War on Drugs - Disaster or justified crusade?

Balder1

Registered Senior Member
Yeah, I know this is a very cliched topic, but it's one that doesn't really have any good solutions that I can see. Legalize everything doesn't work, and ban everything isn't working...

Here is the rough draft of an oration for Debate.

It would be easy for me to get a hold of quite a bit of pot. In fact, I could get in a few hours. That tells us all something about our society. If drugs are easy for the average kid to get, then we are losing our war on drugs. If we can’t keep the drugs out of our country, then the war is already as good as lost. It has been a losing war ever since it started, mostly because we have been fighting against ourselves. Millions of American citizens are arrested and imprisoned simply because they possessed an illegal drug. They did not hurt or infringe on anyone’s rights, except their own. And the jail time that they receive will do them more harm than the drug would have. Many of them won’t even get the chance to receive adequate treatment.

The US takes a hard, zero-tolerance policy against drug addicts that, when studied critically, doesn’t make too much sense. We won’t even supply needles to help prevent the spread of AIDS. Not that denying them clean needles would stop any of these heroin addicts from using. No, instead they use the dirty old needles, and HIV slowly spreads into the US. These drug addicts, as I’ve said, aren’t actually harming anyone. The police still take a military approach to cracking down on these people, with a cold, hard attitude, a gun, and bulletproof vest. They forget that they’re dealing with people, especially people who have had a harder life than they have. There is very little sympathy, and they’re trained that they are soldiers in a war against drugs, instead of respected members of the community.

The most important part of our drug war, fighting it abroad, hasn’t been focused on nearly enough. Colombia still produces tons of cocaine, and we haven’t stepped up to stop them. Recently, we had the chance to bomb huge crops of heroin and opium in Afghanistan. We didn’t, instead we compromised in order to defeat the Taliban and pursue the terrorists. They produced 70% of the world’s opiates, and now that opium will be heading to Europe. It seems that the US would rather arrest our poor US citizens than fight in an expensive war abroad.
One of the worst problems resulting from drug prohibition is the black market. The drugs that are so readily available cost a fortune, and that money goes back to drug lords who use it for their own evil purposes, such as funding terrorism. The lucrative black market also attracts kids who are eager to get rich, and eventually become criminals. Not only that, but it also corrupts local officials. More than a few cops have been arrested for it, and those are just the ones who are caught.

Another side-affect of the drug war is drug crimes. The reason that most of these crimes happen is because the drugs are illegal. It isn’t because people go crazy after smoking a joint or taking some happy pill. We Americans know better than that, after all, the government estimates that over a third of Americans have tried an illegal drug – and that’s a conservative estimate. No, violence is more likely to happen after taking a legal drug, alcohol. After all, it lowers inhibitions, and is renown for starting fights.

The staggering problems go on and on. Our preventative measure against kids just don’t seem to be working – 40% of sixteen year olds report having tried an illegal drug, compared to 20% in the Netherlands, a place where marijuana is basically legal. Indeed, we have the highest drug use (or abuse, they seem to be synonymous) in all of the developed countries. It seems very strange, considering we have the harshest laws against it, and funnel the most money into it.

All this seems to suggest that we must reform our war on drugs, but what alternatives do we have? Can we really continue arresting every single drug user in the country, destroying their lives even more in the process? There are several things that can be done, risky as some seem. Most of Europe has decriminalized possession of marijuana and made them punishable only by fines, and that seems to be working. They all have lower use rates than the United States, and some are pushing for even more liberalization. The Netherlands allows marijuana to be sold, and also enjoys a homicide rate of ¼ of the US, as well as having less trouble with drug abuse and drug crimes. Despite all this evidence, many Americans are still blindly obstinate against any tolerance of illegal drugs. Nick Pastone, former chief of police at New Haven, Connecticut, advises training police officers in a more understanding, caring way. He implemented “sensitivity classes” for his cops and exposure to the life of the poor. At the very least we could concentrate less on the users, and more on the drug trafficers and drug lords who are the root cause of this. In the end, though, the responsibility has to lie with the people and the culture.



