3 ms·

If every penny spent on enforcing drug laws and incarcerating drug sellers and buyers were spent on education, treatment, and poverty programs, drug use would f

by tinco 13y ago

If every penny spent on enforcing drug laws and incarcerating drug sellers and buyers were spent on education, treatment, and poverty programs, drug use would fall in the United States by orders of magnitude. I have no doubt that's true. But even if the war on drugs was stopped, the money wouldn't go to helping the poor. The U.S. only has right wing parties, so the money would just end up paying off debt or lowering taxes. One of the more pernicious effects of making the sale and purchase of drugs illegal is that people who sell and purchase drugs are sent to prison. ... The prisons turn users into addicts and addicts into career criminals. (hard) Drugs are illegal where I live too (The Netherlands). But we don't have such harsh laws at all. Possession of drugs means a fine and perhaps a few days in a cell sobering up. It is not the war on drugs that is destroying the U.S's lower class, it's the ridiculous prison sentences. No country in Europe has as many drug related problems as the U.S., and in no country in Europe drugs are legal (except maybe portugal?) You are absolutely right in everything you say. But legalizing crack cocaine does not sound like an optimal solution to me, sure perhaps you'll succeed in overthrowing the drug cartels. But then you have the issue of regulating or even organizing the legal (private) distribution of drugs. I don't see that ending well at all. The prisons and the U.S.'s messed up legal system are the problem they are what should be fixed.

legutierr 13y ago
> It is not the war on drugs that is destroying the U.S's lower class, it's the ridiculous prison sentences. I don't see these two things as separable. > But then you have the issue of regulating or even organizing the legal (private) distribution of drugs. I don't see that ending well at all. Perhaps you are right, but it is my opinion that it is the very illegality of drug abuse that makes it so difficult to treat, especially for the harder drugs. If you read the Portugal study you find that addicts that are not threatened with jail time or other criminal sanction are more likely to seek and pursue treatment. And Portugal has a small fraction of the funds for treatment available as the US would have if it repurposed it's "Drug War" budgets for treatment, so you could imagine that such policies would be more effective here. One key additional concept from Greenwald's report is that individuals who choose to avoid hard drugs are not dissuaded by their illegality just as they are not dissuaded by the harm that these drugs cause. Furthermore, individuals who would otherwise choose not to do drugs don't change their minds because the criminal sanction disappears. Choosing to do hard drugs involves a decision-making process that requires a person to disregard signifiant harm to their person. This insensitivity towards risk on the part of the addict means that criminal sanction simply does not have the deterrent effect one would expect; inversely, non-drug users are deterred primarily by the ill effects to their health and wellbeing, so drug's illegality barely enters into the equation.
- tinco 13y ago
  >> It is not the war on drugs that is destroying the U.S's lower class, it's the ridiculous prison sentences. >I don't see these two things as separable. That's the entire problem of the US in a nutshell I guess :)
betterunix 13y ago
"then you have the issue of regulating or even organizing the legal (private) distribution of drugs. I don't see that ending well at all." We have been very successful at regulating tobacco and alcohol. Yes, you can find moonshine if you look really hard, but that's just the point -- almost nobody wants moonshine, people prefer regulated liquor. Sure there is black market, unregulated tobacco and teenagers manage to buy it, but the vast majority of people who smoke buy their tobacco legally. For that matter we have also been overwhelmingly success at regulating pharmaceutical drugs, to the point where a black market exists for them as replacements for illegal drugs. There is a reason recreational opiate users want pills: the regulations on purity, dosage, etc. Even methamphetamine is available by prescription (for narcolepsy, obesity, and ADHD treatment), and the pharmaceutical stuff is a lot safer, because of regulations. In reality we know how to regulate drugs, including extremely dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and even "hard" drugs like methamphetamine. Maintaining a regulatory system is not the problem here. The real problem is that the war on drugs is profitable. One of the most ironic facts of lobbying in today's world is that "The Partnership for a Drug-Free America" receives money from alcohol, tobacco companies, and pharmaceutical companies. There is also the matter of politicians having figured out that they can always portray themselves as "tough on crime" by pushing for drug arrests. Police officers unions are fighting for their members jobs by lobbying for maintaining or even expanding the effort. The executive branch has also figured out that the war on drugs is a great excuse for expanding executive power -- even to the point of the attorney general's office having gained the authority to declare drugs to be illegal (and then prosecute people for possessing those drugs). Legalization and regulation are the answers our society really needs. We need to disband the DEA, repeal the controlled substances act, pass a constitutional amendment that forbids all such prohibitions, and set up a regulatory framework. It is not likely to happen, for the reasons outlined above and because we have had so many decades of propaganda that people have trouble with the idea of alcohol being drug or of methamphetamine having medicinal use. Out of curiosity, what is it about crack cocaine that has you so terrified? There are far more dangerous drugs out there...
- tinco 13y ago
  Out of curiosity, what is it about crack cocaine that has you so terrified? There are far more dangerous drugs out there... Sorry for the late reply. I disagree with you, and I was a bit tired so I stopped discussing :P I'll answer your question: The combination of accessibility, addictiveness and health effects. I live opposite to an addiction treatment center and see crack addicts every day. It's addictive like tobacco is, has stronger mental health effects than alcohol and because of its low cost is more accessible than any other hard drug. I know alcohol is very dangerous too, but 99% of alcohol users manage their addiction in a way they can still manage their lives adequately. With crack and other hard drug addictions you will find the odds reversed.

