cash on heroin will steal food.
Heroin's illegality means that its supply is controlled by criminal gangs. There is violence associated with these gangs.
Even the "nice" drugs - cannabis - have considerable problems from their illegal status. We can't do proper science because of the problems of getting and giving cannabis. Cannabis is sometimes grown by slaves trapped in grow-farms in houses. There are links between cannabis grow farms and housing benefit fraud in the UK.
Heroin being illegal makes it harder for people to look for or get help. We can't taper addicts down using heroin, so we use methadone. It's tricky to talk about how addictive a substance is, but some people feel that methadone is more addictive than heroin.
When heroin is too tightly controlled you just switch addicts to even worse drugs. See, for example, the Russian drug Krokodil. This is desomorphine, cooked from codeine-containing meds, but in dirty unclean situations. The high from desomorphine is intense but short-lived, so people cook and cook frequently. They're careless with the procedure. This means that they're using filthy needles to inject god-only knows what. An image search for "krokodil" returns many grisly horrific images. Addicts using krokodil live for about 3 years.
"I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially...Methamphetamine,"
Methamphetamine is legal by prescription. This is the war on drugs in its truest form: giving well-connected businesses (like big pharma) special advantages at everyone's expense.
There is no way you can use military force against people who use or sell heroin or meth without causing destructive harm and affecting all of society.
> There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.
Please read up on diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. There is copious literature on this.
Laudanum was used safely for the better part of the late 19th century. The word "heroin" is actually a trademark of Bayer (yes, the same folks who also gave us "aspirin")[0]. It was sold successfully and without any large-scale devastating effects for several years; the reason it was eventually outlawed had nothing to do with any negative repercussions of the drug on a large scale.
As for methamphetamine, according to the MTF and NSDUH studies, the majority of people who have used methamphetamine in the last 30 days do not meet DSM criteria for substance dependence[1]. That's not looking at everyone who's ever used methamphetamine; that's looking at people who have used it within the last month. Clearly it can be used "without affecting all of society"[2].
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that methamphetamine is Schedule II and can be obtained legally (albeit in rare cases) with a prescription (under the brand name Desoxyn).
[0] Both trademarks are now generic; Bayer eventually lost these trademark protections. This is why your local drugstore is allowed to sell acetylsalicylic acid under the name "aspirin" (with a lowercase "a").
[1] Most also wouldn't meet the DSM criteria for substance abuse either, except for a technicality in the criteria that references the legal status of the drug, which is naturally self-fulfilling.
[2] Unless you are looking at the economic impacts (ie, Nicaragua 30 years ago, North Korea and Afghanistan today, in which case you have a point, but that only serves to emphasize the need to short-circuit these black markets with legal ones).
> The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited.
Let's be clear here: a legal prohibition is nothing more than an ultimatum. It's a threat of punishment - "if you use heroin, and we catch you, we will lock you in a cage".
If you're opposed to people using heroin because it's harmful, can you explain how making people serve prison sentences and have life-long criminal records in addition to being heroin addicts somehow reduces the amount of harm that they suffer? Because, from where I'm sitting, it seems that the solution you offer to the harm caused by heroin and meth is to do even more harm to people, on top of the harm caused by the drugs.
Leaving aside issues not regarding adults (as underage consumption of many things is regulated now, there's nothing new here to be brought into the discussion), do you really think it's up to you to decide what is good and bad for everyone? Especially as you seem to be vastly misinformed on both personal and societal tolerances of both amphetamines and opiates. While both can be dangerously abused, so can be many common chemicals - like alcohol. There are ways beside prohibitionism to deal with it.
[+] [-] MarcusBrutus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.
[+] [-] _bfhp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breischl|12 years ago|reply
That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it.
That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.
[+] [-] Nursie|12 years ago|reply
Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them.
Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too?
Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
This is very wrong. Drug addicts have plenty of children.
[+] [-] TranceMan|12 years ago|reply
>In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia.
Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably.
A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'
[+] [-] cle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmariani|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GrinningFool|12 years ago|reply
Easier to fit in a soundbite.
[+] [-] harryf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gormo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] memracom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vaadu|12 years ago|reply
It puts power into the hands of the government. Governments do not give up power unless a court or foreign army forces them to.
The private prison industry is going to fight any drug law changes that put a crimp in their wallet.
And police departments are not going want to give up freebies that come with civil forfeiture.
[+] [-] rob05c|12 years ago|reply
True, in general. But the prison population is also overwhelmingly non-white, and non-white people statistically vote Democrat. Prisoners can't vote. As one of the two ruling parties in America, it would be in the Democratic Party's best interest to liberalise drug laws to augment the racial minority vote.
[+] [-] smsm42|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] phaemon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstuart|12 years ago|reply
He fully supports the War on Drugs because he thinks it's protecting people from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs.
He's done cocaine in the past, smokes cannabis on rare occasion and enjoys his alcohol. And he's much younger than I am.
This is the messaging battle that needs to be won....