I didn't come to much of a conclusion... that's where I started to fall asleep, but also because the solution is hard to come up with. The best one would be to eliminate heroin and cocaine from most of the world by using some sort of global enforcement, but that's not really feasible. We can work towards it, true. We also can't continue to lock up American citizens who are just addicted and down on their luck, even if they get to the point of dealing drugs...
Legalizing pot is an easy one, and just about the only one I came up with... but there are people who argue that pot causes a bit of brain damage, and after smoking it a few years I'm inclined to believe them. ;) I also stayed away from the abuse of prescription/designer drugs, which I believe is the worst problem right now, but I don't really want to even go there.

So, how can we solve this? Make more drugs legal, and endure them as a necessary evil, like alcohol? It's clear that our enforcement is not effective, but should we just pour more money into it? Or resort to even more fascist tactics to catch these "evil" drug dealers and users? We can't lock up 1/3 or the country.

Anyway, good luck plowing through this, feedback would be appreciated. :)
 
Unmitigated Disaster

When in the course of the War on Terror the government's usurpation of the very Constitution that empowers it will be justified by a history of precedents set by the Drug War.

With the US Marine Corps patrolling its own citizens and killing teenagers; with the police in New York shooting people to death for (A) not having any drugs on them, or (B) attempting to follow the instructions given them by a number of policemen who are pointing guns at them; with police in St. Paul, Minnesota committing federal crimes in order to circumvent curtilage boundaries and cite people for "Keeping a Disorderly House"; with no-knock warrants and "Quality of Life" crimes; with lies, distortions, and circular, self-dependent "logic"; with a drug-resistance effort that makes children more likely to take drugs; with demand and supply both increasing and prices remaining steady; with the US and Canada (Washington state and BC) pointing fingers at each other; with undue focus on marijuana; with contradictory standards (crack vs. powder cocaine); with hideously racist results; with the institution of an official Czar in the United States; with commercial interests buying off Congress; with a history that includes the Bureau of Narcotics (pre-DEA) calling opiates safer than marijuana; with civil liberties collapsing ....

The War on Drugs is a perpetual War on Americans fostered by the US government. It has resulted in a ballooning prison industry, a proportionate reduction in prison bedspace for violent criminals, and a massive diversion of law-enforcement efforts to engage an artificial black market.

Weep for Tulia. Weep for Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond and Mario Paz and Esquivel Hernandez. Weep for the thousands lost and the thousands that will be lost. Weep for a generation schooled in lies and deception. Weep for a "free" nation that declares war against its own citizens.

The War on Drugs has been an unmitigated failure. Had I my druthers, I would haul every police officer, DEA agent, legislator and public executive who took part in the Drug War before the courts and hold them criminally accountable for the murders, extortions, deceptions, usurpations, and every other wrongdoing of this hideous excuse for policy.

We, the People, shall endure. In a land where the idea of Liberty exists, you can never snuff its light. We shall win, we shall survive, and we shall prosper again.

In the meantime, we must fight to end the wasting of public funds on the murdering of citizens, the destruction of the Constitution, and the deceiving of our children. If the War on Drugs is so noble, why must they lie at every turn?

- Drug Reform Coordination Network
- DRC Net Drug Library
- November Coalition
- Families Against Mandatory Minimums
- Marijuana Policy Project
- Common Sense for Drug Policy
- Memorial for Peter McWilliams
- National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
- High Times
- Criminal Justice Policy Foundation press release regarding federal "Crack standard", Nov. 6, 1995
- Arianna Huffington: "Did the Drug War Claim Another 3,056 Casualties on 9-11?"