by tinco 13y ago

legutierr 13y ago

> It is not the war on drugs that is destroying the U.S's lower class, it's the ridiculous prison sentences. I don't see these two things as separable. > But then you have the issue of regulating or even organizing the legal (private) distribution of drugs. I don't see that ending well at all. Perhaps you are right, but it is my opinion that it is the very illegality of drug abuse that makes it so difficult to treat, especially for the harder drugs. If you read the Portugal study you find that addicts that are not threatened with jail time or other criminal sanction are more likely to seek and pursue treatment. And Portugal has a small fraction of the funds for treatment available as the US would have if it repurposed it's "Drug War" budgets for treatment, so you could imagine that such policies would be more effective here. One key additional concept from Greenwald's report is that individuals who choose to avoid hard drugs are not dissuaded by their illegality just as they are not dissuaded by the harm that these drugs cause. Furthermore, individuals who would otherwise choose not to do drugs don't change their minds because the criminal sanction disappears. Choosing to do hard drugs involves a decision-making process that requires a person to disregard signifiant harm to their person. This insensitivity towards risk on the part of the addict means that criminal sanction simply does not have the deterrent effect one would expect; inversely, non-drug users are deterred primarily by the ill effects to their health and wellbeing, so drug's illegality barely enters into the equation.

tinco 13y ago
>> It is not the war on drugs that is destroying the U.S's lower class, it's the ridiculous prison sentences. >I don't see these two things as separable. That's the entire problem of the US in a nutshell I guess :)

betterunix 13y ago

"then you have the issue of regulating or even organizing the legal (private) distribution of drugs. I don't see that ending well at all." We have been very successful at regulating tobacco and alcohol. Yes, you can find moonshine if you look really hard, but that's just the point -- almost nobody wants moonshine, people prefer regulated liquor. Sure there is black market, unregulated tobacco and teenagers manage to buy it, but the vast majority of people who smoke buy their tobacco legally. For that matter we have also been overwhelmingly success at regulating pharmaceutical drugs, to the point where a black market exists for them as replacements for illegal drugs. There is a reason recreational opiate users want pills: the regulations on purity, dosage, etc. Even methamphetamine is available by prescription (for narcolepsy, obesity, and ADHD treatment), and the pharmaceutical stuff is a lot safer, because of regulations. In reality we know how to regulate drugs, including extremely dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and even "hard" drugs like methamphetamine. Maintaining a regulatory system is not the problem here. The real problem is that the war on drugs is profitable. One of the most ironic facts of lobbying in today's world is that "The Partnership for a Drug-Free America" receives money from alcohol, tobacco companies, and pharmaceutical companies. There is also the matter of politicians having figured out that they can always portray themselves as "tough on crime" by pushing for drug arrests. Police officers unions are fighting for their members jobs by lobbying for maintaining or even expanding the effort. The executive branch has also figured out that the war on drugs is a great excuse for expanding executive power -- even to the point of the attorney general's office having gained the authority to declare drugs to be illegal (and then prosecute people for possessing those drugs). Legalization and regulation are the answers our society really needs. We need to disband the DEA, repeal the controlled substances act, pass a constitutional amendment that forbids all such prohibitions, and set up a regulatory framework. It is not likely to happen, for the reasons outlined above and because we have had so many decades of propaganda that people have trouble with the idea of alcohol being drug or of methamphetamine having medicinal use. Out of curiosity, what is it about crack cocaine that has you so terrified? There are far more dangerous drugs out there...

tinco 13y ago
Out of curiosity, what is it about crack cocaine that has you so terrified? There are far more dangerous drugs out there... Sorry for the late reply. I disagree with you, and I was a bit tired so I stopped discussing :P I'll answer your question: The combination of accessibility, addictiveness and health effects. I live opposite to an addiction treatment center and see crack addicts every day. It's addictive like tobacco is, has stronger mental health effects than alcohol and because of its low cost is more accessible than any other hard drug. I know alcohol is very dangerous too, but 99% of alcohol users manage their addiction in a way they can still manage their lives adequately. With crack and other hard drug addictions you will find the odds reversed.