Another Drug War victim. Are we fed up yet?

[Machfive]

http://ga0.org/campaign/enough_is_enough/explanation

One would think after Atlanta police killed 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, that they would get the idea, but they haven't. Last Friday, 1/4/08, a SWAT team, serving an ordinary drug search warrant, invaded the Ohio home of Tarika Wilson -- an innocent woman -- shot and killed her, and shot her one-year-old son. "They went in that home shooting," her mother said at a vigil that night. The boy lost at least one of his fingers. Two dogs were shot too.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NEWS17/774642166

Sgt. Joseph A. Chavalia, 52, who has been with Lima police for 30 years, was placed on administrative leave following the fatal shooting of Tarika Wilson, 26. Her 14-month-old son, Sincere Wilson, who was in her arms when she was shot, was wounded by the gunfire.


Just fucking sick. I realize there's a war going on, and the economy sucks, and everybody's worries about how their medical expenses are getting paid, and there are a lot of important issues, but I cannot understand why more people are not out and out revolted by the toll the War on Drugs has caused.

Even if this isn't the #1 issue of our times, it's easily top 5, and yet it falls completely off the radar of most of our politicians.

That only happens because you fail to make it an important issue. How many more people have to die in drive-by shootings, no-knock raids, and drug overdoses before we begin to agree that this is abomination needs to end?

It's just nice to see organizations like LEAP and DRCnet gaining momentum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc

[extarbags]

It's because people are absolutely brainwashed by the government's line on this one. Also you forgot the astronomical monetary costs, the fact that we have more people in prison than any other country, etc.

[lesslucid]

I think the problem is that the best strategies for dealing with this are also vote-losers. I don't know what to do about it... well, of course if I were in a position of political power I'd know what to do, but I don't know how to go about persuading people that... insanity is insanity. It's like trying to think up an explanation for why blue is blue. It ought to be self-evident, and in the face of people believing the opposite, where do you begin?

[Morkilus]

The DEA at least has been in a whole heap of internal trouble since 9/11. If there's any governmental agency that is in most need of purging and/or budget cuts, this is it.

[Machfive]

It's because people are absolutely brainwashed by the government's line on this one. Also you forgot the astronomical monetary costs, the fact that we have more people in prison than any other country, etc.

Also great points. You release every single non-violent drug inmate who has behaved well in prison, and suddenly we don't have to cut violent criminal's sentences short! What a concept!

When you consider how much property crime and violent crime are a direct result of the War on Drugs, I'd be shocked if the overall crime rate didn't plummet by 33% or more in the decade following drug decriminalization.

[Elton]

I'm with you, Machfive. Unfortunately lots of people just won't budge on the subject. I'm reminded of a conversation from around the time I moved from the U.S. to the Netherlands, and I was talking about it to one of my friend's moms. I was subjected to a tirade along the lines of "Did you know that drugs are legal there? What, do they think it's good for you? Don't they care that their kids will be doing drugs?" There's no way I could have convinced her that decriminalization in America would be good for reducing drug violence, redirecting police resources to more important ends, and the right of folks to pursue happiness peacefully in the way they see fit.

[Machfive]

I think the thing that annoys me most when I try and talk to people on this issue is I always get accused of wanting to legalize drugs so that I can use drugs. I blame NORML for this; my stance is that you either legalize it all, or legalize nothing, because once you start playing favorites it becomes about drug use, not about the failings of prohibition as a policy.

For the record, I'll pass any drug test you throw at me, because now that I've quit tobacco, the only drugs I put in my system are alcohol, ibuprofen, and caffiene.

But I still get called a druggy when I try and argue for an end to this debacle.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, FUCK DARE.

[extarbags]

You don't have to go as far as legalization of drugs. I'm all for most drugs that are currently illegal staying that way. We just need to take a common-sense approach to it and stop doing things like, say, jail terms for drug users and extremely harsh sentences for all but the largest-scale dealers, and no-knock raids, and not allowing medicinal marijuana use, and so forth and so on. I do think things like heroin and cocaine are worth criminalizing, but christ, not like this.

[Machfive]

That fails though because it allows the drug dealers to continue to exist. If they can still sell coke, dope, and speed, then guess what, they're going to continue to be a blight on our neighborhoods and on society.

The only way to put them out of business is to decriminalize it all. If Tylenol wants to put meth in a bottle and sell it, then go right ahead. As long as Suzy Trailertrash isn't doing it in her double-wide and poisoning her babies with toxic fumes, as long as Johnny Cartel isn't killing witnesses to his prosecution, as long as Homeless McJunkystein isn't sharing needles and passing on HIV and HepC to other addicts, society is better off, even if the drugs are still available.

[Enidigm]

Like i've said before, ask the drug companies to come up with cheap, synthetic, as-non-addictive-as-you-can-make replacement drugs and you'll make everyone happy.

It really is a tragedy when innocent people die and doubly so if there isn't an outcry against the injustice. I mean, Britain once went to war over an ear ( an historic McGuffin). Innocent mothers being shot to death in the name of national policies should have enormous repercussions. I'm not just bothered by this War on Drugs, but on the electorates' passivity and indiffence to their own suffering and "oppression" by the State. We're not serfs, yet; we don't need to take it like Gogol's or Chekov's peasants would.

[Destarius]

The only way to put them out of business is to decriminalize it all. If Tylenol wants to put meth in a bottle and sell it, then go right ahead. As long as Suzy Trailertrash isn't doing it in her double-wide and poisoning her babies with toxic fumes, as long as Johnny Cartel isn't killing witnesses to his prosecution, as long as Homeless McJunkystein isn't sharing needles and passing on HIV and HepC to other addicts, society is better off, even if the drugs are still available.

I've known several drug addicts over the years who just can't kick the habit. They lose their families, their careers, their futures. They know it, and yet they keep going back. Making drugs easier to get doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse as you would then throw open availability to the public-at-large, and there would be huge numbers of addicts overnight.

[Anti-Bunny]

Be sure to check out the Lima City SWAT team's webpage!
http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm
http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.gif
The Lima Police Department's Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) Team work consists of the service of high risk search warrants, handling hostage/barricade situations, protection for the President and Presidential Canidates, and a wide range of other situations. The SWAT Team averages 50 operations per year. The majority of the teams operations consists of serving search warrants on "crack houses".

Other duties fulfilled by SWAT Teams members are threat assessments of various businesses and public buildings, also researching and developmenting tactical training for the police department at large.
Someone care to explain to me why a town of 40,000 needs a SWAT team? Gotta love the militarization of police forces.... hey, at least these guys are protecting us! Bring on firm gun control.

[Qenan]

Didn't the Chinese government largely end opium addiction after the Communists took power?

[Tankero]

Say, was he an alcoholic? Because that sounds an awful lot like one. In response to Destarius, that is.

[MarchHare]

I've known several drug addicts over the years who just can't kick the habit. They lose their families, their careers, their futures. They know it, and yet they keep going back. Making drugs easier to get doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse as you would then throw open availability to the public-at-large, and there would be huge numbers of addicts overnight.

Think of all the money that the government would save by abandoning the futile war on drugs, money that could be re-allocated to better addiction treatment programs.

Hell, legalize pot and some of the other safer drugs, then apply a sin tax to it, with a portion of those revenues being used to directly fund drug rehabilitation initiatives.

[Houngan]

Didn't the Chinese government largely end opium addiction after the Communists took power?

Erm, I wouldn't use Chinese enforcement tactics to try and make a point. There ain't no appealing a bullet in the head.

Anyway, my two cents, legalizing drugs does have problems of its own, but it is massively better than A. The current enforcement policies and B. The current drug culture/crimes. If we have to let it all in, then so be it, although I would ideally like to see some system where the soft stuff is regulated and educated, while the hard stuff is phased out.


H.

[Nick Walter]

I've known several drug addicts over the years who just can't kick the habit. They lose their families, their careers, their futures. They know it, and yet they keep going back. Making drugs easier to get doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse as you would then throw open availability to the public-at-large, and there would be huge numbers of addicts overnight.

I know people who lose their families, careers, and futures on MMORPGS. Should we make them illegal too? Okay, so that's a bit of a silly example by my point stands that there are people who aren't in good places in their own heads. People who will find a method to ruin their own lives regardless. Through their own lack of self control.

This isn't a black and white issue of course, so I'm in favor of the worst stuff remaining illegal but legalization would free up a LOT of money that we currently put into the drug war. Money that could instead go to helping addicts get treatment. It's probably cheaper to provide completely free treatment, housing, and feeding in treament clinics to every addict who wanted help than it is to incarcerate the otherwise inoffensive people we have in prison on drug charges.

[Houngan]

The problem is that you can't just say "make it illegal", you have to say "make it illegal AND inaccessible". Remember, we're trying to prevent rather than just punish, because punishment has absolutely, definitively been proven to not work in regards to drugs.

H.

[skedastic]

Other duties fulfilled by SWAT Teams members are threat assessments of various businesses and public buildings, also researching and developmenting tactical training for the police department at large.


1. developmenting

Driving around developments getting high.


Suddenly, the inexplicably stupid actions of SWAT teams are explicable.

[NoWayJose]

well, of course if I were in a position of political power I'd know what to do
I'm wondering what you would do.

[drewl]

Like i've said before, ask the drug companies to come up with cheap, synthetic, as-non-addictive-as-you-can-make replacement drugs and you'll make everyone happy.




Well painkillers are taking over as the drug of choice (love that Oxy!) but they're still highly addictive......

and besides, where do you think all those cool "Cops" episodes come from?

