5 ms·

The OP chose to talk about bloodshed. We are now characterizing how bloody the 'war on drugs' has been. We are not characterizing how bad it might be in any oth

The OP chose to talk about bloodshed. We are now characterizing how bloody the 'war on drugs' has been. We are not characterizing how bad it might be in any other sense. This is a focused argument intended to examine something precisely. I asked about bloodshed in response to a claim about bloodshed. I don't want to hear about 'trickle down punishment' in response. Do you understand how inadequate that is?

nitrogen 9y ago
Nobody wants to engage in debates over arbitrarily specific terms just to satisfy one person's pedantic beef. Also, you don't own the thread; people can respond as they please and the votes and mods will sort it out.
- manyhands 9y ago
  It is my hope that the power of our words will sort things out. I'm here to argue in the original sense of the word, and while I am ultimately interested in the broad consequences of drug laws in the US, I consider it healthy and productive to first focus on an indisputably negative consequence, physical harm -- especially when it has been proposed that these laws have resulted in more of this than any war in recent history. If we can't talk through this point, a fair treatment of broader and less easily chracterized consequences is hopeless.
Clubber 9y ago
By bloodshed, I mean death or casualties, not limited to only when blood pours out. When people talk about bloody wars, they also cite casualties which includes wounded. It's obviously incalculable, but consider these: 1. US gang violence. (8,900 deaths in 2010, higher in 80s,90s) 2. Drug war related deaths in Mexico 1990-2010 (220,000 deaths) 3. Drug war related deaths in Columbia, 1990-2010 (450,000 deaths) 4. Killings by militarized police. (unknown) 5. Overdose deaths (65K in 2016 at peak, but a lot in 70s-90s) http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm https://colombiareports.com/the-price-of-colombias-drug-war/ https://colombiareports.com/the-price-of-colombias-drug-war/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid... I would guess that overdose deaths primarily occur because the user doesn't know what dosage they are given, a result of the black market. I suspect there are some intentional suicide overdose deaths, but those would be low. The overdose deaths are just for one year as are the gang violence deaths. Gangs arm themselves with drug money. The US had 720,000 deaths in our bloodiest war, the Civil War, 2/3rds of that was disease, which you may or may not consider bloodshed. Just Mexico and Columbia alone account for 670K deaths between 1990 and 2010. Add 7 years to the top end, and 20 years from 1970 to 1990 and that number is growing substantially. I'm not sure if you would count the Philippines as directly related to US policies, but I think their death count is already at 12K for the year. Anyway, these are some numbers that I threw together in about 10 minutes. It excludes a bunch of countries that were directly affected by US drug war policies. The numbers are quite high. Not WWII total deaths high, but certainly Civil War military deaths high (our bloodiest war).

nitrogen 9y ago

Nobody wants to engage in debates over arbitrarily specific terms just to satisfy one person's pedantic beef. Also, you don't own the thread; people can respond as they please and the votes and mods will sort it out.

manyhands 9y ago
It is my hope that the power of our words will sort things out. I'm here to argue in the original sense of the word, and while I am ultimately interested in the broad consequences of drug laws in the US, I consider it healthy and productive to first focus on an indisputably negative consequence, physical harm -- especially when it has been proposed that these laws have resulted in more of this than any war in recent history. If we can't talk through this point, a fair treatment of broader and less easily chracterized consequences is hopeless.

Clubber 9y ago

By bloodshed, I mean death or casualties, not limited to only when blood pours out. When people talk about bloody wars, they also cite casualties which includes wounded. It's obviously incalculable, but consider these: 1. US gang violence. (8,900 deaths in 2010, higher in 80s,90s) 2. Drug war related deaths in Mexico 1990-2010 (220,000 deaths) 3. Drug war related deaths in Columbia, 1990-2010 (450,000 deaths) 4. Killings by militarized police. (unknown) 5. Overdose deaths (65K in 2016 at peak, but a lot in 70s-90s) http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm https://colombiareports.com/the-price-of-colombias-drug-war/ https://colombiareports.com/the-price-of-colombias-drug-war/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid... I would guess that overdose deaths primarily occur because the user doesn't know what dosage they are given, a result of the black market. I suspect there are some intentional suicide overdose deaths, but those would be low. The overdose deaths are just for one year as are the gang violence deaths. Gangs arm themselves with drug money. The US had 720,000 deaths in our bloodiest war, the Civil War, 2/3rds of that was disease, which you may or may not consider bloodshed. Just Mexico and Columbia alone account for 670K deaths between 1990 and 2010. Add 7 years to the top end, and 20 years from 1970 to 1990 and that number is growing substantially. I'm not sure if you would count the Philippines as directly related to US policies, but I think their death count is already at 12K for the year. Anyway, these are some numbers that I threw together in about 10 minutes. It excludes a bunch of countries that were directly affected by US drug war policies. The numbers are quite high. Not WWII total deaths high, but certainly Civil War military deaths high (our bloodiest war).