Some of our posters might be more familiar than others with my history of ranting about the Drug War. Rather than running you all through the thresher again, I figured it well enough to list some common sources about the Drug War. And remember, Arianna Huffington calls herself a conservative; don't go hacking me for an argument that I never would have made on my own. And don't go calling her essay "liberal fancy".

:m: peace, harmony, & good stuff :m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
My thoughts and a solution:

A big reason the public is against drugs is because the majority wish to make good on the tax money they invested in the users’ educations.

The medical marijuana initiative is primarily a means to make marijuana legal for anyone who will rush to a quack for a prescription.

Users are the root cause of the problem. Always the root cause of a problem should be first addressed.

A solution: Anyone who is proven beyond reasonable doubt in court to use any drug the majority deems illegal is put into rehab for x months. The rehab is well-funded and secure. The meals are good and there’s recreation and education. Family may visit; perhaps there’s even on-site day care. People are treated with kindness within limits of their behavior. If the person uses again, back in they go for another x months. It’d cost a lot, but not as much as the War on Drugs. I’d even support such a facility for anyone who wishes to stay there, as long they couldn’t leave for x months. All students would be taken on a tour of a nearby facility at say age 10, where’d they learn why the majority chose this solution.
 
My insight:

1) We live in a society that revolves around countless work. The governent wants the people to be slaves. Well, I am not a slave and I have absolutely no respect for my government.

2) People want to escape the redundant lives of destruction that they have created. They need to physically alter their mind to forget their problems. This is a basic need.

If someone can tell me why I, personally, am wrong, please tell me.
 
According to my employer, the majority of on the job injuries at our company occur while someone is on illigal drugs of some kind. If that is a verifiable statistic, then think of how the said injuries would go up if drugs were legalized. In such cases, injuring other co-workers is a possibility.

I can buy the idea that people on drugs represent a danger to other people.
 
Drugs and the workplace

National Opinion Research Center (Univ. of Chicago): Drugs and the Workplace:
Nevertheless, drug users, past or present, were no more likely than those who had never used to be involved in an accident. Some research indicates that drug use leads to accidents only in "high-risk" occupations such as construction work or among machine operators. This seems reasonable given that these occupations require a
high degree of manual dexterity that may be impaired by drug use. We explored the relationship between drug use and accidents in "high-risk" occupations, but found no evidence that it exists. These results show clearly the lack of a relationship between drug use and accidents.
Please note the report is in PDF form.

The issue of drugs and workplace accidents is not as clear-cut as one might think. Consider the latest round of anti-drug commercials demonizing marijuana.° A crash-vehicle test scenario presents the assertion that marijuana is commonly found in the bloodstreams of victims of accidents in which substances were to blame. Yet it was also the anti-drug lobby that reminded my generation in the 1980s that we couldn't hide marijuana use--the stuff stays in your system for a while. Now consider the flip-side: I once worked for a shipping company in Ballard, Seattle. Their workman's compensation coordinator was obscene. As an example, he once told me about denying a claim, and complained about the courts' intervention; apparently he denied the claim because the claimant apparently intentionally put himself between loose cargo on the deck of a heaving mud boat in open sea and the wall the cargo pinned his leg against. I read the file while he was out to lunch one day. Turns out the claimant saved another man's life by blocking the tumbling cargo. Against that backdrop, consider their drug policy. And consider that marijuana stays in your system for weeks, even months.° So you go out with friends to a bar and see a show. Say Floater's up from Portland. At any concert these days you can catch a whiff or two of the sweet leaf being charged up. This smoke is less hazardous to you than secondhand cigarette smoke, and definitively less hazardous than the air in LA.° But you're relaxed, you're not about to let some hippy chase you out of a cool set. A week later you're sitting at your desk. At your back is a windowless wall. Without warning, a hung-over forklift operator slams into the building. The forks tear through the wall and you are injured severely. The hospital takes a blood sample for a routine drug test required by your insurance, and the test turns up positive for marijuana. Your claim is denied on the grounds that you were under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. Two important results from drug-related paranoia: (1) You are denied a legitimate claim, (2) You become a statistic for drug-related workplace accidents. Did marijuana cause the accident? No. Did alcohol? Probably. Nonetheless, your injury is represented as being caused by your marijuana use.