[Sarkus]

I'm with you, Machfive. Unfortunately lots of people just won't budge on the subject. I'm reminded of a conversation from around the time I moved from the U.S. to the Netherlands, and I was talking about it to one of my friend's moms. I was subjected to a tirade along the lines of "Did you know that drugs are legal there? What, do they think it's good for you? Don't they care that their kids will be doing drugs?" There's no way I could have convinced her that decriminalization in America would be good for reducing drug violence, redirecting police resources to more important ends, and the right of folks to pursue happiness peacefully in the way they see fit.

The Dutch system has it's own problems. While drug use there is less than in the US, it's actually higher than in the rest of Europe. There are other issues as well, covered by the wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

I'd also point out that it's easier for society that has already embraced a fair level of socialized medicine and other support measures to enact such a policy as opposed to one that hasn't.

[Anaxagoras]

The Dutch system has it's own problems. While drug use there is less than in the US, it's actually higher than in the rest of Europe. There are other issues as well, covered by the wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands


I didn't see any problems discussed in that article. (No, I'm not trolling.) Which ones were you referring to?

BTW, if you consider any drug use at all to be bad, then the percentage of people using drugs might be one of the problems you saw. But keep in mind that drug use and drug abuse are two very different things, and that article doesn't make that distinction.. so we don't how much of those percentages are actually harmful useage.

[Houngan]

I didn't see any problems discussed in that article. (No, I'm not trolling.) Which ones were you referring to?

BTW, if you consider any drug use at all to be bad, then the percentage of people using drugs might be one of the problems you saw. But keep in mind that drug use and drug abuse are two very different things, and that article doesn't make that distinction.. so we don't how much of those percentages are actually harmful useage.

Good lord, yes. And how are they cutting the cake? I've gotten a friend of mine stoned a couple of times in the last five years, does that make him a drug user? Honestly, I find it hard to think of people who aren't drug users on occasion, but I know no abusers.

H.

[Midnight Son]

You should not question ze State! Ze State ist neffer wrong! Neffer!

[Tom McNamara]

I've known several drug addicts over the years who just can't kick the habit. They lose their families, their careers, their futures. They know it, and yet they keep going back. Making drugs easier to get doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse as you would then throw open availability to the public-at-large, and there would be huge numbers of addicts overnight.

I think the problem is that drug addiction is treated as a criminal issue, instead of a health care issue. We spend so much money on policing, judicial processing and incarceration that could be directly funneled into drug treatment. We turn addicts into felons and ex-convicts, so they can't get decent jobs and are more likely to turn to crime to pay the rent, and they're more likely to keep doing drugs to deal with the psychological effects of their situation.

I'm not for decriminalization of everything. But I think marijuana at least could be regulated and treated like alcohol; don't let children use it, don't let people toke and drive, et cetera. I think the research has overwhelmingly shown it to be a relatively benign drug. The LD50 (the point at which you have a 50% chance of taking a lethal dose) is far beyond the capacity to remain conscious. And any scientific indications of chemical addiction have been historically ambiguous at best.

[Linoleum]

Even if we legalized marijuana, cocaine and even heroin, we'll still have to figure out what to do with meth.

[lesslucid]

I'm wondering what you would do.

Legalize all recreational drugs. You'd be able to buy clean, cheap drugs in regulated doses from government run stores. All the money earned in this way would be earmarked to be spent on healthcare, rehabilitation and educational programs. Heroin would be sold with an adequate supply of clean needles included. Harm minimisation initiatives would be run directly through the drug outlets and funded by their profits.

This nonsense about "huge numbers of addicts overnight" is not based in fact. Nobody wants to be a drug addict. If drugs were cheaper and legal, would people say, "hooray! at last! My lifelong dream of becoming a drug addict can now be achieved much more safely!"? People become addicted to drugs because they have unmanageable lives. Happy, stable people don't take a puff of a joint one night and then find themselves selling their bodies for crack a week later. Just as many people safely and responsibly use alcohol for pleasure without becoming alcoholics, many people can use marijuana or cocaine or ecstasy or LSD safely and responsibly. The worst of it is that the worst effects of drug addiction are caused by the fact that it is illegal. People overdose because dosages are not controlled. People pass on infectious diseases because there's no reliable way to make clean needles available. People turn to crime because the high price makes maintaining the habit unaffordable on a regular income.

[Tom McNamara]

Personally, I'm not comfortable with cheap, legal, and widely available hard drugs, primarily because they have pretty much no health benefits and a host of nasty pitfalls, aside from chemical addiction. We already have so many problems with alcohol abuse. LSD can shoot permanent holes in your mind if taken too many times, shrooms do nasty things to your liver, and ecstasy lowers judgment to dangerous levels while adding some low-grade PCP-like effects (perception of super-human strength and invincibility).

I don't have the faith that the average person on the street can use these drugs responsibly, even after being fully educated on them. And heroine and coke are just nasty business. I'd rather drink anti-freeze. I think marijuana is the only one you can make an argument for.

[bago]

What E have YOU been taking?

[lesslucid]

Of course if you compare taking drugs with not taking drugs, not taking drugs wins. But your argument depends on the idea that "the average person on the street" is *not* like you. You'd rather drink anti-freeze - well, I'll bet the average person on the street feels the same way. Unless you know of some large group of people who are itching to take heaps of drugs, and are only not taking them at present because they are illegal, then the comparison is not valid. The valid comparison is between how people with serious drug problems are dealt with now and how they might ideally be dealt with. Well, and of course there are all the indirect problems caused by drug prohibition, like making large revenue streams available to criminal organisations, wastage of police time and resources, drug-related crime caused by the need to pay for overpriced drugs, &c...

[rhinohelix]

Legalize all recreational drugs. You'd be able to buy clean, cheap drugs in regulated doses from government run stores. All the money earned in this way would be earmarked to be spent on healthcare, rehabilitation and educational programs. Heroin would be sold with an adequate supply of clean needles included. Harm minimisation initiatives would be run directly through the drug outlets and funded by their profits.

I absolutely do not mean this too harshly or in any mean-spirited manner but I don't know that I have read anything that I thought was more quixotic or naive in a long time. Your username also leads me to believe this isn't a new position for you, as well.


This nonsense about "huge numbers of addicts overnight" is not based in fact. Nobody wants to be a drug addict. If drugs were cheaper and legal, would people say, "hooray! at last! My lifelong dream of becoming a drug addict can now be achieved much more safely!"? This is a non-sequitor. Of course no one sets out to become a drug addict. Does that prevent it from happening? Cocaine is much more addictive and dangerous in its physiological effects than alcohol. What happens when the number of people using cocaine increases, as it invariably would, as it become more available, cheaper, and involves lower social cost, in stigma and criminality? No one wants to be a drug addict but everyone wants to have a good time. The more these drugs are seen as a gateway to that end, the more they will be used. It is a good question, though: would legalization lead to more or less social stigma being attached to drug use, making it more permissible? I would think that in this era, particularly, as our shared values and mores weaken, we have turned the law into our morality in that there are fewer things that invoke moral scorn that aren't codified. It is my belief that removing the legal would indeed make it more permissible but I can't answer that question off the cuff.

Would more people use drugs if they were cheaper? Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't see someone sitting around and saying, "if only that herion was cheaper...". On the other hand, what was caused the crack "epidemic"? Inner-city lower SES African-Americans were not historically stereotypical users of powder cocaine. What changed? The drug was reprocessed, making it more active, causing shorter, higher highs and allowing smaller, much less expensive doses. As it became more pure and cheaper, addiction rates skyrocketed in those communities. Now, that might not be an apple to apple comparison but in circumstances such as these, there are very few of those, indeed.

People become addicted to drugs because they have unmanageable lives. Happy, stable people don't take a puff of a joint one night and then find themselves selling their bodies for crack a week later. Just as many people safely and responsibly use alcohol for pleasure without becoming alcoholics, many people can use marijuana or cocaine or ecstasy or LSD safely and responsibly. I think this is completely wrong. The drugs have different properties which cause different addiction rates. I think the number of people who use alcohol and don't become alcoholics in no way reflects the number of people who use cocaine and don't become addicts. That extends to the other drugs you listed. It is like saying people die in wrecks involving cars, planes, motorcycles, and tricycles. I guess, however, that once you start making distinctions, it gets back to governments and societies making choices for the individual, and that is to be avoided, correct? Because otherwise, why not argue just for the legalization of those drugs which have lesser or no physiological addictive properties as opposed to the baby and the bathwater approach?

The worst of it is that the worst effects of drug addiction are caused by the fact that it is illegal. Again, I think this is just flat out wrong. In point: People overdose because dosages are not controlled. This is a bewildering statement. Dosages aren't controlled by who? Did you ever stop to think that people would just buy and take more?If the government only packages crack in 5mg (I have no idea here) doses, people won't smoke too much of it?! Think about it. "No more for me, Bob, the government says only take this much H and I have hit my limit". /boggle People pass on infectious diseases because there's no reliable way to make clean needles available. One can buy (or could buy) a 100-count box of syringes from every Walgreen's or CVS in America for around $20. I see, though: once the social stigma is removed, the cost brought down, and the availability goes up, not to mention the sale of them is more accessible due to company policy or legality (I am not sure what covers the restriction on needle-sales at retail locations), addicts will stop saving their pennies to buy more of their drug of choice as opposed to sharing, right?
People turn to crime because the high price makes maintaining the habit unaffordable on a regular income.

In most addicts' case, I would argue that this is due to the drug taking over their lives, reducing their wage earning ability, more so than the cost of the habit outstripping their income. Making it cheaper might reduce the crimes of economic need, yes, but another good question, at least to me: would that reduce the number of crimes or merely reduce dollar-value needed in order sustain the addicts' habit? And with a greater number of addicts, (in absolute terms, I don't see how you avoid this outcome. It's just simple math) does the number of crimes go up in total but down in severity?

