I have a pretty simple question that is directed to those folks in this thread that are in favor of prohibition. Given that it is painfully obvious that the current policies are not working, what do you propose as a constructive solution? For example: I believe that the desire to get high is simply a part of the human condition and as such it is as foolish to try to make that illegal as it would be to try to make it illegal for the tide to come in and out. If we move forward from that assumption we can then focus our energy as a society towards harm reduction.
Obviously there are those that disagree. So what is your answer to the problem? Given that many of you seem to place the blame at the demand side of this just how do you propose to reduce demand?
The State can’t go after the supply side, because the State is the main source of drugs. The CIA runs the drugs in from southeast Asia and South America, dumps them into poor neighbourhoods to keep them shooting each other instead of the people actually responsible for their misery, and then uses the money for their black ops slush funds so they can operate without oversight. Very occasionally we get a small glimpse of this racket, like the Iran/Contra affair.
The old dog has a new trick;
It’s called criminalize the symptoms while you spread the disease.
[INDENT][INDENT]-- Ani DiFranco[/INDENT][/INDENT]
Is this another one of your conspiracy theories? I know that asking for a cite is probably an exercise in futility, but I’d really be interested in seeing one.
And since you specifically mention the CIA, and I know that you’re in Canada, I’m also wondering if you’re saying that the CIA is doing this in the US or Canada or both. Or perhaps the CIA is in cahoots with the Canadian government?
The Iran/Contra affair isn’t enough for you? There are plenty of other examples of the US government running drugs. Shit, even Wikipedia has an article on CIA drug trafficking.
Google “CIA drug trafficking” (it auto-completes in the text box, btw) and you’ll see about 261,00 hits, including videos and books, many written by former CIA personnel with first hand knowledge of the Agency’s involvement.
There is no reasonable analogy between these two types of traffic.
When you prohibit trade in a product, you necessarily create a black market with a high profit margin, and will see an uptick in trade, because now there is a larger class of people who are able to benefit from production and distribution, and these people will be more inclined to amorality. Enforcement of safety regulations does not create a similar financial incentive for anyone.
Prohibition of alcohol is probably the most familiar example of this phenomenon, but you might also (as a mental exercise) contrast the level of use of LSD during the time between its first synthesis in 1942 and its prohibition in 1967 with the level of use after that – or the perceived problem presented by MDMA (“ecstacy”) use between 1912 and its criminalization in 1985 with that in the years from then until now.
Prohibition is a thumb placed over the garden hose of traffic, with an accompanying opening of the valve as a bonus.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my previous post. I was referring to the bolded portion of your statement:
You claim,or at least very strongly imply, that one of the purposes of the CIA drug trafficking is to acquire drugs to be used to keep poor people “shooting each other instead of the people responsible for their misery”. This is the point that I was questioning. I am, of course, aware of Iran/Contra and CIA drug-related operations, but I’ve never seen anything indicating that the purpose of these was other than to raise money.
It’s also worth noting that nobody has provided any cites that the CIA runs, as opposed to ran, drugs (during Vietnam), especially since most claims, including the ones that Smashy himself cited, do not in fact claim that the CIA runs drugs but rather that during certain times they actively turned a blind eye towards drug smuggling.
Believing consumers are responsible for the purchases they make doesn’t mean one has to swallow “all that anti-drug propaganda”. Companies that invested in Apartheid, people who buy Hummers for the sheer ego of it, people who give money to Brittany Spears, people who buy conflict diamonds, and people who buy drugs (except the 99% of posters here on the SDMB, who get all theirs organically homegrown from their pacifist friend), all bear some responsibility for supporting their respective markets. Just like people who buy Free Trade items, who support local organic food suppliers, who donate to charity, and who lower their carbon footprint.
Ditto. I use public transportation for long distances and my trusty bicycle for local trips. So I guess that means I can call you a terrorist supporter with immunity.
They are.
What you’re arguing is that they are, in fact, responsible for the mess that the government has made wrt their purchases.
Women getting abortions, for instance, has been used as a justification for murderous lunatics to kill abortion doctors. Does that mean that women who get abortions are responsible for the murder of abortion doctors? Or that homicidal maniacs are responsible for the murder of abortion doctors?
Every single drug user bears a portion of the responsibility for the horrors caused by the drug wars. Of course, their portion is proportional to the percentage of the total demand they contribute, so it’s right about a 0% responsibility for any given user. Which matches the difference it would make in the drug war if the guy quit.
The government-enforced prohibition is responsible for the difference in horror-level caused by the prohibition, much like each consumer is responsible for the difference their actions make. So, the government prohibition bears probably around 99% of the responsibility, as a rough guess. That may be a bit low.
Interestingly, it could be argued that any given drug supplier is not very responsible for the drug war as a whole, as he is just one fish in the large pond that was created by the prohibition. Of course, they’re still responsible for any specific heinous acts they did, which is enough to win them emnity in my book.
Of course, not everybody likes to assign blame based on who’s actually causing things to happen.
It’s the law. You don’t like it, change the law. Use all that money spent on drugs to lobby for changes to the law. Blame the government all you like, but you still bear responsibility for putting your money into a system that directly leads to a slew of heinous activity.
Abortion is legal. Murder is not. Buying and selling drugs are not. You don’t like it, change the law.