10 ms·

The war on drugs is a broken business model

123 points by jwdunne 13y ago

MarcusBrutus 13y ago
We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on what people are allowed to consume, for their own sake" and so is on par with the "war on raw milk" and who knows maybe the "war on fat" or the "war on meat" in a few years. I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment either and if they kill while hallucinating or steal to pay for their fix, being a drug-addict should not be treated as extenuating circumstances. Personal responsibility cuts both ways.
- mmariani 13y ago
  Let them call it war on drugs. Then I can call what they do war on freedom. ;)
- breischl 13y ago
  "Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment..." That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it. That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    One of the benefits of "social medicine" that some people don't like to talk about is that socialized medicine as practiced in Europe is usually way cheaper for society and works a whole lot better... You as a rich person might survive with everyone around you obese, depending on low-quality food and low-quality health care, but infectious diseases tend to spread without consulting how much you paid for your health care plans. Bad health care actually lowers the productivity, and most above-average earners depend on productive below-average earners more than they'd like to know...
  - spikels 13y ago
    Not just in some state but drug treatment coverage is required in policies offered on the new Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) exchanges as well for newly eligible Medicaid recipients. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare
  - Gormo 13y ago
    You're making a very cogent and compelling argument for why health care should not be funded or mediated in any way by the state.
  - RougeFemme 13y ago
    The Wars on fat, sugar, etc. are also occurring outside of socialized medicine. (I assume that by socialized medicine, you mean, in the U.S.,Medicare, Medicaid, and any other health program explicitly funded and/or provided by a government entity.) These wars are also being fought by private insurance companies, where the healthy subsidize the less-healthy, and the profit motive exists.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The reductionism isn't warranted. There are a group of people who liken drug use to drinking raw milk. I'm sorry, have you ever been to a town devastated by raw milk consumption? Do you see many kids born with birth defects because of raw milk consumption? Do you see raw milk addicts stealing to feed their raw milk habit? I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - MarcusBrutus 13y ago
    It's a very real problem for some individuals, no quarrel there. But it's not a "real social problem". As a matter of fact I could so far as to say that I would be hard-pressed to find any "real social problems". They really all boil down to individuals making bad choices but asking society to foot the bill. And of course "social problems" are very much welcomed by the political class and various others busybodies , do-gooders, etc. who earn their livelihoods (and sometimes much more than that) by "fixing" "social problems". And please don't play the "it's about the kids" card. If the effects spill over to non-consenting adults or minors, custody can be removed or charges can be brought just like the case of parents copulating in front of their kids without having to criminalize sex.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Walk around Philly surrounded by strung out junkies and tell me its not a social problem. Step on a used syringe in New York and tell me its not a social problem. Talk to some foster kids who were taken away from parents with heroin or meth addictions and tell me its not a social problem.
      - xj9 13y ago
- TranceMan 13y ago
  I'm curious as to your definition of 'being a drug addict'. >In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably. A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'
- cle 13y ago
  What people consume has enormous impact on people around them. Ignoring the negative externalities doesn't make them go away, and it certainly won't convince those who have been affected by them.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids This is very wrong. Drug addicts have plenty of children.
  - memracom 13y ago
    Right. So the net outcome of the war on drugs is to help drug addicts breed until they outnumber the rest of us. That is a very clever plan and well worth the investment of our hard earned tax dollars, isn't it? :-(
- detcader 13y ago
  We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on the communities of black and brown people" and so is on par with the US legal apparatus since the country's founding
