Is the War On Drugs useful?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. This could have been in GQ but I’m hoping there will be opposing views since I really don’t know the answer.

We have spent kadzillions of dollars on the War On Drugs. It has been going on nearly my whole life, since the Reagan era. Books, movies, plays have been written on the dangers of drugs.

For the purpose of this discussion, I’m going to take the stance that the ultimate goal of War on Drugs is specifically to control or at least lessen the harmful effects on drugs. I realize that right now we (as a country) are focused on stopping all drug use, but that doesn’t seem feasible anymore.

In that case, criminalizing drugs definitely doesn’t seem like the right answer. We’ve seen that drug users are marginalized by society because they are criminals. Many of them can’t get proper help. We’ve also seen and heard of many people on this very board that use both legal and illegal drugs and control their intake to their own satisfaction!

So help me out, smart Dopers. The question is:

Is the War on Drugs useful?
If it is, why? What has it accomplished?

Would legalizing drugs be a good alternative? I can’t help but think it would, as just as the costs of illegally smuggling drugs would go down, the cost to the buyer would go down, and people might not need as much to resort to crime in order to pay for their drug habit.

If you don’t believe in legalizing drugs, do you think we should continue to fight drugs the way we do? Or is there a better way?

This is not a question I am smart enough to answer on my own. Non-Americans, what about you? How does your country deal with the drug problem?

I have little doubt that if all drugs were legalized, that the use of some of them would go up, and so would the number of people harmed by them. The flip side is legalizing drugs would benefit many in the US. There wouldn’t be people getting killed in the crossfire of urban drug gangs fighting turf wars. Lower prices would mean less crime by users to fund their habit. And, users and dealers would benefit from not risking going to prison; and of course society as a whole would benefit from not having to pay to keep them in prison.

As for a better way than what we do know, legalizing at least some drugs could be good. Such as just legalizing pot. I’m not sure if many alcohol drinkers switched to smoking pot the would be such a bed thing. Legalizing pot hasn’t sent the Netherlands to hell in a handbasket.

That’s pretty much it, those kadzillions of dollars employ millions. If drugs are made legal all those jobs would be lost. I’m pretty much convinced that’s what it all comes down to.

I beg to differ:

Seems like you already have a pretty good handle on the situation. The War on Some Drugs is a collossal waste of money. It exacerbates the problem it is trying to solve, it destroys lives every bit as fast and efficiently as addiction only on a far vaster scale, it’s causing a gradual but definite erosion of our rights and civil liberties, it’s inherently racist, often sexist, and is quite possibly the most nakedly hypocritical government program ever iniated by the United States. It’s inexcusable, immoral, and downright evil, and it needs to be stopped.

It depends how you define useful.

If the object is to make the US healthier, or even save lives, then it’s a joke.
Nicotine kills huge numbers of people annually and it’s not only legal but taxed.

If the object is to use propaganda to get votes, then it does seem to be working.
It’s a WAR! No matter that there isn’t an ‘enemy’, or a defined target.
The point is to get US voters thinking that politicians are decisive men and doing something dangerous, yet patriotic.
And best of all - there are no casualties.

Next up:

the WAR on obesity
the WAR on poverty
the WAR on ignorance
the WAR on bad table manners
the WAR on untidy facial hair

You can have my untidy facial hair when you shave it from my cold, dead face.

Well I said it was a WAR , didn’t I?!

Until the 20th century, there were no illegal drugs.

Then we had this great experiment, starting with Prohibition, of making the most popular drug illegal. Prohibition did reduce drinking to a degree, but it also set off a crime wave that scared the shit out of everybody, got organized crime on its feet, and, of course, trashed our freedom to enjoy ourselves as we please.

Prohibition and the War on Drugs are born of America’s prudishness and Puritanism. Pleasure for pleasure’s sake is bad. That’s what it comes down to.

Legalize. Tax. Regulate. Let’s get back to an American that’s really free.

True. This is a fact often ignored in this argument. Other than some local ordinances, drugs were legal nationally in the US until the early 20th Century. This didn’t stop the US from becoming a significant world power in this time frame. No particular reason to think if drugs were legalized in the US, it would result in mass social chaos.

Nixon is president. A sharp spike in crime rates (I believe largely in the DC area) is attributed to a corresponding rise in heroin abuse. Nixon wants the crime rate down, and so forms a drug abuse task force for the purpose of achieving that, by whatever means necessary. The task force yakes a treatment approach, dealing with heroin abuse as a medical problem. They start treatment programs, open walk-in clinics, gett people off the streets and on methadone, and the results are overwhelmingly positive. A similar program is instituted to help returning Viet Nam vets deal with their drug problems, and it too is a success.

Fast forward a decade or so. Carter is in the White House. While people are certainly continuing to use drugs, cocaine is still too expensive for the mass market and the drug “problem” is relatively under control. Then one night, a couple in Atlanta come home to find the remains of a party their son threw, in which they discover amongst the requisite thousands of empty beer cans a few … gasp … roaches.

Outraged at the permissive attitude Americans had taken about recreational drug use, the parents join with other like-minded parents to pressure the White House into abandoning its laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana and start cracking down. They are facilitated by the election of Ronald Reagan, whose Cabinet includes many social conservatives who despise the if-it-feels-good ethos of the 60s and are eager to take a hard-line approach. Sentences for cultivating and possessing marijuana start to climb. Law enforcement budgets are stepped up. Researchers are pressured to produce findings that marijuana causes grave physical and mental harm. Everything is going according to plan.

Then the shit hits the fan.