My opinion is that your idealism is to be admired but would do very little to solve, and would in fact exacerbate the issues facing at least American society (which may or may not be the focus of your comments, lesslucid, given the contextual clues in your post.) It is mostly disproved by the latest facets of the drug culture sweeping America: the meth epidemic (just as with the state of the family, trends which began in the inner city African-American community and were ignored for racist reasons find their way home to roost in rural white communities) and prescription drug abuse and addiction. In the latter, legal but controlled substances, much like the status traditional hardcore drugs cited earlier (except for more readily available, amazingly given the damage that both traditional illegal and abused prescription drugs are doing now) are showing rampant addiction rates spreading like wildfire. How would your plan do anything but put newly raised tax dollars to fight this already existing battle?

[rhinohelix]

Like i've said before, ask the drug companies to come up with cheap, synthetic, as-non-addictive-as-you-can-make replacement drugs and you'll make everyone happy.

It really is a tragedy when innocent people die and doubly so if there isn't an outcry against the injustice. I mean, Britain once went to war over an ear ( an historic McGuffin). Innocent mothers being shot to death in the name of national policies should have enormous repercussions. I'm not just bothered by this War on Drugs, but on the electorates' passivity and indiffence to their own suffering and "oppression" by the State. We're not serfs, yet; we don't need to take it like Gogol's or Chekov's peasants would.

I didn't include this in my previous posted response to lesslucid but I think the militarization of law enforcement is a really dangerous trend, one that has been ongoing for at least the last 20 years but more particularly since the end of the Cold War. There are just so many cases that end unnecessarily in tragedy. While I feel for officers who work a really difficult job, unnecessary killings, along with overzealous asset forfeiture, demand action be taken to curb these particularly flagrant violations of civil liberties. Assuming, of course, there was wrongdoing or unnecessary use of force by these particular officers.

[lesslucid]

Rhinohelix, thanks for your thoughtful and considered response. I won't go through doing a point-by-point on everything you say - I think there are a few central points of contention which more or less everything else flows from, so if I miss something you think is essential rather than secondary, let me know.

> Cocaine is much more addictive and dangerous in its physiological effects than alcohol.

Would you support, then, the legalisation of drugs which are less addictive and dangerous than alcohol, then? According to the following article in The Lancet, that would include Cannabis, LSD, GHB, and Ecstasy, among other things.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/abstract

> What happens when the number of people using cocaine increases, as it invariably would, as it become more available, cheaper, and involves lower social cost, in stigma and criminality? No one wants to be a drug addict but everyone wants to have a good time. The more these drugs are seen as a gateway to that end, the more they will be used.

This is the main point of our disagreement, I think. Will many more people start using cocaine, if cocaine becomes cheaper? I think the answer is that taking drugs has plenty of non-financial costs, which people are able to rationally recognise, and that merely reducing the price is a pretty small-scale effect relative to those non-financial costs. Let me posit a thought experiment to illustrate: suppose I was trying to get you to take some cocaine. Presumably you'd be unwilling to pay for it. What if offered to pay you to take it? How much would I have to offer before you'd seriously consider it? Compare that sum with the current price of cocaine. (I have no idea how much it costs where you live - I think here it's something like A$200/gram.) The point of the thought experiment is to show it's a very price-inelastic good.

Or, rather...

> what was caused the crack "epidemic"? Inner-city lower SES African-Americans were not historically stereotypical users of powder cocaine. What changed? The drug was reprocessed, making it more active, causing shorter, higher highs and allowing smaller, much less expensive doses. As it became more pure and cheaper, addiction rates skyrocketed in those communities.

...if you're a drug user already, and are using drugs not to have fun but in order to cope with an out-of-control life, then of course price is relevant. But it's relevant between competing types of drug. Hence all the talk about "Ice epidemics"; methamphetamines are cheaper than heroin, so people who previously would have used heroin are switching over to meth. But the relevant question to ask about these people who all started using crack is, were they drug-free before crack started becoming available? Did the price dip low enough to tempt non-drug users into a life of penurious addiction?

> Dosages aren't controlled by who? Did you ever stop to think that people would just buy and take more?If the government only packages crack in 5mg (I have no idea here) doses, people won't smoke too much of it?! Think about it. "No more for me, Bob, the government says only take this much H and I have hit my limit". /boggle

People typically overdose accidentally because they purchase drugs that are purer and stronger than they have become accustomed to buying. You buy a little bag of white powder, you have no idea how much of that is baking soda, but if you consistently buy from the same dealer and in the same amount you will tend to develop a clear idea of how much of it is needed in order to get you high. Then one week your normal dealer is out of town, or they get some "good" stuff in, and you inject the same quantity of powder as you normally do, but because it's purer than usual, you have an overdose and die. With government regulated doses, people would be able to always know exactly what concentration they are using. Of course it doesn't prevent people from *deliberately* overdosing, but that's a completely different thing.

> addicts will stop saving their pennies to buy more of their drug of choice as opposed to sharing, right?

The idea with the needles is to include clean needles with the drugs that are sold. Put it inside the same box - like a toy that comes with batteries included!

> In most addicts' case, I would argue that this is due to the drug taking over their lives, reducing their wage earning ability, more so than the cost of the habit outstripping their income. Making it cheaper might reduce the crimes of economic need, yes, but another good question, at least to me: would that reduce the number of crimes or merely reduce dollar-value needed in order sustain the addicts' habit? And with a greater number of addicts, (in absolute terms, I don't see how you avoid this outcome. It's just simple math) does the number of crimes go up in total but down in severity?

Well, I don't agree at all with your idea that there would be more addicts. And of course, the collapse of one's life into a constant search for more drugs reduces one's earning ability. But most people... if it's possible to support a habit with reliable and legal work, most people will choose that option over a life of crime.

Speaking of reliable work, I should probably go do some, but thanks for disagreeing with me in a considered and civil manner. ;)

[BobJustBob]

Lima, Ohio? I have relatives there. :/

[Tom McNamara]

People typically overdose accidentally because they purchase drugs that are purer and stronger than they have become accustomed to buying. You buy a little bag of white powder, you have no idea how much of that is baking soda, but if you consistently buy from the same dealer and in the same amount you will tend to develop a clear idea of how much of it is needed in order to get you high. Then one week your normal dealer is out of town, or they get some "good" stuff in, and you inject the same quantity of powder as you normally do, but because it's purer than usual, you have an overdose and die. With government regulated doses, people would be able to always know exactly what concentration they are using. Of course it doesn't prevent people from *deliberately* overdosing, but that's a completely different thing.


From what I understand, people overdose accidentally for three reasons: One, it's their first time and they don't know what their tolerance is; two, they mix other drugs in, either out of ignorance or because they're at a stage where can't think too clearly. and three, they haven't taken the drug in a while and have become mentally accustomed to a specific level of intake. None of these problems would be solved through government-approved distribution.

Cutting or padding rarely differs enough from dealer to dealer to make a lethal difference. And if the stuff is stronger than usual, they tell you. They don't tell you when it's weaker than usual. Because one is a selling point, the other is not.

For the record, I've never done any of the hard stuff; I'm speaking second-hand and through research on sites like Erowid. So take it for what you will.

[Machfive]

I think this is completely wrong. The drugs have different properties which cause different addiction rates. I think the number of people who use alcohol and don't become alcoholics in no way reflects the number of people who use cocaine and don't become addicts.

Actually, this is blatantly wrong. My favorite discussion on the topic of addiction can be found uncut here:

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/writings/buckley_effects.shtml


Buckley: So you are saying that there are social circumstances that will raise the rate of consumption, but that raising the rate of consumption doesn't in fact raise the rate of addiction. In other words, if 50 per cent of the troops in Vietnam had been using crack, this would not have affected the rate at which, on returning to the U.S., they became addicted. They would have kicked the habit on reaching home.

Gazzaniga: That's the idea. Drug consumption can go up in a particular population, fueled by stress, but the rate of addiction doesn't go up no matter what the degree of stress. Most people can walk away from high drug use if their lives become more normal. Of course, the stress of the ghetto isn't the only situation that fuels high drug consumption. Plenty of affluent people who for some reason or another do not find their lives rewarding also escape into drugs.

Buckley: If it is true, then, that only a small percentage of those who take crack will end up addicted, and that that is no different from the small percentage who, taking one beer every Saturday night, will become alcoholics, what is the correct way in which to describe the relative intensity of the addictive element in a particular drug?

Gazzaniga: That is an interesting question and one that can't satisfactorily be answered until much more research is done. There are conundrums. Again, it is estimated that 21 million people tried cocaine in 1988. Yet, of those, only 3 million currently use it, and only a small percentage are addicted. As for crack, it is estimated that 2.5 million have used it, while only a half million say they still do, and that figure includes the addicted and the casual user. Some reports claim that as many as one half of crack users are addicted. As I have said, crack is cheap, and for that reason may be especially attractive to the poor. That is a non- pharmacological, non-biological factor, the weight of which we have not come to any conclusions about. We don't even have reliable data to tell us that crack creates a greater rate of addiction than, say, cocaine. My own guess is it doesn't. Remember that the drug acts on the same brain systems that cocaine and amphetamines do.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Don't forget that the purity and potency of street drugs can vary widely and (to the end user) unpredictably. "They're saying she ODed because she didn't know how good the shit was at Little Man's party."

[DennyA]

Why is this all the government's responsibility?