  - smsm42 13y ago
    I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. If there's anything that can make completely insane drug discourse in the US even more insane (it's hard to see how it's possible but it is) - I think it's exactly making it about race. Yes, I know there's racism among law enforcement and establishment - but the source of prohibition problems is not racial. Alcohol prohibition failed, and drug prohibition failed too, for the same reason, having nothing to do with race.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I think you should watch Eugene Jarecki's documentary 'the house I live in.' The source is very much racial, and this was also the case for alcohol prohibition to a large extent.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        I did actually, some time ago. It is a powerful work, but I do not see how the conclusion that drug war is caused by racism follows from it. Same for alcohol prohibition - while prohibitionists featured plenty of racist propaganda, they weren't just driven by racial hate - even if America were completely racially homogeneous, there still would be prohibitionists.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      >I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. Observing that it's a race problem isn't "making it into a race problem".
      - smsm42 13y ago
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  I'd just go with "war on the people". Easier to fit in a soundbite.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Nursie 13y ago
  >>I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them. Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too? Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.
001sky 13y ago
ON a side note: How many font's cant you put on a web page?
innino 13y ago
"Senator Whitehouse shed some optimism with the audience"
phaemon 13y ago
Everybody knows the "war on drugs" is nonsense. It's finding someone who has both the ability and the courage to change it that's proving difficult.
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  A lot of people are quite clueless about it being nonsense, enough to make taking a stance against it unpalatable for politicians.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    On the other hand, even when people are clueless about it being nonsense, it's hard to find politicians who are willing to support it. Take, for example, the (successful) 2008 initiative to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. Nearly every town in the state voted in favor of it, often by a wide margin (it won with 65% support statewide)[0]. Yet, my own then-congresswoman, a Democrat in a very safe district, couldn't be bothered to vocalize her support for it (in fact, in a response to an open letter from a constituent, she still clung to the ludicrous belief that marijuana contains no medicinal value, despite the copious evidence to the contrary included in that very letter). Sadly, she's not alone in failing to represent her constituents' views on the issue of drug policy. For whatever reason, drug policy is the issue where the disparity between politicians' views and their constituents' views is the greatest and lasts the longest, far more so than any other issue I can think of. [0] http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma_question2/ http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma...
    - dr_doom 13y ago
      You are completely correct. Even in Texas the majority of the citizens support legalizing medical and recreational marijuana[0] but no politician will ever bring it up. http://txcann.com/2013/10/08/texans-support-marijuana-medical-recreational/ http://txcann.com/2013/10/08/texans-support-marijuana-medica...
  - johndevor 13y ago
bayesianhorse 13y ago
Politics isn't just about "business models". The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially Heroin and Methamphetamine, and underage consumption of many others should be severely regulated. There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.
- phaemon 13y ago
  The argument is not: "These drugs are safe, therefore they should be legal." The argument is: "These drugs are unsafe, therefore they should be legal because making them illegal makes things even worse."
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    A black market around heroin and meth will be really small as soon as better and less harmful drugs are cheaper. Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction.
    - nate_meurer 13y ago
