The War on Drugs

[justarandomteen]

What do you guys think on the war on drugs, mainly marijuana, in schools. I think that the war on drugs, in essence, is good for heroin, cocaine, crack, etc, but tricking teens to sell drugs in 21 Jump Street style operations is pretty much unconstitutional, or at least in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8af0QPhJ22s<< operation GlassHouse, which was made to basically boost numbers. So, the final question, is the war on drugs constitutional and ethically right inside high schools against marijuana and specifically targeting social outcasts.

[Vlerchan]

The War on Drugs has produced no real tangible benefits (http://www.ibtimes.com/war-drugs-total-failure-statistics-prove-it-291447) but costs the government roughly 51 bn per year (or 97 bn. when you consider the opportunity cost of lost revenue). (http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics) From where I'm standing the only people that seem to benefit from the war on drugs are corporations through the expansion of the pool of prison-based slave labour (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html).

---

I believe that cannabis should be legalised - possession accounts for almost half of arrests.

And the possession of other drugs decriminalised, with a scope for legalising in the long-term.

[justarandomteen]

The War on Drugs has produced no real tangible benefits (http://www.ibtimes.com/war-drugs-total-failure-statistics-prove-it-291447) but costs the government roughly 51 bn per year (or 97 bn. when you consider the opportunity cost of lost revenue). (http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics) From where I'm standing the only people that seem to benefit from the war on drugs are corporations through the expansion of the pool of prison-based slave labour (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html).

---

I believe that cannabis should be legalised - possession accounts for almost half of arrests.

And the possession of other drugs decriminalised, with a scope for legalising in the long-term.

Agreed. Also, the government could possibly make billions off of highly taxing cannabis.

[Gamma Male]

Vlerchan pretty much summed it up. The war on drugs is bullshit, contributes to economic inequality, racism, high prison populations, billions of dollars in wasted taxes, a violation of the bodily autonomy of good citizens, helps fund cartels, increases violent crime, and doesn't actually discourage drug use very much. If I were supreme ruler it'd be one of the first things to go.

I support making all drugs legal with little to no regulations on light drugs/hallucinogenics, and moderate to heavy regulations of drugs with high risks of addiction and strong negative health effects.

[rtw1997]

I can tell I am going to be in a small minority here, but I am all for the War on Drugs--including for marijuana. With all the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco, the last thing we need is to legalize another vice. Since I'm short on time right now, instead of going on, I would like to quote a letter to the editor that appeared in today's New York Times that I feel sums it up pretty well:

"Much of the country — with The New York Times regrettably in the vanguard — is advocating the reckless addition of a third drug, marijuana, to two drugs currently legal for adults: alcohol and tobacco. These two legal drugs are the leading causes of preventable illness.

The legal status of a drug has dramatic impact on its use. In the last 30 days, 52 percent of Americans 12 and older used alcohol, 27 percent used tobacco and only 7 percent used marijuana. The dramatically lower level of marijuana use reflects its illegal status, not its appeal. Why is it in our nation’s interest to see marijuana use climb? Since when is smoking a program that we promote?

The best policy to protect public health is one that reduces, not increases, marijuana use. There are plenty of ways to achieve this goal, including a strong public education effort focused on the negative health effects of marijuana.

There are reasons why employers, including the United States government, prohibit marijuana use in the workplace. There are reasons why marijuana emergency room admissions are reported at the rate of 1,250 a day and 455,000 a year, and why highway crashes double for marijuana users.

We cannot ignore the negative effects that legalization would have on under-age use and addiction, highway safety, treatment costs, mental health problems, emergency room admissions, workplace accidents and productivity, and personal health."

PETER BENSINGER
ROBERT L. DuPONT
Chicago, July 30, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...-and-Cons.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/opinion/Legalizing-Marijuana-Pros-and-Cons.html)

I support making all drugs legal with little to no regulations on light drugs/hallucinogenics, and moderate to heavy regulations of drugs with high risks of addiction and strong negative health effects.

So then you support heavy regulations on marijuana, I presume, considering one joint is the equivalent of 20 tobacco cigarettes in terms of health risk.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/29/smoking-one-joint-is-equivalent-to-20-cigarettes-study-says/

Please do not double post. ~Typhlosion

[Charleigh]

I haven't seen 22 Jump Street, howeverr I think drugs will always be a problem and it has almost become a way of life

[OrKing]

In my personal opinion it's a whole load of shit. Here's a great article that sums up my thoughts and feelings on it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/30/david-simon-americas-war-on-drugs

[Korashk]

I can tell I am going to be in a small minority here, but I am all for the War on Drugs--including for marijuana. With all the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco, the last thing we need is to legalize another vice.
Even if the War on Drugs™ has literally no benefits for society and only makes the problem worse? Vlerchan did a good job of explaining the negatives:
The War on Drugs has produced no real tangible benefits (http://www.ibtimes.com/war-drugs-total-failure-statistics-prove-it-291447) but costs the government roughly 51 bn per year (or 97 bn. when you consider the opportunity cost of lost revenue). (http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics) From where I'm standing the only people that seem to benefit from the war on drugs are corporations through the expansion of the pool of prison-based slave labour (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html).
I'll expand on his claims by stating that the War on Drugs™ is also directly responsible for the erosion of your 4th Amendment rights, the militarization of domestic police forces, and prison overcrowding because of laws that imprison non-violent drug users. All the while not discouraging drug use at all?