The PEOPLE could take this into our OWN HANDS!

I have the solution! WE can destroy the government's war on drugs! We can empty our jails, and force the government to stop wasting money on enforcement!

The solution is within our grasp... All we have to do is...

Stop using and buying drugs and the problem will go away.

[Machfive]

Cutting or padding rarely differs enough from dealer to dealer to make a lethal difference. And if the stuff is stronger than usual, they tell you. They don't tell you when it's weaker than usual. Because one is a selling point, the other is not.

That's also incorrect. The potency of drugs on the street vary greatly, and it's not until you're dealing with a higher-end, more reputable drug dealer (ha!) that you can rely on any sort of consistency. Even then, shit happens.

[Brendan]

Am I the only one here who thinks that the problem here is that the police procedures dealing with the use of lethal force are broken?

[MattKeil]

I've known several drug addicts over the years who just can't kick the habit. They lose their families, their careers, their futures. They know it, and yet they keep going back. Making drugs easier to get doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse as you would then throw open availability to the public-at-large, and there would be huge numbers of addicts overnight.

If the government doesn't have a problem with alcoholics being in this position, why does it care if a heroin addict is?

I'm with Machfive on this issue. I have never taken any kind of illegal drug, and have no interest in doing so. The strongest stuff I take is gin and the occasional Aleve. But I honestly don't understand why illegal drugs are, well...illegal. Any argument you could possibly make against any illegal drug applies equally or even doubly so to alcohol and/or tobacco, so the entire thing is completely ludicrous.

[rhinohelix]

Actually, this is blatantly wrong. My favorite discussion on the topic of addiction can be found uncut here:

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/writings/buckley_effects.shtml

In the sincerest way possible, where does that article address my point, that being about how alcohol addiction rates have no bearing on cocaine addiction rates?

Not to presuppose but surely you aren't saying all physiologically addictive drugs have equal addiction rates, such that alcohol is as addictive as cocaine, or crystal meth, or a prescription medication like oxycodone?

A good read, though.

Any argument you could possibly make against any illegal drug applies equally or even doubly so to alcohol and/or tobacco, so the entire thing is completely ludicrous.

In absolute terms, you are correct that those two are the most harmful. Then, however, the problem becomes one of scale. Would they remain the worst two in an environment where anything went? Doesn't that point argue for increased restrictions (as we have done with tobacco and alcohol via different methods) as opposed to increased legalizations?

Am I the only one here who thinks that the problem here is that the police procedures dealing with the use of lethal force are broken?
Assuming that police procedures were broken (or were correct in the first place), I think you win at least page 2 of the thread.

[Ephraim]

Stop using and buying drugs and the problem will go away.

The pharmaceutical industry has taught us, with billions of marketing dollars a year, that drugs solve our problems, from big (the HIV triple cocktail) to small (Lamisil for your unsightly yellowed toenails). From the time that we're children with sniffles, our Moms have rushed to give us drugs to make us feel better. We are initiated into a culture of drug taking very, very early and very, very regularly.

Taking drugs to solve problems and feel better is learned behaviour, and that's behaviour that's easy to generalize from legal to illegal drugs. It is problem solving through avoidance and not coping, and it's the easy way out. Almost everyone prefers the easy way out. Most drugs, legal or illegal, work. They make us feel better, so the thinking is "Why not use them?", especially when you are feeling hopeless, let's say due to very low Socio-economic Status. And for some people, drug abuse and dependence follows quickly after starting, for psychological and biological reasons.

All this to say that "The problem would go away if we'd all stop taking drugs" is not a realistic sentiment. We didn't turn into a culture of teetotalers when Prohibition was in effect, and we aren't turning off of drugs due to the War on Drugs.

For the record, I agree that the criminalization of the drug problem is an injustice of the modern age. It is a medical problem, and should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization and regulation, strict controls on who can purchase, sin taxation used to fund cessation programs, strictly controlled advertising, etc.

The only argument against legalizing marijuana, cocaine, ecstacy, LSD, that I accept is "Why add to our already existing social problems caused by the legal drugs?" It's a valid point. But I think the counterargument is, "The problems from keeping them illegal are far worse."

[Brendan]

Quit being so melodramatic, folks.

[Glenn]

Lucille: Well, apparently, mood-altering medication leads to street drugs. That's what this very handsome young doctor said on the Today Show.

Michael: That was Tom Cruise, the actor.

Lucille: They said he was some kind of scientist.

[Jonathan Blow]

Brendan: I don't think that people getting killed by SWAT teams no-knock raiding the wrong houses would mind very much if we are being "melodramatic" about the issue on message boards.

[MattKeil]

In absolute terms, you are correct that those two are the most harmful. Then, however, the problem becomes one of scale. Would they remain the worst two in an environment where anything went? Doesn't that point argue for increased restrictions (as we have done with tobacco and alcohol via different methods) as opposed to increased legalizations?

When alcohol was illegal, a large criminal element sprang up around the brewing, acquisition, and distribution of it. Huge amounts of money were thrown at enforcing the law, many people died on both sides of the conflict, and the situation was generally made far more dangerous than it was previously. When Prohibition was repealed, this stopped.

So yeah, not really buying what you're suggesting there.

[Ergo]

Lucille: Well, apparently, mood-altering medication leads to street drugs. That's what this very handsome young doctor said on the Today Show.

Michael: That was Tom Cruise, the actor.

Lucille: They said he was some kind of scientist. Gold.

[NoWayJose]

Brendan: I don't think that people getting killed by SWAT teams no-knock raiding the wrong houses would mind very much if we are being "melodramatic" about the issue on message boards.
This is true - they probably appreciate this.

[MikeSofaer]

This is a non-sequitor. Of course no one sets out to become a drug addict. Does that prevent it from happening? Cocaine is much more addictive and dangerous in its physiological effects than alcohol. What happens when the number of people using cocaine increases, as it invariably would, as it become more available, cheaper, and involves lower social cost, in stigma and criminality?

The professional public health people I know don't hold this view. Alcohol is much more likely to cause violent behavior than cocaine. Also, driving on alcohol makes you kill people, driving on amphetamines makes you a better driver.

Alcohol is much more physically addictive than cocaine (although I haven't looked this up in a while). Cocaine has almost no physical withdrawal symptoms. Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. I think caffeine may actually be more addictive than cocaine.

Decriminalizing cocaine would not make a societal problem anywhere near the alcohol problem. I've seen no serious professional even suggest it would be close.

There'd be far fewer black people dead and in prison, though. And drug users not having their lives destroyed beyond what the drugs do. And the cops wouldn't get to practice tactical entries as often. So there are problems for some.

[Sarkus]

Am I the only one here who thinks that the problem here is that the police procedures dealing with the use of lethal force are broken?

No, you're not. We should seperate the drug issue from the cops screwed up issue and deal with each seperately, because even if you legalize all the drugs that doesn't solve the cop issue.

[drewl]

Yeah, remember the recent thread about the cop tasering a guy over a traffic offense?
The Fuzz are outta' control man......

[Brendan]

Brendan: I don't think that people getting killed by SWAT teams no-knock raiding the wrong houses would mind very much if we are being "melodramatic" about the issue on message boards.

I'm not talking about the whole SWAT overstepping their boundries and murdering toddlers issue. I'm talking about the legalisation of narcotics issue. A lot of drugs are illegal for good reason. I've got no qualms with the guy who thinks that the occasional joint should be legal, but do people here really think that legalising heroin, crystal meth or PCP is the way to go?

[Machfive]

But do people here really think that legalising heroin, crystal meth or PCP is the way to go?

Yes.

Let me say this in bold print, so that it will be crystal clear:

The damage caused by the criminal element and ensuing 'war' that government wages on this criminal element exceeds the damage that could ever be caused by wide availability and legal consumption of any drug you can imagine by a hundredfold.

Decriminalizing drugs is not about making drugs legal, but about taking the black market and the damage caused by it out of the equation.

[lesslucid]

I'm not talking about the whole SWAT overstepping their boundries and murdering toddlers issue. I'm talking about the legalisation of narcotics issue. A lot of drugs are illegal for good reason. I've got no qualms with the guy who thinks that the occasional joint should be legal, but do people here really think that legalising heroin, crystal meth or PCP is the way to go?

Yes. Melodrama's got nothing to do with it - it's the clear and obvious outcome of careful thought on the subject of what is rationally and ethically best to do.

[Flowers]

Oh, you know what I've seen? People who are not alcoholics. They make up, I don't know, say, nearly everyone I have ever met.

I think that people should be able to do what they want, as long as they aren't being a danger to other people, but let me tell you, I've seen the way people are with their garbage, and I don't know if I trust them with bloody sharps, and I don't really think giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry all the tools they need to become amateur phlebotomists is going to result in an America that doesn't look like the aftermath of a fight scene from Fist of the North Star. I mean really. As far as the average American is concerned, heroin may as well be delivered in the form of a stick that needs to be ground down with a Dreml and misted onto their anal glands according to a geometric formula other than the Pythagorean theorem.

So I guess I am for America getting to do drugs if America can give me proof that it is responsible enough to clean up after itself for at least a whole week. I don't want this to turn out like the time the American people wanted a dog, and I ended up always having to feed it. Because I am not cleaning up blood, I'm going to just leave it where I find it and them I am going to ground everyone until they tell me who did it or it's cleaned up.

[Andrew Mayer]

Be honest Flowers. You actually got America the dog because you knew that it would make it love you the most.

[Damien Neil]

Personally, I'm not comfortable with cheap, legal, and widely available hard drugs, primarily because they have pretty much no health benefits and a host of nasty pitfalls, aside from chemical addiction.