      "it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction." You've stated the government's position exactly, and they can provide some helpful additions to your list of dangerous drugs.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Methamphetamine is useful for non-self-destructive activities, which is why it is legal by prescription. Medical methamphetamine is used to treat narcolepsy and ADHD. On top of that, pharmaceutical methamphetamine is much safer, even at recreational doses, than black market drugs because the production process is well regulated.
      - TheLegace 13y ago
vaadu 13y ago
Good luck fighting this. The drug war has become a racket. It puts power into the hands of the government. Governments do not give up power unless a court or foreign army forces them to. The private prison industry is going to fight any drug law changes that put a crimp in their wallet. And police departments are not going want to give up freebies that come with civil forfeiture.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Courts are part of governments.
  - jMyles 13y ago
    Traditionally, this is not always true. Courts have often been a check on governments rather than an institution of them. In common law (or "case law") republican jurisdictions, courts are supposed to act to restrain government to acts permitted by law.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rob05c 13y ago
  > It puts power into the hands of the government. True, in general. But the prison population is also overwhelmingly non-white, and non-white people statistically vote Democrat. Prisoners can't vote. As one of the two ruling parties in America, it would be in the Democratic Party's best interest to liberalise drug laws to augment the racial minority vote.
- smsm42 13y ago
  If you never vote for a politician that is "tough on crime" by imprisoning kids that decided to smoke a joint, and so do everyone you know - and if you will treat anyone who says it's OK to do this as dangerously insane individual - you have a good chance to take it back. American society has undergone a lot of changes in the last 100 years with regard to many freedoms of many people who were persecuted by the government or denied their rights because of various government restrictions with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual conduct, etc. - and when people realized it is wrong the government eventually had to cave and clean up their act. It is time US realized as a society what horrendous wrong "war on drugs" is. Once they do, no prison industry would be able to resist.
Lucy_karpova 13y ago
There used to be an anti-alcohol war, alcohol was banned and has everybody stopped using it? No way! So what's the point in "war on drugs"? Putting the word "drugs" to as many posts possible? Making it more appealing and popular?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Theodores 13y ago
Maybe we should get McAfee to go back out to Belize and finish his work on some ultimate drug. Imagine something that gave the highs that heroin/cocaine/meth/whatever users seek, always giving as good a high as the first time and not ruining the user's body. If this 'soma' was really that good at hitting the spot for those that crave then there would be no need to dabble with anything else. By analogy, the 'high grade' weed is always preferable to the 'squidgy black resin' cannabis that our grandparents used to smoke. There is no longer a market for the less effective stuff even if it is sold at a considerable discount.
mariaGeorgiou 13y ago
I agree that the war on drugs should indeed not called a war and instead of strictly forbeeding all drugs it should instead put realistic boundaries given our society allowing and accepting some types of them! I also believe that limits and boundaries are useful in any society because having no lines does not only affect the one single person who is a heavily drug addict, but it is also affecting the entire society, thus having them completely uncontrollable is as bad as forbeeding it completely ! A state with out a police will be a joungle x
harryf 13y ago
Problem is: if you have a job in the DEA or your business in running prisons, you probably don't view the war on drugs as a broken business model at all. You'd even go so far as to hire lobbyists to keep it going...
- memracom 13y ago
  From a political point of view, this brings the debate into much greater clarity. Either people support DEA employees and prison employees and are willing to subsidize their salaries, or they are not.
- Gormo 13y ago
  Same holds true if you're a drug lord. Why would you want legalized competition from well-capitalized above-board businesses?
avty 13y ago
It succeeded in plunging Mexico into a bloody civil war.
joshuaheard 13y ago
I came for an analysis of what the war on drugs business model is and why it is failing, but all I got was a press release for Sir Richard Branson attending some government conference.

