5 ms·

The war on drugs costs us $51 billon annually* and the only upside is that corporations selling legal drugs like alcoholic beverages and prescription medication

The war on drugs costs us $51 billon annually* and the only upside is that corporations selling legal drugs like alcoholic beverages and prescription medications get to keep their artificial monopoly. It's easily the biggest scam ever foisted onto a society and with next to no protest. As Americans we all pay for this and it works against us by limiting our options and telling us what we can and can't do for recreation. That $51 billon could easily go towards Medicare for All and with more intelligent drug options the number of Americans addicted to Alcohol and Opiates would decline. http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_sheet_Drug_War_Budget_Feb2015.pdf http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_sheet...

jaredhansen 7y ago
>The war on drugs costs us $51 billon annually and the only upside is that corporations selling legal drugs like alcoholic beverages and prescription medications get to keep their artificial monopoly.* That $51B "cost" is known as "income" to those on whom it is spent (cops, prisons, misc security contractors, weapons manufacturers, on and on). Similarly, the "only upside is ... artificial monopoly" -- well, for the artificial monopolists, that's a pretty big upside! I don't think there's some kind of Grand Conspiracy here (ref. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-call-it-conspiracy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-c... ), but I also don't think one is needed. A whole heck of a lot of people benefit directly from the drug war, and these people are a powerful constituency. The fact that $51B is spent on that constituency instead of on Medicare for All or whatever is, for much of that constituency, a feature and not a bug.
- mikeash 7y ago
  The war in drugs got started as a way to go after leftists and minorities: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich... There are a lot of mundane things keeping it going, but sometimes a little bit of conspiracy ends up being right.
  - opo 7y ago
    There are reasons to be skeptical of this alleged quote by Ehrlichman. As user GatorD42 pointed out when this was brought up before: >...Baum claims Ehrlichman said that to him in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999). If the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it doesn't actually describe the drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was: >...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him). http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...
stevenicr 7y ago
Also increases the cost of cocaine and others right? This lines the pockets of all those who get paid off along the route, and sucks away money from the US economy at a larger scale as well. That appears to be an upside to some people who would like to keep them illegal and the war going right?
- ficklepickle 7y ago
  Yep. The fentanyl crisis was directly caused by the "war on drugs". Prohibition creates economic incentives to create cheaper substitutes. These substitutes cause more harm than the original substance. During alcohol prohibition, methanol was used. Pressure on MDMA precursor chemicals has led to many more dangerous substitutes like TFMPP/BZP. I wish we could have fact-based policy, and not just with regards to drugs.

jaredhansen 7y ago

>The war on drugs costs us $51 billon annually and the only upside is that corporations selling legal drugs like alcoholic beverages and prescription medications get to keep their artificial monopoly.* That $51B "cost" is known as "income" to those on whom it is spent (cops, prisons, misc security contractors, weapons manufacturers, on and on). Similarly, the "only upside is ... artificial monopoly" -- well, for the artificial monopolists, that's a pretty big upside! I don't think there's some kind of Grand Conspiracy here (ref. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-call-it-conspiracy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-c... ), but I also don't think one is needed. A whole heck of a lot of people benefit directly from the drug war, and these people are a powerful constituency. The fact that $51B is spent on that constituency instead of on Medicare for All or whatever is, for much of that constituency, a feature and not a bug.

mikeash 7y ago
The war in drugs got started as a way to go after leftists and minorities: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich... There are a lot of mundane things keeping it going, but sometimes a little bit of conspiracy ends up being right.
- opo 7y ago
  There are reasons to be skeptical of this alleged quote by Ehrlichman. As user GatorD42 pointed out when this was brought up before: >...Baum claims Ehrlichman said that to him in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999). If the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it doesn't actually describe the drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was: >...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him). http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...

stevenicr 7y ago

Also increases the cost of cocaine and others right? This lines the pockets of all those who get paid off along the route, and sucks away money from the US economy at a larger scale as well. That appears to be an upside to some people who would like to keep them illegal and the war going right?

ficklepickle 7y ago
Yep. The fentanyl crisis was directly caused by the "war on drugs". Prohibition creates economic incentives to create cheaper substitutes. These substitutes cause more harm than the original substance. During alcohol prohibition, methanol was used. Pressure on MDMA precursor chemicals has led to many more dangerous substitutes like TFMPP/BZP. I wish we could have fact-based policy, and not just with regards to drugs.