Whereas I'm not comfortable with paramilitary police forces being used to combat recreational narcotic use, primarily because they have pretty much no benefits and a host of nasty pitfalls.

The "War on Drugs" doesn't work. If the occasional little old lady shot in the face was the price we had to pay to keep hippies from getting high...well, it still wouldn't be worth it, but at least there'd be an arguable cost/benefit tradeoff going on. As it is, there is pretty much no evidence that current drug policy is effective at anything other than putting people (mostly poor, mostly black) in prison, increasing violent crime, expanding government authority, and making a large number of very unpleasant people extremely rich.

We have a historical model for the effects of criminalizing recreational narcotics in the US. This J. D. Rockefeller quote from Wikipedia sums up the results of that experiment quite well:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

Everything that he said is still true today of our current war on drugs: Drug use has increased, drugs are widely available on the street, the number of people flouting drug law is staggering, and drug-related crime is rampant.

Note especially that the bulk of drug-related crime (both today and during the Prohibition era) is related to the distribution chain, not users or addicts. The violence perpetrated by Al Capone and his ilk is not caused by drugs, but by the criminalization of drugs.

I have no love for recreational narcotics. My grandfather died of lung cancer, doubtless a result of his nicotine habit. I have close friends who grew up in broken or abusive homes thanks to alcohol abuse by a parent. I have a friend whose depression led him to heroin addiction. The sum of the evils caused by these substances, however, pales in comparison to the harm done to our society by the misguided attempts to eliminate them through state-sponsored violence.

[bago]

Of course the obvious solution to people getting high at home is to send in trigger happy swat teams into all homes to arrest people that seem a little too happy.

Read all about it at theagitator.com.

[Theodore Rex DX]

I can't get my head around the fact that one of the primary arguments for decriminalising all drugs is about autonomy. Nothing de-autonomises a person like heroin or crack. How many of the legalise-everything people here have actually spent time with a heroin addict?

[madkevin]

Did you ever spend time with an alcoholic?

[Flowers]

I can't get my head around the fact that one of the primary arguments for decriminalising all drugs is about autonomy. Nothing de-autonomises a person like heroin or crack. How many of the legalise-everything people here have actually spent time with a heroin addict?

Well, religion is legal. And me, I have spent time with heroin addicts, I don't know what you are trying to say, but they weren't all robots, if that's what you are getting at. They aren't heroin addicts because heroin is delicious, they are heroin addicts because they are such unhappy people, like Damien said. The difference is that they would be unhappy people with better jobs because of the lack of felony possession convictions.

And in the immortal words of Doug Stanhope, "What about boredom? Boredom is a disease."

[Damien Neil]

I can't get my head around the fact that one of the primary arguments for decriminalising all drugs is about autonomy. Nothing de-autonomises a person like heroin or crack. How many of the legalise-everything people here have actually spent time with a heroin addict?

I'd say that a felony drug conviction and a prison term does quite a bit more to lessen a person's autonomy than a drug habit.

Again, I have a friend who is, alas, a heroin addict. The fact that his habit makes him a criminal is doing nothing to help him, and a very great deal to harm him and make it difficult for him to turn his life around.

[lesslucid]

I can't get my head around the fact that one of the primary arguments for decriminalising all drugs is about autonomy. Nothing de-autonomises a person like heroin or crack. How many of the legalise-everything people here have actually spent time with a heroin addict?

Well, I'm really not sure where you got the idea that one of the primary arguments for decriminalising drugs (although in my case I'm for legalisation rather than just decriminalisation) was about preserving autonomy. The two primary arguments I've put forth myself and seen put forth by others here are to do with minimising the damage to the unfortunate individuals have become addicted to drugs, and minimising the damage done to society as a whole by the prohibition of drugs. The primary argument I've seen in the other direction is this (strongly counter to the evidence) notion that legalisation would produce large numbers of new users and large numbers of new addicts. Autonomy might be part of the picture, but it's certainly not primary, at least from my point of view.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Did you ever spend time with an alcoholic?

My mother is an alcoholic, so yeah.

To everybody else who responded:

Thankyou for your reasonable replies. This really isn't an either/or proposition. I mean, it's just stupid to treat addicts like criminals - they have an illness and they need help. That is they should be prohibited from taking seriously destructive and addictive drugs, without being punished for it. Making money off them is the criminal part. I should have been clearer about that. I am entirely unconvinced that making 'crack dealer' a legitimite occupation is a remotely good idea.

[lesslucid]

Well, feels like beating a dead horse here, but... the legalisation of drugs, far from legitimising existing crack dealers, would put them out of business. The margins are only there because of the prices which are at artificially high levels because of the illegality and the money spent on enforcing those laws. If crack were legally sold through government-run supply centres, the "dealer" would just be some person sitting behind a counter being paid a salary.

[Destarius]

If crack were legally sold through government-run supply centres, the "dealer" would just be some person sitting behind a counter being paid a salary.

What happens when you don't have enough money to buy the crack you need to function? Or the amount of crack the government allows you to have is insufficient?

You're betting that the social ills of drugs such as heroin will magically disappear once it becomes legal? What will happen when you make illegal drugs legally available is that there will be widespread physical addiction. Good God, we have enough problems trying to get people to quit smoking. I'm sure the amount of money spent treating smoking-related illnesses isn't insignificant.


Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women.

Also, once you put heroin in the realm of big business, what makes you think big business won't try to market it and target the younger generation to make it fashionable (as has been done with tobacco)? Or, make heroin even more addictive/damaging by improving on existing formulations (as has been done with tobacco, also)?

[Theodore Rex DX]

Well, feels like beating a dead horse here, but... the legalisation of drugs, far from legitimising existing crack dealers, would put them out of business. The margins are only there because of the prices which are at artificially high levels because of the illegality and the money spent on enforcing those laws. If crack were legally sold through government-run supply centres, the "dealer" would just be some person sitting behind a counter being paid a salary.

That is ... a fucking dystopian nightmare. And it's avoiding the actual problem. And ... HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?

[Nick Walter]

That is ... a fucking dystopian nightmare. And it's avoiding the actual problem. And ... HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?

I think we disagree on the actual problem.

[Tankero]

You know, when you consider the absolute damage all these addictive substances can do to the human body, especially on the children of women who use them during their pregnancy, the only conclusion you could reasonably come to is that none of them should exist. None of them should be sold to the public under any circumstances because of the damage they could potentially, and do, cause.

But the genie is out of the bottle, as it is with so many other things, and the projection of force necessary for the situation the U.S. is in now, is simply exacerbating things. It's cancer removal by shotgun.

Yes, these drugs can be, and are, the source of so much misery in the world and in so many ways I can't wrap my head around them all. Even if legalizing isn't it, we have to accept that there has to be another approach to this problem. This one isn't improving the situation, and there are no solutions to this. There's only improvement, treatment, not cure.

[Glenn]

You're betting that the social ills of drugs such as heroin will magically disappear once it becomes legal? What will happen when you make illegal drugs legally available is that there will be widespread physical addiction.Switzerland disagrees. (http://www.drugpolicy.org/library%5Ctlcnr.cfm) Admittedly, they only have a quasi-legal situation, in which people who have failed at rehab can legally buy heroin for about $13 a dose, then nod off in the park nearby. And they practice all the harm-reduction stuff there, obviously, and aggressively pitch rehab to the junkies.

The upside?
In late 1994, the Social Welfare Department in Zurich held a press conference to issue its preliminary findings: 1) Heroin prescription is feasible, and has produced no black market in diverted heroin. 2) The health of the addicts in the program has clearly improved. 3) Heroin prescription alone cannot solve the problems that led to the heroin addiction in the first place. 4) Heroin prescription is less a medical program than a social-psychological approach to a complex personal and social problem. 5) Heroin per se causes very few, if any, problems when it is used in a controlled fashion and administered in hygienic conditions. Program administrators also found little support for the widespread belief that addicts' cravings for heroin are insatiable. When offered practically unlimited amounts of heroin (up to 300 milligrams three times a day), addicts soon realized that the maximum doses provided less of a "flash" than lower doses, and cut back their dosage levels accordingly.
Also, THE BIG POINT is that in the years since, as the program has been expanded, heroin use in Switzerland has been going down (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44417.php) year after year while rising in nearby countries.

The downside? Well, property values near Needle Park are presumably severely impacted. But that seems to be about it.

[Damien Neil]

You're betting that the social ills of drugs such as heroin will magically disappear once it becomes legal? What will happen when you make illegal drugs legally available is that there will be widespread physical addiction.

What did alcohol addiction rates look like before, during, and after Prohibition? To what degree did Prohibition reduce or eliminate the social ills of alcohol?

And, speaking of social ills, specifically what do you think are the social ills of illegal narcotics such as heroin? I'd say that the major ones are crime, overdoses, the spread of HIV and other diseases, and addiction. Three of these could be easily eliminated if we were willing to let go of our failed drug policies.

Crime is, as previously pointed out, almost entirely the result of the criminalization of drugs, not the drugs themselves. Violent drug-related crime is the realm of dealers and distributors, not addicts. Again, consider Prohibition: Al Capone is the symbol of crime in the 1920s, not alcoholics.

(This is not to say that drug users are never a source of crime, of course. They're just relatively insignificant compared to the distributors.)

Drug overdoses are caused by poor quality control. When someone dies of a heroin overdose, it is almost always because they received an unexpectedly potent batch of heroin. Regulation of narcotics, rather than prohibition, would eliminate this problem. Interestingly, there are again parallels to Prohibition: Illegally produced moonshine often contained unsafe levels of methanol, causing blindness or death.