123 points by jwdunne 13y ago

We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on what people are allowed to consume, for their own sake" and so is on par with the "war on raw milk" and who knows maybe the "war on fat" or the "war on meat" in a few years. I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment either and if they kill while hallucinating or steal to pay for their fix, being a drug-addict should not be treated as extenuating circumstances. Personal responsibility cuts both ways.

mmariani 13y ago
Let them call it war on drugs. Then I can call what they do war on freedom. ;)
breischl 13y ago
"Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment..." That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it. That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  One of the benefits of "social medicine" that some people don't like to talk about is that socialized medicine as practiced in Europe is usually way cheaper for society and works a whole lot better... You as a rich person might survive with everyone around you obese, depending on low-quality food and low-quality health care, but infectious diseases tend to spread without consulting how much you paid for your health care plans. Bad health care actually lowers the productivity, and most above-average earners depend on productive below-average earners more than they'd like to know...
- spikels 13y ago
  Not just in some state but drug treatment coverage is required in policies offered on the new Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) exchanges as well for newly eligible Medicaid recipients. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare
- Gormo 13y ago
  You're making a very cogent and compelling argument for why health care should not be funded or mediated in any way by the state.
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  The Wars on fat, sugar, etc. are also occurring outside of socialized medicine. (I assume that by socialized medicine, you mean, in the U.S.,Medicare, Medicaid, and any other health program explicitly funded and/or provided by a government entity.) These wars are also being fought by private insurance companies, where the healthy subsidize the less-healthy, and the profit motive exists.
rayiner 13y ago
The reductionism isn't warranted. There are a group of people who liken drug use to drinking raw milk. I'm sorry, have you ever been to a town devastated by raw milk consumption? Do you see many kids born with birth defects because of raw milk consumption? Do you see raw milk addicts stealing to feed their raw milk habit? I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- MarcusBrutus 13y ago
  It's a very real problem for some individuals, no quarrel there. But it's not a "real social problem". As a matter of fact I could so far as to say that I would be hard-pressed to find any "real social problems". They really all boil down to individuals making bad choices but asking society to foot the bill. And of course "social problems" are very much welcomed by the political class and various others busybodies , do-gooders, etc. who earn their livelihoods (and sometimes much more than that) by "fixing" "social problems". And please don't play the "it's about the kids" card. If the effects spill over to non-consenting adults or minors, custody can be removed or charges can be brought just like the case of parents copulating in front of their kids without having to criminalize sex.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Walk around Philly surrounded by strung out junkies and tell me its not a social problem. Step on a used syringe in New York and tell me its not a social problem. Talk to some foster kids who were taken away from parents with heroin or meth addictions and tell me its not a social problem.
    - xj9 13y ago
TranceMan 13y ago
I'm curious as to your definition of 'being a drug addict'. >In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably. A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'
cle 13y ago
What people consume has enormous impact on people around them. Ignoring the negative externalities doesn't make them go away, and it certainly won't convince those who have been affected by them.
DanBC 13y ago
> since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids This is very wrong. Drug addicts have plenty of children.
- memracom 13y ago
  Right. So the net outcome of the war on drugs is to help drug addicts breed until they outnumber the rest of us. That is a very clever plan and well worth the investment of our hard earned tax dollars, isn't it? :-(
detcader 13y ago
We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on the communities of black and brown people" and so is on par with the US legal apparatus since the country's founding
- smsm42 13y ago
  I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. If there's anything that can make completely insane drug discourse in the US even more insane (it's hard to see how it's possible but it is) - I think it's exactly making it about race. Yes, I know there's racism among law enforcement and establishment - but the source of prohibition problems is not racial. Alcohol prohibition failed, and drug prohibition failed too, for the same reason, having nothing to do with race.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I think you should watch Eugene Jarecki's documentary 'the house I live in.' The source is very much racial, and this was also the case for alcohol prohibition to a large extent.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      I did actually, some time ago. It is a powerful work, but I do not see how the conclusion that drug war is caused by racism follows from it. Same for alcohol prohibition - while prohibitionists featured plenty of racist propaganda, they weren't just driven by racial hate - even if America were completely racially homogeneous, there still would be prohibitionists.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    >I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. Observing that it's a race problem isn't "making it into a race problem".
    - smsm42 13y ago
GrinningFool 13y ago
I'd just go with "war on the people". Easier to fit in a soundbite.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 13y ago
>>I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them. Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too? Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.

001sky 13y ago

ON a side note: How many font's cant you put on a web page?

innino 13y ago

"Senator Whitehouse shed some optimism with the audience"

phaemon 13y ago

Everybody knows the "war on drugs" is nonsense. It's finding someone who has both the ability and the courage to change it that's proving difficult.

emiliobumachar 13y ago
A lot of people are quite clueless about it being nonsense, enough to make taking a stance against it unpalatable for politicians.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  On the other hand, even when people are clueless about it being nonsense, it's hard to find politicians who are willing to support it. Take, for example, the (successful) 2008 initiative to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. Nearly every town in the state voted in favor of it, often by a wide margin (it won with 65% support statewide)[0]. Yet, my own then-congresswoman, a Democrat in a very safe district, couldn't be bothered to vocalize her support for it (in fact, in a response to an open letter from a constituent, she still clung to the ludicrous belief that marijuana contains no medicinal value, despite the copious evidence to the contrary included in that very letter). Sadly, she's not alone in failing to represent her constituents' views on the issue of drug policy. For whatever reason, drug policy is the issue where the disparity between politicians' views and their constituents' views is the greatest and lasts the longest, far more so than any other issue I can think of. [0] http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma_question2/ http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma...
  - dr_doom 13y ago
    You are completely correct. Even in Texas the majority of the citizens support legalizing medical and recreational marijuana[0] but no politician will ever bring it up. http://txcann.com/2013/10/08/texans-support-marijuana-medical-recreational/ http://txcann.com/2013/10/08/texans-support-marijuana-medica...
- johndevor 13y ago

bayesianhorse 13y ago

Politics isn't just about "business models". The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially Heroin and Methamphetamine, and underage consumption of many others should be severely regulated. There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.

