8 ms·

We've created a monster with the War on Drugs. It will only get worse unless we reverse course. Unless we do, the violence/terrorism on the border could increa

We've created a monster with the War on Drugs. It will only get worse unless we reverse course. Unless we do, the violence/terrorism on the border could increase dramatically. We have a historical model in alcohol prohibition and know what it does and what happens after. We blame Mexico, Central and South America for much of this but policies and our actions there are creating these black markets where only criminals get the revenues. How is that the best solution we have? We are actively creating armies south of the border that aren't state associated, I believe that is terrorism.

themodelplumber 12y ago
What does "reversing course" mean? It seems to me that these are markets that build up in response to our declaration of contraband. Do you think that the U.S.A. should simply legalize some fixed subset of all drugs, or just say, "is it a chemical that some portion of our public urged their congressmen to take action on because our kids were doing it behind the school? If so, OK!" Even the definition of "legalize" seems like a messy problem, to say the least. Like it's easy to say "legalize" but where (geographically) can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivizes drug-related criminal behavior? (Asking sincerely because why should I just believe in "reversing course" without knowing what the plan is?)
- drawkbox 12y ago
  > Like it's easy to say "legalize" but where (geographically) can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivize drug-related criminal behavior? The US before 1970 (CO/WA for MJ obviously 2014). Amsterdam, Vancouver, Uruguay, Portugal, The Wire (only kidding). Would you rather stop someone from smoking a joint or actively help fund an army/cartel through policy? It isn't as easy as that no, but the problem we are trying to fight has caused incredible harm in blowback, and is only just beginning. We don't want to fund armies south of the US any further. We saw what happened in the 80's in South America, now it has spread up to Mexico, and now along the border quite frequently. In 30+ years it has only increased the violence and caused immeasurable harm over that time. When do we start ratcheting it down? The War on Drugs has not stopped drugs from their destination, in fact it makes it more of a demand product and the benefactors concentrated within criminal organizations. Drug abuse isn't that high for illegal drugs, it is a manageable problem and safer regulated. It is more pharmaceutical drugs that are the problem now in terms of abuse. We don't create a War on Pharma because that is silly, we know people will abuse them and we help them. We don't lock them up and give them felonies unless they are transporting outside of regulation. Really all we have done with the War on Drugs is make criminals rich and they bought lots of guns. The War on Drugs hasn't, nor will it, stop people from using drugs. Moral laws do not work, history consistently reminds us. If people are going to use anyways and that is the case, the only solution is a non-violent/non-criminal response and tax it like tobacco. People aren't going to go out and start doing drugs tomorrow if they are legal, if they do them they already do them. Where people do use though it is safer with a regulated market as in Vancouver/Amsterdam/etc. But the real question is... If people are going to do it anyway and stopping it with force won't work, then where should most of the revenues of drugs go? Regulated, taxed and tracked or to criminals to build armies. That is really the question. The War on Drugs is a failure in that it has only made the demand higher and riches from it more concentrated to criminals. College kids drink and smoke weed sometimes. Do you want your son/daughter, or their friends, to happen to do this at college and have to deal with possible criminal elements if they do, or would you rather it be safer. Why do we think it is safer to have kids deal with dealers that are possible criminals "to keep them safe".
- nitrogen 12y ago
  ...where...can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivizes drug-related criminal behavior? I hear Portugal has had decent results.
paulhauggis 12y ago
Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. But most people that talk about the "War on Drugs" would rather blame the US drug policies instead, rather than the own up to the fact that they are contributing to the problem. I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the 1970s. It was a war zone, just like Mexico is today. The reason is because you could buy off any cop or government official in the city (check out the documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" for some real news footage from the time). If drugs are legalized tomorrow, what do you think would happen? If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, because I could just buy off any cop and/or government official and the violence would continue (ruling by fear). Fix the corruption..and you fix the cartel issue. At this point, the US would need to bring the military in there to fix the problem. I also don't think people would stop buying drugs in the black market if drugs were made legal. Why? MJ will not ever be legal in the sense that you can just grow it and sell it out of your house with no government intervention. It will be taxed and regulated, which means much higher prices. Many people won't want to pay those higher prices and there will still be a demand for a black market (just like software and music piracy). I'm not against the legalization of drugs, I'm against the dishonesty. Supporters were dishonest about "medical marijuana"..which is quite honestly, a joke. There are 10 doctors in my area that will give you a prescription for MJ for pretty much anything..it will just cost you $70. The majority of people that I know that have their prescriptions just want to smoke weed. I wish I was one of those doctors...they are probably able to retire on the proceeds. Please..just stop the fucking dishonesty and I might support your cause.
- enneff 12y ago
  > Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. How is it possible to know this? And besides, saying to drug users "Just don't buy the drugs" is like saying to the cartels "Just stop killing and terrorising people." People will buy drugs regardless of what we do—the war on drugs has proven this—and black markets (controlled by cartels) will meet the demand. You ignore the point that the vast majority of the consumers of the cartels' product is not in Mexico. If these drugs were legal in the target markets, local producers would crop up and cut the cartel's profits. Given the choice, would you buy Cartel Brand® coke or Free Trade Cocaine®? Large corporations are forced to be accountable to their supply chain, and markets have shown time and time again that consumers will pay a premium for ethically produced products.