[+] [-] emiliobumachar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orangecat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuaheard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lucy_karpova|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Theodores|12 years ago|reply
By analogy, the 'high grade' weed is always preferable to the 'squidgy black resin' cannabis that our grandparents used to smoke. There is no longer a market for the less effective stuff even if it is sold at a considerable discount.
[+] [-] mariaGeorgiou|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avty|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 001sky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] innino|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|12 years ago|reply
There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
Drug addicts take drugs. They're not deterred by the legal status of the drug. Heroin being illegal doesn't stop addicts taking heroin.
By making a drug hard to get illegally all you do is make a drug addict commit more crime to get it, or take more risks.
Heroin users inject contaminated drugs, using re-used (sometimes shared) needles, in dirty surroundings. This carries considerable risk of infection from diseases like hepatitis and HIV. It also carries significant risk of abscess or even amputation.
Heroin users need money to buy heroin. This money can come from sex working. Sex work is an unregulated semi-legal activity. There are risks of rape and assault. There are risks of sexually transmitted infections. People dislike the advertising associated with sex work. Because sex work is unregulated there are other vulnerable groups dragged into it - trafficked women, homeless people, and children.
Or the money comes from other crime - mugging, burglary, theft. And people spending all their cash on heroin will steal food.
Heroin's illegality means that its supply is controlled by criminal gangs. There is violence associated with these gangs.
Even the "nice" drugs - cannabis - have considerable problems from their illegal status. We can't do proper science because of the problems of getting and giving cannabis. Cannabis is sometimes grown by slaves trapped in grow-farms in houses. There are links between cannabis grow farms and housing benefit fraud in the UK.
Heroin being illegal makes it harder for people to look for or get help. We can't taper addicts down using heroin, so we use methadone. It's tricky to talk about how addictive a substance is, but some people feel that methadone is more addictive than heroin.
When heroin is too tightly controlled you just switch addicts to even worse drugs. See, for example, the Russian drug Krokodil. This is desomorphine, cooked from codeine-containing meds, but in dirty unclean situations. The high from desomorphine is intense but short-lived, so people cook and cook frequently. They're careless with the procedure. This means that they're using filthy needles to inject god-only knows what. An image search for "krokodil" returns many grisly horrific images. Addicts using krokodil live for about 3 years.
[+] [-] girvo|12 years ago|reply
You'd be surprised.
I am an ex-heroin addict, and I will say that I certainly DON'T fit into the "doesn't cause harm" basket. I fucked things up well and truly.
But for every addict, there are a surprising amount of "weekend warriors" who dabble here and there and never get drawn in (for a variety of reasons).
Unfortunately, I was not one of them, even though at the time I thought I was. That is the danger.
[+] [-] phaemon|12 years ago|reply
The argument is: "These drugs are unsafe, therefore they should be legal because making them illegal makes things even worse."
[+] [-] betterunix|12 years ago|reply
Methamphetamine is legal by prescription. This is the war on drugs in its truest form: giving well-connected businesses (like big pharma) special advantages at everyone's expense.
[+] [-] AJ007|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|12 years ago|reply
Please read up on diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. There is copious literature on this.
Laudanum was used safely for the better part of the late 19th century. The word "heroin" is actually a trademark of Bayer (yes, the same folks who also gave us "aspirin")[0]. It was sold successfully and without any large-scale devastating effects for several years; the reason it was eventually outlawed had nothing to do with any negative repercussions of the drug on a large scale.
As for methamphetamine, according to the MTF and NSDUH studies, the majority of people who have used methamphetamine in the last 30 days do not meet DSM criteria for substance dependence[1]. That's not looking at everyone who's ever used methamphetamine; that's looking at people who have used it within the last month. Clearly it can be used "without affecting all of society"[2].
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that methamphetamine is Schedule II and can be obtained legally (albeit in rare cases) with a prescription (under the brand name Desoxyn).
[0] Both trademarks are now generic; Bayer eventually lost these trademark protections. This is why your local drugstore is allowed to sell acetylsalicylic acid under the name "aspirin" (with a lowercase "a").
[1] Most also wouldn't meet the DSM criteria for substance abuse either, except for a technicality in the criteria that references the legal status of the drug, which is naturally self-fulfilling.
[2] Unless you are looking at the economic impacts (ie, Nicaragua 30 years ago, North Korea and Afghanistan today, in which case you have a point, but that only serves to emphasize the need to short-circuit these black markets with legal ones).
[+] [-] Gormo|12 years ago|reply
Let's be clear here: a legal prohibition is nothing more than an ultimatum. It's a threat of punishment - "if you use heroin, and we catch you, we will lock you in a cage".
If you're opposed to people using heroin because it's harmful, can you explain how making people serve prison sentences and have life-long criminal records in addition to being heroin addicts somehow reduces the amount of harm that they suffer? Because, from where I'm sitting, it seems that the solution you offer to the harm caused by heroin and meth is to do even more harm to people, on top of the harm caused by the drugs.
[+] [-] smsm42|12 years ago|reply