phaemon 13y ago
The argument is not: "These drugs are safe, therefore they should be legal." The argument is: "These drugs are unsafe, therefore they should be legal because making them illegal makes things even worse."
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  A black market around heroin and meth will be really small as soon as better and less harmful drugs are cheaper. Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    "it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction." You've stated the government's position exactly, and they can provide some helpful additions to your list of dangerous drugs.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Methamphetamine is useful for non-self-destructive activities, which is why it is legal by prescription. Medical methamphetamine is used to treat narcolepsy and ADHD. On top of that, pharmaceutical methamphetamine is much safer, even at recreational doses, than black market drugs because the production process is well regulated.
    - TheLegace 13y ago

vaadu 13y ago

Good luck fighting this. The drug war has become a racket. It puts power into the hands of the government. Governments do not give up power unless a court or foreign army forces them to. The private prison industry is going to fight any drug law changes that put a crimp in their wallet. And police departments are not going want to give up freebies that come with civil forfeiture.

dllthomas 13y ago
Courts are part of governments.
- jMyles 13y ago
  Traditionally, this is not always true. Courts have often been a check on governments rather than an institution of them. In common law (or "case law") republican jurisdictions, courts are supposed to act to restrain government to acts permitted by law.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rob05c 13y ago
> It puts power into the hands of the government. True, in general. But the prison population is also overwhelmingly non-white, and non-white people statistically vote Democrat. Prisoners can't vote. As one of the two ruling parties in America, it would be in the Democratic Party's best interest to liberalise drug laws to augment the racial minority vote.
smsm42 13y ago
If you never vote for a politician that is "tough on crime" by imprisoning kids that decided to smoke a joint, and so do everyone you know - and if you will treat anyone who says it's OK to do this as dangerously insane individual - you have a good chance to take it back. American society has undergone a lot of changes in the last 100 years with regard to many freedoms of many people who were persecuted by the government or denied their rights because of various government restrictions with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual conduct, etc. - and when people realized it is wrong the government eventually had to cave and clean up their act. It is time US realized as a society what horrendous wrong "war on drugs" is. Once they do, no prison industry would be able to resist.

Lucy_karpova 13y ago

There used to be an anti-alcohol war, alcohol was banned and has everybody stopped using it? No way! So what's the point in "war on drugs"? Putting the word "drugs" to as many posts possible? Making it more appealing and popular?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Theodores 13y ago

Maybe we should get McAfee to go back out to Belize and finish his work on some ultimate drug. Imagine something that gave the highs that heroin/cocaine/meth/whatever users seek, always giving as good a high as the first time and not ruining the user's body. If this 'soma' was really that good at hitting the spot for those that crave then there would be no need to dabble with anything else. By analogy, the 'high grade' weed is always preferable to the 'squidgy black resin' cannabis that our grandparents used to smoke. There is no longer a market for the less effective stuff even if it is sold at a considerable discount.

mariaGeorgiou 13y ago

I agree that the war on drugs should indeed not called a war and instead of strictly forbeeding all drugs it should instead put realistic boundaries given our society allowing and accepting some types of them! I also believe that limits and boundaries are useful in any society because having no lines does not only affect the one single person who is a heavily drug addict, but it is also affecting the entire society, thus having them completely uncontrollable is as bad as forbeeding it completely ! A state with out a police will be a joungle x

harryf 13y ago

Problem is: if you have a job in the DEA or your business in running prisons, you probably don't view the war on drugs as a broken business model at all. You'd even go so far as to hire lobbyists to keep it going...

memracom 13y ago
From a political point of view, this brings the debate into much greater clarity. Either people support DEA employees and prison employees and are willing to subsidize their salaries, or they are not.
Gormo 13y ago
Same holds true if you're a drug lord. Why would you want legalized competition from well-capitalized above-board businesses?

avty 13y ago

It succeeded in plunging Mexico into a bloody civil war.

joshuaheard 13y ago

I came for an analysis of what the war on drugs business model is and why it is failing, but all I got was a press release for Sir Richard Branson attending some government conference.