Think of that crash-test commercial: "It's more dangerous than we thought," says the young female narrator. Did your joint last week cause a person to run a red light and hit your car? Just like drunk driving, if you are found to have drugs in your system, you can be held responsible for an accident that you are not at fault for. You don't even have to be moving in the car, merely sitting behind the wheel. Indeed, if you come stumbling out of a friend's house, get into your car, and decide that you can't drive, but your car is struck by a passing vehicle before you can get out, you run the risk of being held criminally liable for the accident. Is it more dangerous than we thought? Or is the presentation dishonest? Given the history of the drug war, the presentation is dishonest.

There is no doubt, though, that drugs play a role in accidents of all sorts. You are, after all, warping your perception and processing functions. But most drug-related workplace accidents are related to cigarettes and coffee--namely their absence. People in withdrawal will make mistakes. Coke and meth? Probably; they clear your system more quickly than marijuana. If it shows up in your bloodstream shortly after an accident, the odds are you were under the influence at the time.

My mother, incidentally, used to work as a representative for a psychiatric drug called Anafranil, which was indicated for obsessive-compulsive disorders. Among the reported side effects were multiple car accidents in which women reported having orgasms when they sneezed. Go figure.

Notes

° Anti-drug commercials: These commercials invite insane questions, beg them, even. What is more dangerous--your kid smoking pot, period; or you leaving a loaded gun accessible to a child, period? Or the drive-thru version? The commercial reminds me of a certain Wendy's in Seattle. But no parent in their right mind would let a child ride a bicycle there; especially one with training wheels. The automobile crash-test commercial bears more subtle questions for a complacent public, but begs obvious questions to those who have paid attention.

° Weeks, even months: The claim in my generation's day was six months; this at the onset of drug testing for student-athletes. The claim presented the circumstance that smoking pot ever would show up on one or more of your physicals and thus bar you from participating in sports. However, I knew guys in college who could smoke tough and pass a drug test less than 24 hours later.

° Air in LA: In March, 1996, I drove from Salem, Oregon, to Castaic, California. Theoretically, I should have been able to see LA from there. I could see where LA was. A brown dome, a blister against the sky, marked the great city on the horizon.


thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
The company I work at isn't quite that kind of work area, Tiassa. I work part time at a BBQ resteraunt for extra money. The most common work-related accidents are not falling boxes or shelves, they have to do with slips, fallls, not properly handling a butcher knife, a slicing machine, a frialator, and other such equipment. In just about all of these examples, they are accidents occuring to an individual and not involving others in any way, shape, or form.

At least from my workplace experience, things like what Tiassa describes as happening aren't at all why accidents happen while someone is on drugs. In other words, it is much easier to see at my job that someone on drugs sliced his own finger off not being careful on the slicer, or burned himself on the frialator, or slipped and fell running across a wet floor.
 
Surely there is some error in the drug-related accident stats. I think it’s obvious though that someone on drugs is going to be more accident-prone.

I see it like the motorcycle helmet law issue. Some motorcyclists don’t like to be required to wear a helmet by law because they feel only their own life is at risk. But the monetary claim from an accident will be higher on average. If I’m at fault in an accident where the other guy is a motorcyclist, why should I have to pay an extra half a million dollars just because he wasn’t wearing a helmet and so his injuries were greater? Meaning I have to carry extra insurance if the law isn’t in place.

Likewise employers are more at risk if drug laws aren’t in place. They’d have to carry extra insurance against job-related injuries, the costs of which would be passed through to customers. The costs to everyone would increase to fund the users’ hobby.
 