The spread of disease through shared needles could be easily prevented through regulations requiring that every dose of an injected drug be sold with a clean needle.

As for addiction...that's one problem which decriminalizing narcotics would not solve. However, this is a problem which is not being solved by our current drug policy either! All the effort spent on fighting our "war" on drugs, all the civil liberties lost, the money spent, the innocent people gunned down by police...all of this has consistently failed to eliminate drug addiction.

It's time for us to stop turning addicts into criminals, and start treating them as troubled human beings in need of assistance.

Good God, we have enough problems trying to get people to quit smoking. I'm sure the amount of money spent treating smoking-related illnesses isn't insignificant.

Nicotine is substantially more addictive than heroin. Furthermore, as you say, nicotine addiction is a major public health problem.

Do you support the criminalization of nicotine? If not, why not?

[lesslucid]

That is ... a fucking dystopian nightmare. And it's avoiding the actual problem. And ... HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?

And this is what's called an argument from incredulity. ;)

Seriously though, I think a much better answer has been provided in the post above about legalised heroin in Switzerland. Of course wherever it is that addicts are buying their legal heroin has to be staffed by somebody, and those people could in some sense be termed "dealers". But because it's a government run operation, those people have no incentive to try to increase sales, get people addicted, &c &c...

But I'm curious about what you perceive as being the "actual problem" that this solution avoids.

[MikeSofaer]

But I'm curious about what you perceive as being the "actual problem" that this solution avoids.
Also, is avoiding problems bad? Is it cheating, like pacifism isn't winning fights?

[Enidigm]

How many people died in Alcohol related accidents last year in the US. 16,000? Doesn't that indicate we ought to more strongly regulate or outlaw alcohol?

I'm not trying to draw false parallels, but there is a case both to legalize and to criminalize. The problem is judging whether there is any way to win. In the case of alcohol related injuries, it seems it's simply balancing between two rather bad outcomes.

[Machfive]

To everyone here who thinks heroin is some sort of demon drug, a very well-researched and well-written article was posted on e2 a while ago. Some snippets:

There are four ways that heroin users tend to harm themselves, and none of them except overdosing is a direct result of diacetylmorphine itself. They are: overdose (which is vastly less common than popularly thought, but more on that below); adulterant toxicity; malnutrition; and damage caused by needle usage (diseases like HIV and hepatitis, vein damage, etc). Overdose, adulterants, and needle problems are all solvable and for the most part have fairly obvious solutions (which, ironically, the War on Some Drugs discourages). Malnutrition is more a problem for street users than more well off users, and causes most of the physical characteristics associated with "heroin chic" -- emaciation, sunken eyes, etc.

A heroin overdose causes the respiratory and cardiac systems to slow for a period of 4-6 hours until eventually respiration ceases entirely. For most of this period it is possible to reverse the effects of the overdose by stimulating the central nervous system. This is most effectively done with a drug like naloxone (trade name Narcan) which stimulates the CNS and blocks opiate receptors. However, due to general paranoia about criminal repercussions, many overdoses are either treated late or not at all.

The government has fought against needle exchange programs, which are an obvious and well-substantiated way to control the spread of HIV and hepatitis. The emphasis on punishment over treatment means that it is difficult for street addicts (those most likely to be caught in the war) to escape the social setting of other heroin users. And the primary dangers of shooting up -- 'overdose' in it's different guises, can be avoided by giving users easier access to Narcan; by making available methods to clean up heroin of adulterants (a fairly simple process; and what a strange irony that this substance, considered incredibly dangerous, would be considerably less dangerous if it was always pure!); and by educating people about the danger of polydrug abuse. Heroin deaths could drop drastically. Unfortunately the primary mechanism of action in the WOD is to make drugs so dangerous that people won't want to use them; the casualties that come as a result, regardless of how preventable they are, are simply collateral damage that feeds back into the next year's D.A.R.E. statistics handout.


http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1080460

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Unfortunately the primary mechanism of action in the WOD is to make drugs so dangerous that people won't want to use them

Who else read this and thought "fucking Tremere!"?

[Stormbinder]

LSD can shoot permanent holes in your mind if taken too many times

Hmm? What exactly did you have in mind? I thought LSD is relatively (mark the world "relatively") safe, for the drug of course. I never heard about any sort of "permanent holes in the mind". Quick search on wiki didn't turn up anything in that category, unless I've overlooked something.

[Destarius]

To everyone here who thinks heroin is some sort of demon drug, a very well-researched and well-written article was posted on e2 a while ago. Some snippets:

I think it's frankly ironic quoting all this from a guy whose friends have died from heroin use. Do note that the cure to overdose is that it is 'possible' to reverse it - it's not a given.

A solution in Switzerland doesn't automatically translate to a solution anywhere else. Unlike substances like alcohol, where one is able in most cases to restrain consumption until "after hours", or nicotine, which allows users to continue working during or after its use, heroin induces a stupor which effectively cripples the productivity of an individual.

Legalising such drugs doesn't eliminate the drug problem - it simply shifts its focus elsewhere. The message that it may send to the public, which may vary with culture, is that drug use is OK, it's only a medical problem that can be solved.

It's also a fallacy to think of Switzerland as having 'legalised' heroin. It's still illegal to deal in heroin, and in fact, Switzerland is tough on traffickers. Heroin possession outside of prescription in an injection room is still illegal though rarely prosecuted.

Admittedly, they only have a quasi-legal situation, in which people who have failed at rehab can legally buy heroin for about $13 a dose, then nod off in the park nearby.
Which caused significant problems and were shut down.

Nicotine is substantially more addictive than heroin. Furthermore, as you say, nicotine addiction is a major public health problem.Do you support the criminalization of nicotine? If not, why not?
Really, who knows, we may be heading there. We've already banned it from most major public places. It's a recognition that this is a substance which is doing us a lot of hurt. You also need to recognise that it's not only nicotine, but a host of other chemicals in each cigarette. The issue is that smoking has been around a lot longer in our culture than heroin has been (heroin being synthetic). Tobacco is fairly entrenched, as it is already legal, and its use is widespread.

Is there any real reason not to ban nicotine? Would a chemical which mimics nicotine in terms of addictiveness or lethality be legal today?

[Nick Walter]

Legalising such drugs doesn't eliminate the drug problem - it simply shifts its focus elsewhere. The message that it may send to the public, which may vary with culture, is that drug use is OK, it's only a medical problem that can be solved.


I'm just not seeing that. You are portraying the issue as a binary one, drug use is either totally banned or else encouraged. I think there's a lot of middle ground there that offers significantly better outcomes than either extreme.

How about heroin is legal to use, legal to sell in small doses, illegal to use anywhere public, and illegal to use while operating a motor vehicle. I'm sure we'd get various groups like MAD around to make sure that we all knew the evils of using it too. So it would end up in the same twilight realm as alcohol where it's legally usable in certain circumstances but frowned upon generally. Just like with alcohol we'd end up with a few people who end up overusing and hurting themselves and just like with alcohol we'd have to make provision as a society for helping those people.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Switzerland disagrees. (http://www.drugpolicy.org/library%5Ctlcnr.cfm) Admittedly, they only have a quasi-legal situation, in which people who have failed at rehab can legally buy heroin for about $13 a dose, then nod off in the park nearby. And they practice all the harm-reduction stuff there, obviously, and aggressively pitch rehab to the junkies.

The upside?
Also, THE BIG POINT is that in the years since, as the program has been expanded, heroin use in Switzerland has been going down (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44417.php) year after year while rising in nearby countries.

The downside? Well, property values near Needle Park are presumably severely impacted. But that seems to be about it.

But this is actually a method of treatment - it's a well thought-out and pragmatic way of dealing with the problem. Not just anybody can go and get it - it's not a heroin bar, which is what an alarming number of people (lesslucid) are arguing in favour of. Anybody sane is going to see the wisdom of this program.

Re: alcohol: People who get boozed on methylated spirits should not be allowed to drink methylated spirits. If you drink a lot of alcohol to the point that you are a zombie wreck, you should be prohibited from drinking alcohol (edit: and medically assisted in kicking the habit). I've been gunning for crack and heroin (and ignoring everything else) in this thread because they are fuck-you-up-right-away drugs. Yes, it's *possible* to be a fairly responsible heroin user - my advice to these people is to make their own and be discreet. If that's you, fuck the law. I don't think users should be penalised under any scheme (just dealers outside of clinics), so if you are responsible you aren't anybody's concern.

[Ephraim]

Just like with alcohol we'd end up with a few people who end up overusing and hurting themselves and just like with alcohol we'd have to make provision as a society for helping those people.

That's the part that puzzles me. We have a good, perfectly valid model for a harmful substance that only a few end up abusing and/or dependent upon that is legal, following a period of illegality, and it's alcohol. Yet the ardent "War on Drugs" people seem to ignore all the lessons we've learned there, contrary to all evidence.

What particularly infuriates me is that it is pressure from the US government that keeps Canada from taking the first step down the logical road of legalization. Our marijuana decriminalization bill died as soon as the Conservatives formed their minority government, and many sources report it's largely due to strongly worded sentiments from US diplomats. Funding to harm-reduction clinics in Vancouver and Montreal has also suffered under the compliant Tory government, and that means that there are many addicts out there suffering from hepatitis or HIV that need not have contracted those diseases.

All in the name of a morality that was already rejected in the 1920s.

[Destarius]

How about heroin is legal to use, legal to sell in small doses, illegal to use anywhere public, and illegal to use while operating a motor vehicle.

