The war on drugs

[LuisDantas]

Because so many people love a drink...

My point exactly.

 

[Augustus]

My point exactly.

What do you think governments should do to 'win' the war on drugs then? Unless you see drugs as purely a moral issue, the objective of drug policy must be to reduce harm. If you think the War on Drugs is the best method of harm reduction, how should the policy be changed to move away from the unmitigated disaster that it currently is?

 

[Baladas]

I voted "too hard". The statistics clearly show that the war on drugs is a waste of money and lives. I am for rehab for the more dangerous substances.
Cannabis should be legal everywhere.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you think governments should do to 'win' the war on drugs then? Unless you see drugs as purely a moral issue, the objective of drug policy must be to reduce harm. If you think the War on Drugs is the best method of harm reduction, how should the policy be changed to move away from the unmitigated disaster that it currently is?

Why do you see it as a disaster exactly? Sometimes I wonder if I am simply unaware of how bad it is.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ya know what I mean.

No I don't actually. The whole thing is very grey. There is illegal, legal, recreational, medicinal, addictive, healthy in minute quantities, pharmaceuticals, loss of agricultural jobs, and more. It's actually incredibly complicated, with tons of overlap and reasons for debate. To oversimplify it into one word doesn't do it justice. For example, why is it drugs AND alcohol, when alcohol is a drug.

Here's another version of war on drugs ... Iranian pair face death penalty after third alcohol offence | World news | The Guardian

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This discussion is really open to everyone, but I'm using the UK as an example.

In the UK, many say that the war on drugs isn't working.

On one side, many claim that statistics quite clearly show that the government's harsh measures don't work, and a better solution is softer sentences, rehabilitation or outright decriminalisation.

The other side (like Peter Hitchens), will say that the reason it's not working is because the government is actually already very soft on drug offenders, and should have far stricter and harsher sentences to deter them.

Which side is right, and how do you know? Are we too soft or too harsh?

In America the only thing the war on drugs has created is a huge waste of taxpayer money, an unholy number of people behind bars with violent offenders for menial drug charges (such as possession) and a massive drug trade that makes billions of dollars a year.

The countries that have treated it like a health problem seem to have best results. People don't normally accept totalitarian regime style offenses on our social lives which ends up creating a backlash that is usually just harmful without a lot of measurable benefits.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which side is right, and how do you know?

1) In the US, the FBI, CIA, DEA, and other federal and local LE/Intelligence/(para)military organizations are dedicated to this war. Which means millions upon millions are spent doing everything from housing people whose only crime was deciding to do something to their own body to clandestine special operations in South America.
2) The largest consumer of illegal drugs is the US. We spend millions upon millions to fight the war, and a comparable amount buying drugs anyway.
3) Prohibition didn't just fail. It introduced organized crime into the US on an unprecedented scale (and got a president elected). However, at least it was recognized as an utter failure and was over-turned.
4) The entire psychiatric profession amounts almost entirely to the prescription of mind-altering drugs that affect the brain in ways we don't understand. Many of these medications (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin, Adderall, Ritalin, and most recently Special K) are also black market drugs. In many cases, people are allowed to take some form of "speed" in order to concentrate while e.g., undergraduates preparing for some final exam can be arrested and charged for doing the same.
5) It is a little known fact that Heroin isn't like so many other drugs that aren't ever prescribed for medical reasons. It was a brand name cough suppressant Bayer developed. To be clear: Heroin was originally "Bayer's Heroin", advertised and marketed as the over-the-counter drug that it was. It was first changed to a prescription-only medication, then banned. Meanwhile, there are a dozen or so opium-derivatives like Heroin that remain legal as pain-killers simply because Bayer made the mistake of introducing Heroin as an OTC drug.
6) Most of the legal substances, from alcohol to the active ingredient in cough syrup (DXM) to prescribed benzodiazepines are more harmful than illegal drugs. Not only are the addictive, capable of causing death via overdose, but unlike e.g., Heroin you can die from withdrawal from these legal drugs (alcohol included). In other words, what substances are legal is largely arbitrary.
7) Much of (and often a majority of) violence, crime, murder, funds for terrorist organizations, cartels, lethal overdoses, and death to military and federal personnel as well as those they are fighting is due to the fact that the US has created one of the largest markets of all that exist on the planet. If the US alone legalized drugs, vast reduction in violence, death, organized criminal and terrorist groups, and more would be drastically reduced or annihilated.
8) There is little medical reason to ban most of the drugs, but more importantly there is little ethical or moral reason to do so. It is one thing to make it illegal to drive a car or practice medicine under the influence of drugs, but quite another to make it illegal to decide what one puts in one's body. This is particularly true in light of the arbitrary nature of what is legal for everyone, legal to be prescribed, and just illegal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do you see it as a disaster exactly? Sometimes I wonder if I am simply unaware of how bad it is.