Xevious, Zanket

Surely there is some error in the drug-related accident stats. I think it?s obvious though that someone on drugs is going to be more accident-prone.
A couple of ways to look at that. First, if you read the study, you'll find it's a self-reporting survey. In terms of that, the study addresses a couple of problems with self-reporting surveys. And while you'd think that people on drugs are going to be more accident prone, there's something bizarre about the numbers.
In other words, it is much easier to see at my job that someone on drugs sliced his own finger off not being careful on the slicer, or burned himself on the frialator, or slipped and fell running across a wet floor.
I think that if we stop to think about it, we'll see part of the reason the numbers seem so bizarre.

Now, I agree. You'd think someone who is stoned or coked up at work would be more accident prone than someone who isn't. But if we stop and think of the portion of the workforce that isn't on any drugs whatsoever, we see a very slim proportion.

Because companines do test for alcohol--at least some of them do. When I worked at the Port of Seattle, they were developing their drug-testing program. The major hitch was that the executives, while they liked the schedule, did not wish it to apply to themselves. Interesting. But if we stop and look at the segment of the labor pool using illegal drugs, or using alcohol at work, it's both a bigger and smaller number than one might expect. It's bigger than it should be, but it's smaller than you'd think given the number of people sousing on one drug or another.

And beyond those scoundrels, what of the cigarette and caffiene addicts? I've seen plenty of slipping, tripping, and slicing resulting from people simply not watching what they're doing because they're in caffeine or nicotine withdrawal. These, too, are drug-related accidents, but we don't often stop to consider them because it's not marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, or booze.

We might also consider the industries; like Xevious mentions, he works in a BBQ pit and sees a certain brand of workplace accident. I worked last at an insurance company. I'll note that the pool car in which my buddy found the eighth-bag of dope was returned intact. The one with the wrecked side mirror and scraped door was the result of someone--and I know the guy and the incident directly--running into a structure in a parking lot at one of those drive-through espresso bars. Or the car that had its front end repaired after a coffee-spill related rear-ending? Things happen, but coffee contains a seriously addictive drug.

I nearly broke my ankle on a mail cart once. And yes, I was on drugs. My doctor gave them to me as an anti-smoking agent. I also nearly ran over someone with a pallet-jack. Almost got in a fistfight ... let's just say that brain drugs invite their own brand of danger to the office.

And of illegal drugs? The company didn't drug test because they found out long ago that their entire structure would collapse. The manager for E&O (professional liability) was a drunk. The manager for attorneys' malpractice was a cokehead. The manager for medical malpractice was squeaky-clean, as far as anyone knew, but his program was getting the axe. It seemed a balance of one or the other. The simple fact is that if the company tested for drugs, its most successful managers would be out the window as well as a significant portion of its labor force. And they knew enough to know that things would always be that way; let them fire all those people and retrain their replacements--the use statistics would come back the same.

Foodservice stories of my own: Not understanding the persistent nature of LSD the first time I took it, I arrived at work the next day still under the influence. I worked in a pizza joint, and spent the morning clipping my fingers in an automated dough roller. I avoided actual injury, but spent the morning amused at my offbeat reflexes. However, the day I clipped off the tip of my finger in an automated veggie slicer, I was as sober as I could be. Caffeine more likely played a role in my inattention. Oh, and my cold-sober boss served the goddamned mushrooms, anyway.

I agree, Zanket, that there is something bizarre about the numbers. And I do agree, Xevious, about the nature of more common workplace accidents. And I think the points are related because I think that it is true that the majority of workplace accidents are related to drugs. But what others don't consider is the effects of nicotine and caffeine withdrawal in the workplace. It seems somewhat common sense to assume that illicit drug use would cause more accidents, but the data is so badly gathered, organized, and presented that one cannot draw the expected clear and simple conclusion. Some drugs are wrongly listed as factors in accidents, and some drugs are wrongly ommitted as factors. But the underlying point is that insofar as we might blame marijuana for an accident (see prior posts re: automotive crash-test commercial), we can blame caffeine for every workplace accident that I've ever seen or known of in my own workplaces.