I'd agree that the Swiss experience does suggest that an alternative to the present method of dealing with users exists (ie with terms of imprisonment). However, the original proposition was to legalise drugs. I also personally think the Swiss approach may not necessarily translate well to every culture.

Frankly, I don't think it would be easy to balance a position which allows public consumption of drugs and sale in small doses. Would selling large doses of heroin be a serious crime or a mere regulatory infringement? I would find it hard to weigh the criminality of the act.

[Nick Walter]

I'd agree that the Swiss experience does suggest that an alternative to the present method of dealing with users exists (ie with terms of imprisonment). However, the original proposition was to legalise drugs. I also personally think the Swiss approach may not necessarily translate well to every culture.


Legalization was what I was discussing to, was it not? I think you are seeing some sort of equivalency between legalization and encumbered goverment encouraged use of drugs, an equivalency I don't think exists. As my example pointed out, it's possible legalize drugs in the sense that we don't automatically prosecute users, producers, or distributors but still criminalize many usage or distribution scenarios to make the situation more controllable.


Frankly, I don't think it would be easy to balance a position which allows public consumption of drugs and sale in small doses. Would selling large doses of heroin be a serious crime or a mere regulatory infringement? I would find it hard to weigh the criminality of the act.

I would certainly agree that it wouldn't be easy, but then lots of things in this world are quite hard but still well worth doing. We have models in place in terms of regulation of alcohol or (legal) drug sales that seem to work. I have to sign a logbook and respect purchase limits if I want to buy sudafed for crying out loud, so apparently these systems are feasible to implement.

[Destarius]

As my example pointed out, it's possible legalize drugs in the sense that we don't automatically prosecute users, producers, or distributors but still criminalize many usage or distribution scenarios to make the situation more controllable.

I disagree. Criminalisation without enforcement is meaningless. It doesn't become 'more controllable'. You either enforce, or you don't.

I would certainly agree that it wouldn't be easy, but then lots of things in this world are quite hard but still well worth doing. We have models in place in terms of regulation of alcohol or (legal) drug sales that seem to work. I have to sign a logbook and respect purchase limits if I want to buy sudafed for crying out loud, so apparently these systems are feasible to implement.

When I say 'would not be easy', what I really mean is 'you can screw up horribly'. I don't think it's worth doing. Certainly, the war on drugs may have been less than successful, but that doesn't mean that legalisation is at all a viable option. This is not the approach even in Switzerland. In fact, attempts at legalisation have been roundly defeated.

But why has the war on drugs failed? On the other side of the world (especially Asia Pacific), we see countries with fairly draconian anti-drug legislations (first time traffickers are often hung for trafficking in excess of just 15g of diamorphine, first time users sentenced to months or even years of imprisonment). It would appear that success in dealing with the drug problem varies more with the efforts of the various country DEAs than the legislation. Maybe the problem lies with the US DEA, and not so much on the idea of the war on drugs. My view is that capitulating to the drug problem is not a solution. What happens when you make heroin readily available world-wide? Will the drug kingpins fold up and go home? Nah, chances are they'll come up with something different and equally illegal.

[Nick Walter]

I disagree. Criminalisation without enforcement is meaningless. It doesn't become 'more controllable'. You either enforce, or you don't.


You've totally lost me now, what exactly are you talking about? Are you arguing that the situation I proposed in unenforceable? Are you arguing that enforcing such a middle ground situation is more difficult than enforcing the current mess we have created with total illegality?



When I say 'would not be easy', what I really mean is 'you can screw up horribly'. I don't think it's worth doing. Certainly, the war on drugs may have been less than successful, but that doesn't mean that legalisation is at all a viable option. This is not the approach even in Switzerland. In fact, attempts at legalisation have been roundly defeated.


How can it be screwed up horribly? I'm of the opinion that complete legalization, in the unencumbered sense you were using the term in, would improve the status quo. The enforcement costs and crime costs created by the underground drug economy are immense. Getting rid of this is a massive good, even if we have to start tackling increased problems from addicts we still net win. However, I think the optimal solution is still more like I described where drugs are legal but regulated because then we could reap the benefit of wiping out the enforcement costs and crime from the underground drug economy while at the same time mitigating the effects that addiction would have on society. Where's the downside here?


But why has the war on drugs failed? On the other side of the world (especially Asia Pacific), we see countries with fairly draconian anti-drug legislations (first time traffickers are often hung for trafficking in excess of just 15g of diamorphine, first time users sentenced to months or even years of imprisonment). It would appear that success in dealing with the drug problem varies more with the efforts of the various country DEAs than the legislation. Maybe the problem lies with the US DEA, and not so much on the idea of the war on drugs. My view is that capitulating to the drug problem is not a solution. What happens when you make heroin readily available world-wide? Will the drug kingpins fold up and go home? Nah, chances are they'll come up with something different and equally illegal.

Bringing up draconian drug enforcement policies is just distorting the debate because those are not applicable to America today. Our tradition of civil liberties and individual rights prevent such a thing. If we start trading off those right and liberties just for better drug enforcement then we've incurred a completely unacceptable cost for little benefit.

[Destarius]

You've totally lost me now, what exactly are you talking about? Are you arguing that the situation I proposed in unenforceable? Are you arguing that enforcing such a middle ground situation is more difficult than enforcing the current mess we have created with total illegality?

No, what I'm saying is that you mentioned criminalising usage/distribution without automatic prosecution. That is simply having paper laws. You need to follow up criminalisation with prosecution.

The enforcement costs and crime costs created by the underground drug economy are immense. Getting rid of this is a massive good, even if we have to start tackling increased problems from addicts we still net win.

That is not something which is true across the various countries. You need to examine why the war on drugs is failing and why the costs of enforcement is so high. Is it a failure of the war or of the agencies involved?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My use of draconian drug enofrcement policies indicates that even at the end where punishment is extreme, some countries have failed to control the drug problem, and some have succeeded, which suggests that the ability of a DEA to detect and bring to justice the players may play a larger role than the actual laws themselves.

When you legalise drugs, you are going to make it available widely on a public basis. Once that happens, you're going to find it hard to keep it out of the hands of children. How many kids you know smoke a crack pipe today, versus how many kids you know smoke a cigarette? Don't you think availability and legalisation are correlated? What is the prospective impact on a child on heroin versus a child who lights up a cigarette? I had my first cigarette at 9. I hated it and I stopped. What do you think would happen if a child took heroin at 9 and he gets a straight high?

[Nick Walter]

No, what I'm saying is that you mentioned criminalising usage/distribution without automatic prosecution. That is simply having paper laws. You need to follow up criminalisation with prosecution.


Err okay. I wasn't trying to propose any sort of laws that wouldn't be enforced so I'm not sure where you are going with that, but I do agree 100% with your point that unenforced laws are pointless.


That is not something which is true across the various countries. You need to examine why the war on drugs is failing and why the costs of enforcement is so high. Is it a failure of the war or of the agencies involved?


I'm of the opinion that it's a fundamental failure by nature and the details are irrelevant. Yes we could probably improve the effectiveness of various enforcement methods via better techniques but that doesn't do anything but add additional costs for enforcement. Catching more drug dealers just means more trials and more imprisonment. We'll never catch enough to really shut down the supply side of the equation. The civil rights and liberties we give to individuals in this country mean that we can't effectively catch enough to shut down producers and suppliers.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. My use of draconian drug enofrcement policies indicates that even at the end where punishment is extreme, some countries have failed to control the drug problem, and some have succeeded, which suggests that the ability of a DEA to detect and bring to justice the players may play a larger role than the actual laws themselves.


I got that, I think I was just unclear with my reply because I wanted to jump to my point that no enforcement method can be effective enough to really shut down the supply side of the drug economy considering how many rights individual Americans have. Mea culpa.


When you legalise drugs, you are going to make it available widely on a public basis. Once that happens, you're going to find it hard to keep it out of the hands of children. How many kids you know smoke a crack pipe today, versus how many kids you know smoke a cigarette? Don't you think availability and legalisation are correlated? What is the prospective impact on a child on heroin versus a child who lights up a cigarette? I had my first cigarette at 9. I hated it and I stopped. What do you think would happen if a child took heroin at 9 and he gets a straight high?

I'm a little disappointed, we were having a good discussion and then you did the political equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "I can't hear you lalalalala." You really played the "think of the children!" card? That's just sad.

Yes, some thing that are legal to sell are dangerous to kiddies. That's why we have parents that are supposed to prevent them from getting to kiddies. I think it's obvious that any legalized drugs would be regulated to keep them out of the hands of kids, in a fashion very similar to how we regulate alcohol.

[MikeSofaer]

But why has the war on drugs failed? On the other side of the world (especially Asia Pacific), we see countries with fairly draconian anti-drug legislations (first time traffickers are often hung for trafficking in excess of just 15g of diamorphine, first time users sentenced to months or even years of imprisonment).

If only young black men involved in the drug trade had a high likelihood of paying a terrible personal cost for doing by far the most reliable steady work available to them. If we could make drug dealing really risky, I bet it would cut down on the appeal of the trade, and probably the glamorization too.

[Lizard_King]

America has a long and proud tradition of calling things "war" in order to engage them in a manner that ignores reality but employs a bureaucracy and entertains the target audience. From wars on poverty to wars on drugs and terror, we continue to artificially impose military goals and strategy in a half assed manner.

You want to have a war on drugs? Fine. Shoot everyone that sells or does drugs, on the spot. By making them permanent customers of the criminal justice industry, whether in actual prisons or in the destroyed neighborhoods we expect them to rise above, you've just passed on the dirty work to the faceless American entity...at least have the courage of your convictions.