Some American cities are plagued with gang violence. America has the worlds highest incarcerated population, with the most people incarcerated per capita. American has wasted billions of dollars on ads, PSAs, and law enforcement that has not worked; Rather than seeing a reduction in drug use and presence, ever since the War on Drugs really got going we have seen an increase in drug use and presence. The War on Drugs just is not working to do anything but drain public funds and put people in jail or prison for nothing more than having drugs on them. In America, rapists and even murderers often see less time than someone with a drug charge. The War on Drugs has really messed things up here.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you see it as a disaster exactly? Sometimes I wonder if I am simply unaware of how bad it is.

Pretty much what monk, legion and shadow said.

Add the carnage in drug producing and transit countries, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, economic distortions, attracting otherwise law abiding citizens into criminal activities, forcing addicts into large amounts of crime to feed a habit (how many alcoholics cause $1000+ theft every day?), lack of success in reducing drug use, etc.

Why do you see it as a policy that is working in any way?

 

[leibowde84]

This discussion is really open to everyone, but I'm using the UK as an example.

In the UK, many say that the war on drugs isn't working.

On one side, many claim that statistics quite clearly show that the government's harsh measures don't work, and a better solution is softer sentences, rehabilitation or outright decriminalisation.

The other side (like Peter Hitchens), will say that the reason it's not working is because the government is actually already very soft on drug offenders, and should have far stricter and harsher sentences to deter them.

Which side is right, and how do you know? Are we too soft or too harsh?

The War on Drugs, whether in the Unites States or Britain, is a failed enterprise. Prohibition does not bring down the number of drug fatalities, abusers or crime, it increases these things. It also is the largest untaxed illegal market and has created a Black Market run by the most ruthless of criminals.

Every drug should be legal and regulated for this purpose. It seems far more important to bankrupt the cartels than it is to paint this facad that our society hates drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth, and, as a young person, it is not hard to see this. Drugs have and always will be a part of human society. Once we realize this fact, we will be better equiped to deal with the negative aspects of their use.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, that underscores my point, at least. I would never think of drug use as "victimless".

What about responsible recreational drug users? Who are the victims? Obviously, when addiction is involved, I could see the peripheral vitims, but there are plenty of people who use drugs in a reasonable, responsible way without hurting anyone besides themselves (if that). Why are drug laws based on those without the responsibility to use them? Why isn't alcohol treated the same way (making it illegal because of those that abuse it)? People have been brainwashed into believing the propaganda that pot makes you stupid or lazy, or doing some molly at a concert will ruin your life.

Most overdoses take place because the user did not understand the strength of their drugs, so wouldn't it be more prudent to regulate, tax, and label them to cut down on these deaths?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