Now, that's not as ridiculous an assertion as it seems when you bear in mind that it's a lighthearted context. It will take years to back the assertion with anything beyond anecdotal proof. But consider this: if we consider the automotive crash-test commercial and my own melodramatic forklift example, the first question is whether or not you can see the devices I'm describing. Xevious' consideration of the nature of accidents is important. But what I'm talking about is how a statistic is arrived at, so that when Xevious notes that employers advise that the majority of on the job injuries at our company occur while someone is on illigal drugs of some kind we can all understand what that means. The way things are done, one cannot necessarily determine that a positive reading for marijuana use has anything to do with a workplace or traffic accident. But, if we attach the "It's more dangerous than we thought" standard to workplace accidents, I can definitively say that caffeine has been responsible for every workplace accident I've ever witnessed or known of in my own workplace.

How do I arrive at that standard? Well, more than dope, more than cigarettes, more than booze, the one thing I can say is that every person I've ever known to suffer a workplace accident consumes caffeine. Caffeine is addictive; if you consume caffeine regularly, you periodically experience withdrawals. Most common symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are headaches and irritability, two factors which can degrade one's focus and attention span. Now, we could figure into the assertion that I know very few people who do not consume caffeine; I can think of perhaps three people that I might see with any regularity. So the end result is that while we might discuss the theoretic numbers, and yes I agree there is more to theorize and figure before they are right, the reality of what I see is that simple caffeine is the most dangerous workplace drug of all, and nobody ever stops to talk about what this addictive drug can do to a workplace. Of course, when you stop and consider that Java is a meaningless term in relation to the software functions it performs, you can grasp how deeply caffeine affects our culture. Ask any former microserf about caffeine and other speedy drugs in relation to the workplace. There's a reason Seattle and the Eastside are both software and coffee havens.

And when you get down to Microsoft's infamous dead-end code, when old Windows systems would simply freeze themselves because they came to a place where they had no real instructions--well, how much extra do you pay for the additional labor of cleaning up that code? Software consumers--and, because of Microsoft's unique position in the software industry--consumers of other industries paid for the negative effects of caffeine addiction; some of that dead-end code came from the fact that everyone was hopped up and trying to make it work at all--they could worry about it being right later. After all, you can just include that extra labor in the cost-recovery outline.°

If it seems I digress, I just want it noted that we lose a vast deal of money, time, and resources to other drugs. If a man falls asleep because he's drunk, or if drugs are detected after a boat runs ashore, a train derails, or whatnot because someone is asleep at the switch, we're bound to hear about it. But what do we not hear of the guy who is asleep on the job because of a caffeine-deprivation crash, or who takes a curve too quickly because he's edgy from withdrawal? Or, in the relative terms presented: what do we not hear about someone not paying enough attention around a busy kitchen because they need a cigarette or a cup of coffee?

It might be that the something bizarre about the numbers is that while the drug-related accidents are there and significant, the signals are muted by a wash of background static coming from the other, less-considered relationship between drugs and problems in the workplace. I would recommend page 9 of the NORC report (page 12 in the pdf), which is essentially the conclusions of the report. Part of what you're seeing is a trend in which drug-testing has been successful--users of marijuana and cocaine are less likely to apply to work for companies that test. However, the report goes on to note: drug testing programs may have cast a net of deterrence that is too broad and discourages many otherwise capable workers from applying for jobs.

Zanket noted: Likewise employers are more at risk if drug laws aren?t in place.