[Damien Neil]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My use of draconian drug enofrcement policies indicates that even at the end where punishment is extreme, some countries have failed to control the drug problem, and some have succeeded, which suggests that the ability of a DEA to detect and bring to justice the players may play a larger role than the actual laws themselves.

From 2000 to 2006, the number of people incarcerated in the US grew by in excess of 150,000 persons. More than half of that increase is accounted for by people convicted of drug offenses.

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf

You seem to be arguing that the problem with drug enforcement in the US is that we don't have enough of it. That's a rather extraordinary claim, given the dramatic increase in enforcement activity over the past couple of decades, and I think that it requires extraordinary evidence to support it.

Furthermore, I should note that the effects of punishment on human behavior are quite well studied. There is little evidence that harsher penalties are more effective than milder ones--rather, the probability of punishment is what determines the deterrent effect.

It is difficult, however, to imagine how we could increase the certainty of punishment in some sections of our population. The current expectation is that one in three black men alive today will be incarcerated at some point in their lives. Given this fact, if law enforcement were the solution to dealers on the street, one would expect the poor, black drug dealer to be a thing of the past. Sadly, this is not the case.

For decades, US drug policy has functioned on a philosophy of "keep clapping": If only we try a little bit harder, yield a few more civil liberties, give a bit more power to law enforcement, and accept a few more innocent people shot in the face during drug raids, we will turn the corner, eliminate drug use, and see Tinkerbell return to life.

It hasn't worked yet.

[lesslucid]

But this is actually a method of treatment - it's a well thought-out and pragmatic way of dealing with the problem. Not just anybody can go and get it - it's not a heroin bar, which is what an alarming number of people (lesslucid) are arguing in favour of. Anybody sane is going to see the wisdom of this program.

It's nice to see that I'm an alarming number of people. ;)

Seriously though, if you agree with providing heroin legally to existing addicts, then the difference between us is not that big. That would be most of the drug dealing business wrecked, and make a serious dent in the vast majority of the social problems caused by heroin. Of course I would want the sale of powerful drugs to be heavily regulated, but the aim should always be to protect society as a whole and minimise the harm done by drugs.

Also, to whoever proposed the science-fiction scenario in which legalised heroin and cocaine leads to the invention of new, even-more powerful (and super-illegal) drugs, I just wanted to say this sounds rather implausible to me. Psychopharmacology is limited by what will actually have a pleasing effect on the human brain, that produces experiences that people will actually want to repeat. You can't just cook up something new and have it producing hundreds of addicts the following day. Unless there are historical examples of what you're talking about, I'd suggest the model offered by the repeal of alcohol prohibition still applies: the legalisation of alcohol was a massive blow to organised crime.

[Destarius]

You seem to be arguing that the problem with drug enforcement in the US is that we don't have enough of it. That's a rather extraordinary claim, given the dramatic increase in enforcement activity over the past couple of decades, and I think that it requires extraordinary evidence to support it.

Read my post again. What I said is, harsher laws does not equal better enforcement.

For the avoidance of doubt, more spending does not also equate to better enforcement. More arrests at a lower level also does not equate to better results in the overall war on drugs.

[Destarius]

Yes we could probably improve the effectiveness of various enforcement methods via better techniques but that doesn't do anything but add additional costs for enforcement.

Maybe we can think of new ways to doing this, with the right partners and leveraging the right technologies. I don't believe the DEA is doing this in the most efficient way possible (Lean Six Sigma FTW!)

Yes, some thing that are legal to sell are dangerous to kiddies. That's why we have parents that are supposed to prevent them from getting to kiddies. I think it's obvious that any legalized drugs would be regulated to keep them out of the hands of kids, in a fashion very similar to how we regulate alcohol.

I don't think it's wrong to "think of the kids" because I used to literally "think of the kids" in terms of policy and punishment. If you really think that every parent, even responsible ones, are going to be able prevent a child's friends from offering him drugs, that's wishful thinking. Just think, how many of us got our hands on porn before we were 18? Smoked a cigarette? Drank alcohol? Even with pot illegal, many teens or young adults still managed to have their toke.

When you add hard drugs to the list of available substances, you can add the question "Smoked a crack joint".

[Nick Walter]

Maybe we can think of new ways to doing this, with the right partners and leveraging the right technologies. I don't believe the DEA is doing this in the most efficient way possible (Lean Six Sigma FTW!)


I have no doubt the government could be a lot more efficient in terms of enforcement, but I don't think there's any point to it. Like I said, it just puts more people in prison and the money we spend on courts and prison for drug offenders goes up. That worsens the problem, as opposed to making it better.

In theory one could assert that if we just enforced hard enough and consistently enough we could make a dent in the supply side of the drug economy and reduce the scope of the problem, but I don't believe it's possible. The level of surveillance of the population at large that would be required for such a thing is simply going to be unacceptable to Americans. It's just not going to fly, nor would I want it to fly because once the government gets that level of observation of the populace going on for good reasons they are likely to also use it for bad reasons.



I don't think it's wrong to "think of the kids" because I used to literally "think of the kids" in terms of policy and punishment. If you really think that every parent, even responsible ones, are going to be able prevent a child's friends from offering him drugs, that's wishful thinking. Just think, how many of us got our hands on porn before we were 18? Smoked a cigarette? Drank alcohol? Even with pot illegal, many teens or young adults still managed to have their toke.

When you add hard drugs to the list of available substances, you can add the question "Smoked a crack joint".

The kids angle here is irrelevant. Yeah, drugs for kids is bad, mkay. How would legalization change child exposure significantly? You think kids don't get exposed to drugs now? You can't nerf the world in the name of "think of the children" and it's one of my major pet peeves when people pull this crap in political debates. If something poses a risk to children (and tons of things do) then the correct response is to increase education to parents and children about the dangers and accept the fact that poorly parented kids are always going to be in some danger. This is an old old problem and the presence or absence of legal drugs is not going to impact it much.

[Machfive]

Just think, how many of us got our hands on porn before we were 18? Smoked a cigarette? Drank alcohol? Even with pot illegal, many teens or young adults still managed to have their toke.

And we turned out fucking fine. Some of us even go on to be presidential fucking candidates.

The vast majority of people can recreationally use drugs and stay far from the realm of addiction. For a small percentage of the population, there is definitely a predisoposition to addiction, and it's sad, but if we begin to attack addiction full-force from a medical side, and stop stygmatizing drug use, then we might actually be able to help these people.

Who do you trust more not to sell drugs to kids: The drug store owner would would face huge fines by the gov if they caught him selling to underaged people, or Johnny Drugdealer, the street-corner slanger who doesn't have a drug sale license, who doesn't report his income and sales to the government, and who is practically invisible to law enforcement?

First, we minimize harm. And that means full decriminilization, in order to make the drug supply safer, to stop jailing people for what amounts to a pecadillo, and to take the profit lever away from illegal drug sales and put the drug dealers out of business for good.

This would have the wonderful side effect of eliminating a large percentage of the gun violence that plagues our country. The innocent victims of the drug war are legion enough, from unsuspecting pedestrians caught in drive-bys, to harmless junkies who get a dose of dope that's adulterated and OD. Enough is enough.

[Machfive]

Part of the problem with prescription medicine addiction is actually blowback from the War on Drugs.

People get into this mindset that heroin and cocaine are these horrific things that will turn them instantly into drug-craving junkies, which is an utter falsehood. Neither drug causes physical dependence that quickly.

So when they're prescribed something by their doctor, they assume it's totally safe, and they don't even look out for the warning signs that they're developing a dependence on it.

Nevermind the fact that the only thing that separates heroin and oxycodone are minor molecular differences and the fact that oxycodone is pure and safe.

[Lizard_King]

Maybe we can think of new ways to doing this, with the right partners and leveraging the right technologies. I don't believe the DEA is doing this in the most efficient way possible (Lean Six Sigma FTW!)
The "right partners" means outsourcing your domestic concerns into the laps of other, poorer countries who don't have much choice if they want our money as opposed to our enmity (few can pull a Hugo, so to speak). All the drug war has brought those countries is misery and death. No amount of tactical refinement or technological enhancement is going to be able to fundamentally undercut the only billion dollar industry you can run in the backwoods of Bolivia. Why? Because it fundamentally mistakes a social/political issue which requires solutions along those lines for a military or criminal obstacle. It isn't, and Clausewitz can't do any more for it.


I don't think it's wrong to "think of the kids" because I used to literally "think of the kids" in terms of policy and punishment. If you really think that every parent, even responsible ones, are going to be able prevent a child's friends from offering him drugs, that's wishful thinking. Just think, how many of us got our hands on porn before we were 18? Smoked a cigarette? Drank alcohol? Even with pot illegal, many teens or young adults still managed to have their toke.
...and shortly thereafter the world ended. The concept of gateway drugs is driven by a black market economy of drugs. You can argue that legalization and restriction won't solve that issue, but it could hardly place the incentives for the seller and the customer in worse places than they are now.

When you add hard drugs to the list of available substances, you can add the question "Smoked a crack joint".
Yeah, crack is a magic word for prohibitionists. Never mind that it was originally conceived a rational economic response on the part of drug distributors to the pressures of the drug war and the realities of selling to disposable customers who are by definition criminals. And whatever the next scary drug that tears apart the soccer mom list serve is, you have your team to thank for it.

Criminals are only rarely strategic thinkers, because it's only applicable to a certain degree from their side as well. What coordinated, long term engineering there has been on a grand scale has been from the other side of the war. And that's just turned out great, hasn't it? How long will you persist in reinforcing failure? I guess it's one of the perks of having the core of your voting bloc care more about the next world than this one.