1) In the US, the FBI, CIA, DEA, and other federal and local LE/Intelligence/(para)military organizations are dedicated to this war. Which means millions upon millions are spent doing everything from housing people whose only crime was deciding to do something to their own body to clandestine special operations in South America.
2) The largest consumer of illegal drugs is the US. We spend millions upon millions to fight the war, and a comparable amount buying drugs anyway.
3) Prohibition didn't just fail. It introduced organized crime into the US on an unprecedented scale (and got a president elected). However, at least it was recognized as an utter failure and was over-turned.
4) The entire psychiatric profession amounts almost entirely to the prescription of mind-altering drugs that affect the brain in ways we don't understand. Many of these medications (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin, Adderall, Ritalin, and most recently Special K) are also black market drugs. In many cases, people are allowed to take some form of "speed" in order to concentrate while e.g., undergraduates preparing for some final exam can be arrested and charged for doing the same.
5) It is a little known fact that Heroin isn't like so many other drugs that aren't ever prescribed for medical reasons. It was a brand name cough suppressant Bayer developed. To be clear: Heroin was originally "Bayer's Heroin", advertised and marketed as the over-the-counter drug that it was. It was first changed to a prescription-only medication, then banned. Meanwhile, there are a dozen or so opium-derivatives like Heroin that remain legal as pain-killers simply because Bayer made the mistake of introducing Heroin as an OTC drug.
6) Most of the legal substances, from alcohol to the active ingredient in cough syrup (DXM) to prescribed benzodiazepines are more harmful than illegal drugs. Not only are the addictive, capable of causing death via overdose, but unlike e.g., Heroin you can die from withdrawal from these legal drugs (alcohol included). In other words, what substances are legal is largely arbitrary.
7) Much of (and often a majority of) violence, crime, murder, funds for terrorist organizations, cartels, lethal overdoses, and death to military and federal personnel as well as those they are fighting is due to the fact that the US has created one of the largest markets of all that exist on the planet. If the US alone legalized drugs, vast reduction in violence, death, organized criminal and terrorist groups, and more would be drastically reduced or annihilated.
8) There is little medical reason to ban most of the drugs, but more importantly there is little ethical or moral reason to do so. It is one thing to make it illegal to drive a car or practice medicine under the influence of drugs, but quite another to make it illegal to decide what one puts in one's body. This is particularly true in light of the arbitrary nature of what is legal for everyone, legal to be prescribed, and just illegal.

Yes yes yes yes YES times a million. Excellent post. And thank you for introducing a bit of history into the discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....I think there is way too much acceptance of drug by pretty much everyone.

Let me exploit this rare opportunity to agree with you. (I hope you don't fee soiled by the experience.) I'd like to see much less recreational drug use, but I oppose the oppressive actions of government in the drug war.

 

[LuisDantas]

What about responsible recreational drug users?

I flat out doubt such a thing exists. Unless they take pains to live apart from society, I suppose.

Not all drug harm is obvious. Much of the most serious is very subtle and never harms survival proper.

Who are the victims?

Their families and everyone else who deals with them directly and indirectly. Which is to say, the whole of society, except perhaps in very unusual situations.

Obviously, when addiction is involved, I could see the peripheral vitims, but there are plenty of people who use drugs in a reasonable, responsible way without hurting anyone besides themselves (if that). Why are drug laws based on those without the responsibility to use them?

Such is the nature of laws. They are literally unable of making informed decisions about people.

Not that I believe there is such a thing as responsible recreational drug use, mind you. But if I did, I don't see how any laws could possibly tell those who are responsible from those who are not.

Why isn't alcohol treated the same way (making it illegal because of those that abuse it)?

It should be. Alcohol is a very dangerous drug, albeit not so much as sleep or weight control drugs.

People have been brainwashed into believing the propaganda that pot makes you stupid or lazy, or doing some molly at a concert will ruin your life.

More like it nibbles at everyone's.

Most overdoses take place because the user did not understand the strength of their drugs, so wouldn't it be more prudent to regulate, tax, and label them to cut down on these deaths?

Not by any reasonable criteria, far as I can see.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me exploit this rare opportunity to agree with you. (I hope you don't fee soiled by the experience.) I'd like to see much less recreational drug use, but I oppose the oppressive actions of government in the drug war.

It is fine. But don't get used to it. I can make no promises...

 

[leibowde84]

I flat out doubt such a thing exists. Unless they take pains to live apart from society, I suppose.

Not all drug harm is obvious. Much of the most serious is very subtle and never harms survival proper.

Wow. No offense, but you seem a bit detached from reality on this. What about all of the upstanding citizens that have a drink from time to time? What about those who smoke a joint after work to help relax. Why on earth would you think that they must be "taking pains to live apart from society." Alcohol is a drug just like marijuana (a lot more harful actually), and there are tons of people who enjoy it responsibly, whether you are sheltered from it or not.



Their families and everyone else who deals with them directly and indirectly. Which is to say, the whole of society, except perhaps in very unusual situations.