themodelplumber 12y ago

What does "reversing course" mean? It seems to me that these are markets that build up in response to our declaration of contraband. Do you think that the U.S.A. should simply legalize some fixed subset of all drugs, or just say, "is it a chemical that some portion of our public urged their congressmen to take action on because our kids were doing it behind the school? If so, OK!" Even the definition of "legalize" seems like a messy problem, to say the least. Like it's easy to say "legalize" but where (geographically) can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivizes drug-related criminal behavior? (Asking sincerely because why should I just believe in "reversing course" without knowing what the plan is?)

drawkbox 12y ago
> Like it's easy to say "legalize" but where (geographically) can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivize drug-related criminal behavior? The US before 1970 (CO/WA for MJ obviously 2014). Amsterdam, Vancouver, Uruguay, Portugal, The Wire (only kidding). Would you rather stop someone from smoking a joint or actively help fund an army/cartel through policy? It isn't as easy as that no, but the problem we are trying to fight has caused incredible harm in blowback, and is only just beginning. We don't want to fund armies south of the US any further. We saw what happened in the 80's in South America, now it has spread up to Mexico, and now along the border quite frequently. In 30+ years it has only increased the violence and caused immeasurable harm over that time. When do we start ratcheting it down? The War on Drugs has not stopped drugs from their destination, in fact it makes it more of a demand product and the benefactors concentrated within criminal organizations. Drug abuse isn't that high for illegal drugs, it is a manageable problem and safer regulated. It is more pharmaceutical drugs that are the problem now in terms of abuse. We don't create a War on Pharma because that is silly, we know people will abuse them and we help them. We don't lock them up and give them felonies unless they are transporting outside of regulation. Really all we have done with the War on Drugs is make criminals rich and they bought lots of guns. The War on Drugs hasn't, nor will it, stop people from using drugs. Moral laws do not work, history consistently reminds us. If people are going to use anyways and that is the case, the only solution is a non-violent/non-criminal response and tax it like tobacco. People aren't going to go out and start doing drugs tomorrow if they are legal, if they do them they already do them. Where people do use though it is safer with a regulated market as in Vancouver/Amsterdam/etc. But the real question is... If people are going to do it anyway and stopping it with force won't work, then where should most of the revenues of drugs go? Regulated, taxed and tracked or to criminals to build armies. That is really the question. The War on Drugs is a failure in that it has only made the demand higher and riches from it more concentrated to criminals. College kids drink and smoke weed sometimes. Do you want your son/daughter, or their friends, to happen to do this at college and have to deal with possible criminal elements if they do, or would you rather it be safer. Why do we think it is safer to have kids deal with dealers that are possible criminals "to keep them safe".
nitrogen 12y ago
...where...can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivizes drug-related criminal behavior? I hear Portugal has had decent results.

paulhauggis 12y ago

Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. But most people that talk about the "War on Drugs" would rather blame the US drug policies instead, rather than the own up to the fact that they are contributing to the problem. I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the 1970s. It was a war zone, just like Mexico is today. The reason is because you could buy off any cop or government official in the city (check out the documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" for some real news footage from the time). If drugs are legalized tomorrow, what do you think would happen? If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, because I could just buy off any cop and/or government official and the violence would continue (ruling by fear). Fix the corruption..and you fix the cartel issue. At this point, the US would need to bring the military in there to fix the problem. I also don't think people would stop buying drugs in the black market if drugs were made legal. Why? MJ will not ever be legal in the sense that you can just grow it and sell it out of your house with no government intervention. It will be taxed and regulated, which means much higher prices. Many people won't want to pay those higher prices and there will still be a demand for a black market (just like software and music piracy). I'm not against the legalization of drugs, I'm against the dishonesty. Supporters were dishonest about "medical marijuana"..which is quite honestly, a joke. There are 10 doctors in my area that will give you a prescription for MJ for pretty much anything..it will just cost you $70. The majority of people that I know that have their prescriptions just want to smoke weed. I wish I was one of those doctors...they are probably able to retire on the proceeds. Please..just stop the fucking dishonesty and I might support your cause.

enneff 12y ago
> Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. How is it possible to know this? And besides, saying to drug users "Just don't buy the drugs" is like saying to the cartels "Just stop killing and terrorising people." People will buy drugs regardless of what we do—the war on drugs has proven this—and black markets (controlled by cartels) will meet the demand. You ignore the point that the vast majority of the consumers of the cartels' product is not in Mexico. If these drugs were legal in the target markets, local producers would crop up and cut the cartel's profits. Given the choice, would you buy Cartel Brand® coke or Free Trade Cocaine®? Large corporations are forced to be accountable to their supply chain, and markets have shown time and time again that consumers will pay a premium for ethically produced products.