4 ms·

What I want to know is why governments support all illegal drug dealing, and dont get a cut of the action themselves. The illegality is pretty much what makes i

by alan_cx 13y ago

What I want to know is why governments support all illegal drug dealing, and dont get a cut of the action themselves. The illegality is pretty much what makes it profitable. All the "war" on drugs does is keep the prices up. Mean while the government just pours our tax money down the drain, get zero in return. Legalize it and the government can tax it. Dealers get wiped out, and with them, a lot of the violence. The tax money raised can pay for a lot of rehab, and the police can concentrate on actual crime with the saved resources. I could go on...

cransa 13y ago
Because they're already making a lot of money from weed and other drugs being illegal. It's the prison industrial complex, man. The government isn't interested in stopping violence. If so, we'd have much saner drug laws. Drug busts are easy and when you do them the DEA and federal government give you money to buy shiny toys like tanks and new body armor.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Yeah, I suppose you do have a point there... Nasty way to run things, no?
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's phat to blame the prison industrial complex, but they're just taking advantage of the Puritan strain in American society. Remember, we're a country that actually passed a Constitutional amendment to make alcohol, even beer, illegal. I'm sure the DEA loves the status quo, but that's not where the votes come from. The votes come from everyone who bought into Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign. People like my mom, who thinks pot causes young men to give up on life and not get jobs or girlfriends and just play video games all day, and supports keeping it illegal because she thinks that's bad for the country. If you poll your mom and her friends, I bet you see that viewpoint pretty well-represented.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The government runs propaganda campaigns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Anti-Drug_Media_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Anti-Drug_Media_...) to convince people like your mother that drugs are the worse thing imaginable. Those people then turn around and support the government in its opposition to drugs. So why do they want to convince the public that drugs need to be pursued in the first place? If they were merely responding to pressure from the public, then that would be one thing, but they are fueling that sentiment. They want the public to think that way. Do they want to sway the public because they are themselves 'true believers'? Or are there less noble motivations? I suspect it is a combination of both.
    - engrenage 13y ago
      The government fuels positive sentiment around pretty much all of its policies. It doesn't go round saying 'our policies suck' because that would provide an opening to opposition.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I don't see many television commercials for, say, the USDA's Rural Development programs. The absence of such television ads isn't them saying that those programs suck either. Being quite about it is the default position, spending many millions on primetime television ad spots to push it is exceptional.
    - soup10 13y ago
      I suspect the root of it is that drugs make individuals respect authority less, so naturally to protect it's power government opposes the use of drugs. Rationalization takes care of the rest(play up the negative aspects of drug usage, downplay the positive aspects of usage and legalization).
    - rayiner 13y ago
      As I've said before, I think the power of marketing is less extensive than regularly believed. If the government could create demand for the drug war, then Microsoft could've made Windows RT happen... My mom, who isn't a native English speaker, doesn't consume American media. And her Indian movies aren't being interrupted by ads for a Drug Free America. The fact is that prohibition is a natural tendency in many societies. Whether its Jews not eating shrimp or Muslims not drinking alcohol, prohibitions have existed since long before modern marketing campaigns. In the U.S., prohibition of alcohol was not the result of government propaganda and powerful interests, but a grass roots movement, fully supported by women in particular. Just as that generation saw alcohol as an attack on their husbands, this generation of mothers sees marijuana as an attack on their teenagers.
adventured 13y ago
It's considered a conspiracy theory, but many people do believe the government takes a cut of the drug trade. That money would be far more valuable than normal tax dollars because a small group would get to control it without any oversight or tax distribution (off the books it could be used for anything). I believe the Federal Government will only legalize pot under one of two circumstances: 1) it becomes more profitable to tax it (the theory being that it's not today) and 2) they can no longer keep the cartels under control and they become a direct security threat
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  It is a fairly well documented theory. See: "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" by Alfred McCoy. See also: Iran Contra
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>What I want to know is why governments support all illegal drug dealing, and dont get a cut of the action themselves They do get a cut. Property forfeiture, among other things. Right now I am reading Balko's "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" and McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" You'd probably be amazed. I am.

by alan_cx 13y ago

cransa 13y ago

Because they're already making a lot of money from weed and other drugs being illegal. It's the prison industrial complex, man. The government isn't interested in stopping violence. If so, we'd have much saner drug laws. Drug busts are easy and when you do them the DEA and federal government give you money to buy shiny toys like tanks and new body armor.

alan_cx 13y ago
Yeah, I suppose you do have a point there... Nasty way to run things, no?
rayiner 13y ago
It's phat to blame the prison industrial complex, but they're just taking advantage of the Puritan strain in American society. Remember, we're a country that actually passed a Constitutional amendment to make alcohol, even beer, illegal. I'm sure the DEA loves the status quo, but that's not where the votes come from. The votes come from everyone who bought into Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign. People like my mom, who thinks pot causes young men to give up on life and not get jobs or girlfriends and just play video games all day, and supports keeping it illegal because she thinks that's bad for the country. If you poll your mom and her friends, I bet you see that viewpoint pretty well-represented.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The government runs propaganda campaigns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Anti-Drug_Media_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Anti-Drug_Media_...) to convince people like your mother that drugs are the worse thing imaginable. Those people then turn around and support the government in its opposition to drugs. So why do they want to convince the public that drugs need to be pursued in the first place? If they were merely responding to pressure from the public, then that would be one thing, but they are fueling that sentiment. They want the public to think that way. Do they want to sway the public because they are themselves 'true believers'? Or are there less noble motivations? I suspect it is a combination of both.
  - engrenage 13y ago
    The government fuels positive sentiment around pretty much all of its policies. It doesn't go round saying 'our policies suck' because that would provide an opening to opposition.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I don't see many television commercials for, say, the USDA's Rural Development programs. The absence of such television ads isn't them saying that those programs suck either. Being quite about it is the default position, spending many millions on primetime television ad spots to push it is exceptional.
  - soup10 13y ago
    I suspect the root of it is that drugs make individuals respect authority less, so naturally to protect it's power government opposes the use of drugs. Rationalization takes care of the rest(play up the negative aspects of drug usage, downplay the positive aspects of usage and legalization).
  - rayiner 13y ago
    As I've said before, I think the power of marketing is less extensive than regularly believed. If the government could create demand for the drug war, then Microsoft could've made Windows RT happen... My mom, who isn't a native English speaker, doesn't consume American media. And her Indian movies aren't being interrupted by ads for a Drug Free America. The fact is that prohibition is a natural tendency in many societies. Whether its Jews not eating shrimp or Muslims not drinking alcohol, prohibitions have existed since long before modern marketing campaigns. In the U.S., prohibition of alcohol was not the result of government propaganda and powerful interests, but a grass roots movement, fully supported by women in particular. Just as that generation saw alcohol as an attack on their husbands, this generation of mothers sees marijuana as an attack on their teenagers.

adventured 13y ago

It's considered a conspiracy theory, but many people do believe the government takes a cut of the drug trade. That money would be far more valuable than normal tax dollars because a small group would get to control it without any oversight or tax distribution (off the books it could be used for anything). I believe the Federal Government will only legalize pot under one of two circumstances: 1) it becomes more profitable to tax it (the theory being that it's not today) and 2) they can no longer keep the cartels under control and they become a direct security threat

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It is a fairly well documented theory. See: "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" by Alfred McCoy. See also: Iran Contra

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>What I want to know is why governments support all illegal drug dealing, and dont get a cut of the action themselves They do get a cut. Property forfeiture, among other things. Right now I am reading Balko's "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" and McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" You'd probably be amazed. I am.