The people mentioned above have no negative impact on their family and, for the most part, their families might enjoy a joint or a drink from time to time too. So, what aspect of their lives am I missing? I am in no way saying that there aren't those who abuse drugs, but there are certainly those who use them but do not abuse them.


Such is the nature of laws. They are literally unable of making informed decisions about people.

Not that I believe there is such a thing as responsible recreational drug use, mind you. But if I did, I don't see how any laws could possibly tell those who are responsible from those who are not.

They shouldn't in the first place. That is the point. Laws are not going to stop people from abusing drugs. They do, however, make violent crimnals extremely rich and make it far more dangerous for abusers to use drugs.


It should be. Alcohol is a very dangerous drug, albeit not so much as sleep or weight control drugs.

What about marijuana?

More like it nibbles at everyone's.

I know quite a few people who marijuana has helped tremendously. They are much better people for being open minded about the substance, which we are learning about more and more everyday.




Not by any reasonable criteria, far as I can see.

What do you mean by this? I've got to say, it seems like you have made up your mind without second guessing your assumptions about drug abuse. There are plenty of people who are able to use and not abuse, but that ins't even my point. It should be clear that prohibition doesn't work, it only exacerbates the problems associated with drug abuse and crime. So, what do we gain from making drugs illegal?

 

[Nietzsche]

4) The entire psychiatric profession amounts almost entirely to the prescription of mind-altering drugs that affect the brain in ways we don't understand. Many of these medications (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin, Adderall, Ritalin, and most recently Special K) are also black market drugs. In many cases, people are allowed to take some form of "speed" in order to concentrate while e.g., undergraduates preparing for some final exam can be arrested and charged for doing the same.
.

I've got a "thing" about ensuring correct drug information, so I want to clarify for others;

Xanax(alprazolam! it's bitter but so much fun), Valium, Klonopin, Adderall, Ritalin, are "downers". They're not like Cocaine or Amphetamines. Amphetamines are commonly referred to as "speed", though sometimes cocaine is called that too. Those are more collectively called "uppers". To put this in context, painkillers that don't rely on just nuking your CNS or being anti-inflamatories are "downers", as they're all opiates.

So basically, should anyone ever offer you drugs, make sure you know what it is first. And then thank them, because drugs are expensive.

 

[leibowde84]

1) In the US, the FBI, CIA, DEA, and other federal and local LE/Intelligence/(para)military organizations are dedicated to this war. Which means millions upon millions are spent doing everything from housing people whose only crime was deciding to do something to their own body to clandestine special operations in South America.
2) The largest consumer of illegal drugs is the US. We spend millions upon millions to fight the war, and a comparable amount buying drugs anyway.
3) Prohibition didn't just fail. It introduced organized crime into the US on an unprecedented scale (and got a president elected). However, at least it was recognized as an utter failure and was over-turned.
4) The entire psychiatric profession amounts almost entirely to the prescription of mind-altering drugs that affect the brain in ways we don't understand. Many of these medications (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin, Adderall, Ritalin, and most recently Special K) are also black market drugs. In many cases, people are allowed to take some form of "speed" in order to concentrate while e.g., undergraduates preparing for some final exam can be arrested and charged for doing the same.
5) It is a little known fact that Heroin isn't like so many other drugs that aren't ever prescribed for medical reasons. It was a brand name cough suppressant Bayer developed. To be clear: Heroin was originally "Bayer's Heroin", advertised and marketed as the over-the-counter drug that it was. It was first changed to a prescription-only medication, then banned. Meanwhile, there are a dozen or so opium-derivatives like Heroin that remain legal as pain-killers simply because Bayer made the mistake of introducing Heroin as an OTC drug.
6) Most of the legal substances, from alcohol to the active ingredient in cough syrup (DXM) to prescribed benzodiazepines are more harmful than illegal drugs. Not only are the addictive, capable of causing death via overdose, but unlike e.g., Heroin you can die from withdrawal from these legal drugs (alcohol included). In other words, what substances are legal is largely arbitrary.
7) Much of (and often a majority of) violence, crime, murder, funds for terrorist organizations, cartels, lethal overdoses, and death to military and federal personnel as well as those they are fighting is due to the fact that the US has created one of the largest markets of all that exist on the planet. If the US alone legalized drugs, vast reduction in violence, death, organized criminal and terrorist groups, and more would be drastically reduced or annihilated.
8) There is little medical reason to ban most of the drugs, but more importantly there is little ethical or moral reason to do so. It is one thing to make it illegal to drive a car or practice medicine under the influence of drugs, but quite another to make it illegal to decide what one puts in one's body. This is particularly true in light of the arbitrary nature of what is legal for everyone, legal to be prescribed, and just illegal.