This is not entirely true. While it is possible that workplace use will see an increase, I do not see how employers are at any more risk if the drug war ends and drugs are legalized. After all, not everybody gets drunk at work. And furthermore I have some difficulty with the insurance argument. The problems of the insurance industry are the problems of the insurance industry, and I don't think it fair to lay them at the feet of drug users. The actuarial tables only reflect the statistics that are put into them. Whether or not a substance has to do with an event, the present regard for drugs will put the blame statistically on drugs. That the insurance makes no distinction between someone impaired by drugs and someone involved in an accident bearing residual signs of drug use is not the fault of drug users. That insurance does not have a nickel for every time someone used a lack of coffee or a cigarette as an excuse for lost productivity or inattention resulting in a financial loss through injury or damage to the workplace or inventory is not the fault of drug users. "I don't function without my first cup of joe," says the smirking addict. But nobody cares because that brand of addiction is prevalent.

One thing I ask of all when considering issues related to drug use is to remember that we're talking about drugs. Here I am dismissing for the sake of the point some arguments which say marijuana is not a drug. It bends your mind, it's a drug. And think about it, though: we frequently limit ourselves in our minds when we say "drugs" to thinking about potheads, cokeheads, junkies, speed freaks, glue-sniffers, and so forth. And in the same token we do not consider caffeine or Prozac. Say what you want about Prozac being designed to help people; nobody made marijuana to hurt people, and besides, cocaine exists because coca leaf threatens coffee. If people could stop by a 7-11 and pick up a pack of coca leaves to chew, I think you'd find considerations related to coca significantly different. Heroin? Meth? You all have my sympathies. But drug users did not invent the classification that holds marijuana on par with heroin, that holds methamphetamine to be less addictive and less harmful to the user than marijuana.° These myths and the sentiments they inspire owe their blame to the drug warriors who simply cannot figure out that there are better ways for humans and intoxicating substances to exist.

? HTML version of NORC report via Google--in case one prefers it to a PDF.

Notes:

° Microsoft: A friend of mine who works at Microsoft once told me about his morning; testing USB connections on an early version of Win2k. He started running his diagnostic, and the computer just started spitting out errors. He watched, amused at first, and then realized he was going to be there a while. Several smoke-breaks and 65,000-plus error messages later he was finished. The major problem? The thing had been thrown together so hurriedly that there was a tremendous amount of extraneous code that equaled optional pathways for the command system; these optional pathways led to nowhere--to dead ends--something Seattleites are coincidentally familiar with. And come on, who didn't think Win95, 98, and 2k were heavy, bloated systems to begin with?

° Methamphetamine and marijuana: While "Ecstasy" (MDMA) is the current target of amphetamine paranoia, why? Crystal meth is a hideous drug that destroys its users much more quickly. Yet as late as 1995 (I haven't the current schedule), marijuana, as a Schedule 1 substance, was held to be more addictive and more dangerous to the user than methamphetamine, which was Schedule 2. (MAPA 1999, I believe, listed methamphetamine as a Schedule 1 drug.)


thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
The problem with drugs in the US, as I see it, is that it has for many years now been treated primarily as a problem of law enforcement. Thus, you have the "War on Drugs".

Things could have been different. In the early years, before cocaine became big business, there were moves to make treatment of addicts a priority. Drugs were treated as primarily a health problem rather than a crime problem. Doing that actually addresses the problem at the grass roots level. Early indications were that the approach worked, too. Then, mostly for political reasons, the US administration changed its approach to one of a hard-line crackdown on drug use.

Drug dependency is a health issue, and should be treated as such. Throwing law enforcement resources at the problem barely makes a dent. Even with the occasional record seizure of a major drug importation, the market for drugs is seldom affected at all. The resources available to the drug cartels are massive, given their income.
 
The problem is, the war on drugs was never really a war on drugs at all. It was simply a grab for votes. Governments don't do things that are "right". They do things that will get votes and maintain their own existence. If the masses start thinking "concaine is bad, mmkay", then the politicians say they are against it and start spending money there. Meanwhile, since they aren't actually against it, they also do things like allow cocaine imports from Noriega in return to access to his intelligence network.
 
My main solution would be doing these things.