The Colombian cartels have by now created such a sophisticated apparatus for funneling cocaine into the US that the price starts to plummet. Dealers oblige their more demanding customers by selling them pre-freebased cocaine: crack. Cocaine begins turning the inner cities into war zones. Len Bias dies of a cocaine overdose. Public health centers, overwhelmed with crack addicts and overdose cases, beg Washington for aid.

They don’t get it, for two reasons: 1) Inner-city blacks by and large did not vote Republican (you do the math there); and more importantly, 2) To the Reagan administration — and particularly to its chief policy advisor on drugs, William Bennett, drug abuse is a moral failing, not a public health problem. To spend federal money rehabilitating people who were too weak to care for themselves properly in the first place would not only be unfair to the American taxpayer, it would be rewarding people for their own failure to “say no.” So the money that should have gone to treatment and recovery is instead put into interdiction: more law enforcement, more and better technology, the destruction of poppy fields by the US military, and a wholesale revamp of the criminal justice system: high mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, lots of new prisons (that remain overcrowded today), and new seizure laws that enable law enforcement agencies to keep the money and swag they confiscate from dealers, which needless to say leads to massive corruption and infighting within and between the agencies charged with combating drug smuggling.

That, in a nutshell, is the War on Drugs, and we are still very much in the middle of it. Most people know the whole thing is a sham that has led to untold corruption, financial waste, and shattered lives, but no one dares to speak against it, knowing he’ll immediately be crucified by the opposition as — say it with me now — “soft on drugs.” Sadly, that’s not going to change any time soon, to the ongoing harm of our society.

I had a thought the other day while watching yet another “talk to your kids about drugs” commercial put out by the ONDCP: Why don’t we have tons of ads that exhort kids to not commit other crimes? We never see anything about not shoplifting, not getting into gang fights, etc.

It’s a wonderful propaganda tool. Otherwise, it serves no useful purpose at all.

I’ve two questions.

1)What do you think, are the real reasons why the WoD is continuing? What do you think the ONDCP chief tells himself regarding the rationale of the WoD?

2)Which drugs, if any, should <b>NOT</b> be legalized, even in a legalization scheme and why?

What can you blame sundry societal ills on if drugs aren’t illegal? How can you provide pat answers to complex social questions if you can’t play the “drugs” card? Why, you’re then stuck trying to blame everything on abortion and gay marriage, which would look kinda silly.

2)Which drugs, if any, should <b>NOT</b> be legalized, even in a legalization scheme and why?
[/QUOTE]
None.

I’m sure we could find them jobs doing something more productive and beneficial to society with the tax money we just freed up. An example that immediately jumps to mind, for instance, is digging a large hole, and then filling it back up!

One of the main reasons it won’t end any time soon. How can the authorities very well turn around and cease hostilities when so much money and so many lives have been wasted over such a long period of time for absolutely no gain whatsoever? It makes more sense to keep prosecuting the “war” and spend more and more on its justification (just say no-type adverts and the like).
A disgusting waste.

Ok everybody, I’m going to think on this and get back to you either later today or tomorrow. But for the moment, it seems that I am right in thinking it’s a colossal waste of valuable resources.

**emacknight ** - the Inqusition also employed a lot of people, too. From this it follows logically that just because something puts food in the bellies of many people doesn’t mean it’s automatically a good thing.
**II Gyan II **

  1. I think one of the reasons WOD is not going away is simply because there has been little to no real education or research without starting with the premise “Drugs are bad, mmkay?” Very few studies have been done specifically with the intention of seeing if recreational drug use is really that bad, or - horror of horrors - not bad at all for some people.

  2. Which drugs should be legal or illegal? Well like I said I’m not a user. How am I supposed to know? I suppose that we could make distinctions. For example, I believe that crack can be much more dangerous and lethal than cocaine. But really…

let people choose their own poison.

The only thing I would continue to advocate is an age limit. I don’t think I want to see children whose bodies haven’t finished developing yet doing hard drugs that could stunt growth! 21 sounds like a perfectly reasonable age to me.

Why thank you sir.

You go on to say that legalizing drugs use would have many benefits, and I say that one of the benefits would be that the people who *started * taking drugs after they were legalized and *suffered * ill effects…

would get better care since drugs were legal and it wasn’t a moral decision.

True. It is also possible that under legalization people may tend to gravitate towards safer drugs than the more dangerous ones. With drugs being illegal, traffickers and dealers have an incentive to market drugs like heroin and crack which get people addicted so they keep buying. While non-addictive drugs like LSD have all but disappeared from the streets in the US. Criminalization has as a side effect that the most dangerous ones are the ones it makes the most sense to sell.

I am not opposed to the legalization of drugs for those that are of age. (Let’s say 18, like Tobacco, or 21, like Alcohol. Whatever.)

It’d provide a new taxable industry for the U.S., eliminate a lot of expenditure on the War on Drugs effort, etc.

All well and good.

However. I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility, no matter what you’re under the influence of. Any bad decisions you make under the influence of an intoxicant - too damn bad. If you sign over controlling interest in your multinational corporation while high on cocaine - Oops. (Unless, of course, someone slipped you the stuff unknowingly - that’s a different matter.)

You’re choosing to subject yourself to substances that may impair your judgment and that may cause you to become addicted. As long as you, and not society, are prepared to bear the burden of that choice, then that’s fine. When society has to bear the burden of your choice - then you’ve crossed a line. So I’m uncertain whether I would favor free “Rehab” clinics sponsored by taxpayers.

You’re right. Here’s another point that needs to be considered then, if we start thinking that drug use is purely a personal choice then we shouldn’t make other people suffer for it as well.

This needs thought.