The anti-depressant that I currently take saved my life. It is the 5th drug that I tried, and each took roughly 6 weeks before they had any effect. There is no intoxicating effect or euphoria, but it balanced the chemical imbalance in my brain that caused my immense depression. Now, although I still struggle with it, my depression is under control. Also, with the help of adderoll, I have a great job that I enjoy. When people claim that ADD doesn't exist or should be suffered through, it shows their immense ignorance on the subject. When people claim that "everyone gets depressed" it shows not only their ignorance of the meaning of the term, but also their animosity toward strangers. My mind without these medications was not only filled with "chatter" (thoughts wizzing through the mind without reason, escaping before any progress can be made) but negative and depressing "chatter." If you think that ADD is an illusion, it simply means that you don't know what you are talking about ... if this is not what you are saying, I apologize.

I'll tell you right now that I would not be where I am without my psychiatrists help. I have studied all the drugs that I tried workiing up to my current dose, and it makes perfect sense why Lexapro was the one for me. Also, understanding how ADD effects an individual in terms of adrenalin production in the brain, adderoll helps quite a bit too. I, however, have never had a problem with abuse, so maybe I'm a weird example, but I thank God every day that my doctor was able to help me live like a normal person.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've got a "thing" about ensuring correct drug information, so I want to clarify for others;

Xanax(alprazolam! it's bitter but so much fun), Valium, Klonopin, Adderall, Ritalin, are "downers". They're not like Cocaine or Amphetamines. Amphetamines are commonly referred to as "speed", though sometimes cocaine is called that too. Those are more collectively called "uppers". To put this in context, painkillers that don't rely on just nuking your CNS or being anti-inflamatories are "downers", as they're all opiates.

So basically, should anyone ever offer you drugs, make sure you know what it is first. And then thank them, because drugs are expensive.

I once was prescribed Vicodin for my severe pain, and discovered right away that I needed to stay away from it given HOW ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC I felt while taking it. I only took it when the pain was unmanageable, enjoyed the super-awesome feeling, and then turned the rest in after the pain became manageable in day to day life.

I saw how addicted I could get, and the same with Xanax.

But prescription drugs are funny, because they can be highly addictive for these very reasons, and yet you could go in to a doctors office, describe your symptoms of stress, and regardless of your blood pressure levels, he or she can write a low dose scrip for a downer for you. Limited refill scrip, but it's easily available.

The psychedelics that are illegal don't have the same support that prescription drugs do.

I think a lot of it is nothing more than a racket.

 

[Nietzsche]

I once was prescribed Vicodin for my severe pain, and discovered right away that I needed to stay away from it given HOW ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC I felt while taking it. I only took it when the pain was unmanageable, enjoyed the super-awesome feeling, and then turned the rest in after the pain became manageable in day to day life.

pftahahaha. Oh wow. I haven't been able to take vicodin in ages. I can swallow a handful of those and never know it. Morphine & Oxycontin now, and I still ****ing hurt. gah. Lucky ******* T_T.

I saw how addicted I could get, and the same with Xanax

Honestly, while it's fun every now and then, I don't see the draw. I've got some now and I take it every so often with some Bourbon when I want to sleep. Morphine & opiates in general, despite helping a lot, keep me ****ing awake. Gah.

But prescription drugs are funny, because they can be highly addictive for these very reasons, and yet you could go in to a doctors office, describe your symptoms of stress, and regardless of your blood pressure levels, he or she can write a low dose scrip for a downer for you. Limited refill scrip, but it's easily available.

The psychedelics that are illegal don't have the same support that prescription drugs do.

I think a lot of it is nothing more than a racket.

It should all be legal, over-the-counter. Why not? I'd rather have someone high off their *** on painkillers than drunk. Most people can function when they're on an opiate high. They aren't slurring their words or getting angry that's for damn sure.