1. Legalize Marijuana.

2. Treat addicted people.

3.Elimate the production of heroin and cocaine in other countries.

Are these things feasible, and will they happen in the future? How long before marijuana is legalized? There was a cover article on TIME about it.

The biggest growing problem is abusing prescription drugs, and designer drugs. How can we adress those problems? It seems to me that many of these drugs could be made in the US itself.

Adam, your analysis seems too cynical. If you're right, then our only option is to somehow change our government. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
Originally posted by tiassa
I do not see how employers are at any more risk if the drug war ends and drugs are legalized. After all, not everybody gets drunk at work.

This is a good point. More so that alcohol should be illegal as well. If someone cuts off a finger while stoned, a positive drug test shifts the blame from the employer to the employee. If drugs are legal, the employer is in a weaker position in an injury lawsuit and must carry extra insurance to offset the weakness. Another example: Stoners are less productive and so make less and so are more apt to not have car insurance or not enough insurance. So I must carry uninsured/underinsured insurance in case a stoner hits me. The same is true with alcohol. However...

"I don't function without my first cup of joe," says the smirking addict. But nobody cares because that brand of addiction is prevalent.

...when a large percentage is addicted then the risk is already spread to the masses and making it illegal is inefficient. If only 10% of the population enjoyed alcohol then you can bet prohibition would come back in style.

It all comes down to majority rule as usual. If the issue is private blow jobs, then the majority has no business regulating that, assuming it harms nobody else (except perhaps their sensibility). If the issue negatively affects others, then the majority may justly regulate the minority. Drug users do negatively affect non-users.
 
you DO know that there are countrys where cocain and herion are LEGAL????

what right have you to go into that country and bomb plantations????

would you accept the same from countrys that concider tobacco illegal bombing the US????
 
Originally posted by Adam
The problem is, the war on drugs was never really a war on drugs at all. It was simply a grab for votes. Governments don't do things that are "right". They do things that will get votes and maintain their own existence.

True. This is why it’s important to have a thinking populace, so their votes can be grabbed only for the best representation. Drugs cause a downward spiral in education, allowing a minority to more easily gain power. Perhaps that’s a secondary impetus behind allowing the cocaine imports.
 
what right have you to go into that country and bomb plantations????

Heres a REALLY funny story....

Ok, so the US government is finally doing something productive in Columbia, right? Well, they paid many farmers to convert thier coca plants into a new type of small fruit. There was a huge group of farmers in one area. Some converted entirely, some converted half of thier crop, and some converted none.

Now, the factory which the people were supposed to bring the new fruit crop THEMSELVES was 50 miles away and did not have funding to be built for atleast two more years. So all of the farmers had a crop but could not capitalize from it. Then most of them went back to coca farming because they needed money for food. The US government became infuriated with this atrocity and flew planes over the plantations and gassed all of the crops... including all of the new fruit plants.

So, now many Columbians who were looking to get out of the drug business have absolutely nothing but the drug czars in Columbia to help them. YAY, dont you love America, too?
 
I think all drugs should be legalized, but for one reason only: to deterr them.

Let everybody OD, get hurt because of drug use, and the like. The public consequences will become all too aparent with people ODing in the street... and this will leave only those smart enough to keep healthy bodies around. The lesson will have been learned.
 
Hmm, that idea has merit, Xevious. However, with heroin anyone who tries it once gets addicted... I think it would just be best to completely get rid of it. There would be too many casulties, and too many people willing to try it just once.

Plus, what do we do with all the addicts? Let them die, or try to treat all of them? There would probably be tons of failed addicts.

Asguard, where is heroin and cocaine legal?

I also think marijuana will be legalized in the future... anyone have any predictions on when? Heard it was going to get legalized in Canada - maybe even in as little as four months.
 
opium WAS legal along the triangle i THINK (not sure on that one)

weed and coco are legal where they naturaly grow (it was ages since i read this stuff)
 
Back
Top