Also, we shouldn't discount the marked success of complete decriminalization of drugs in Portugal and the historic example of alcohol prohibition which correlateed to a dramatic rise in violent crime during the time and was basically responsible for the creation of organized crime as it exists today.

I think someone else mentioned this, but there's also the fact that drug prohibition helps Cartels in Latin America prosper and continue their violent rapages through those countries.

Since I'm short on time right now, instead of going on, I would like to quote a letter to the editor that appeared in today's New York Times that I feel sums it up pretty well:
I don't. This letter-writer is clearly ignoring evidence about drug use.

The legal status of a drug has dramatic impact on its use. In the last 30 days, 52 percent of Americans 12 and older used alcohol, 27 percent used tobacco and only 7 percent used marijuana. The dramatically lower level of marijuana use reflects its illegal status, not its appeal.
Zero evidence for this claim. A real world example, Portugal, found that after ending their country's version of the drug war overall rates of illicit drug use hardly rose at all, and rates among minors FELL.

Why is it in our nation’s interest to see marijuana use climb? Since when is smoking a program that we promote?
It's a program that the government should support because it saves A LOT of money and doesn't ruin the lives of peaceful people. The issue isn't good/bad, it's better/worse, and the drug war is clearly worse for everyone. Even especially those that don't do drugs that have had their lives ruined because of it.

There are reasons why employers, including the United States government, prohibit marijuana use in the workplace.
Those same workplaces also restrict alcohol and cigarette consumption. This is a moot point. Nobody is claiming you should be allowed to smoke on the job.

There are reasons why marijuana emergency room admissions are reported at the rate of 1,250 a day and 455,000 a year, and why highway crashes double for marijuana users.
Also a moot point. Nobody is saying we should allow DUIs when they involve marijuana.

We cannot ignore the negative effects that legalization would have on under-age use and addiction,
Evidence suggests that legalization/decriminalization would lead to lower rates of use among minors and marijuana contains no chemicals that are inherently addictive like nicotine or opium are.

highway safety,
The jury seems to still be out on this one, (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-a-major-cause-of-accidents-what-study-says/) but in my opinion the positives outweigh the negatives.

treatment costs, mental health problems, emergency room admissions, workplace accidents and productivity, and personal health."
The cost of this is almost certainly cheaper than the cost of what is currently done under the War on Drugs™ which is the cost of SWAT teams, processing fees, court costs, and incarceration at rates not sustainable for our current system.

So then you support heavy regulations on marijuana, I presume, considering one joint is the equivalent of 20 tobacco cigarettes in terms of health risk.
If you'd actually read that study, instead of taking the word of a major news organization, you'd know that's not what it concludes. You'd know that some of their research methodologies were flawed. You'd also know that 89% of its subjects smoked both marijuana and cigarettes.

[rtw1997]

The War on Drugs™ is also directly responsible for the erosion of your 4th Amendment rights, the militarization of domestic police forces, and prison overcrowding because of laws that imprison non-violent drug users.

To which I say: So what? Drugs are a scourge on society, and those who consume them ought to be harshly punished. Those who sell them and facilitate their use should be punished even more severely. The constant wailing from the left about prison "overcrowding" is really nonsensical, in my view. One of the stated purposes of the government is to provide for the public safety and well-being through the establishment of a police force and the punishment of criminals. With the massive amounts of money liberals insist we spend on subsidized healthcare, food stamps, public transit projects, etc., I find it curious how they suddenly begin screaming from the rooftops if someone dares suggest we spend more to combat crime or perhaps build a few more prisons to accommodate more criminals. The way I see it, a large prison population is a good thing, not a bad one--it means the menaces of society are locked away where they can do no harm to others. Why are we concerned about this?


Portugal, found that after ending their country's version of the drug war overall rates of illicit drug use hardly rose at all, and rates among minors FELL.

You cannot assume that events in one tiny European country will replicate themselves here, in a nation of 300 million+ people. Legalization of any drug, marijuana included, would send a message to people that drug use is acceptable and that it is sanctioned and approved by the government. It is simply a fallacy to state that illegality has no effect on rates of use. If that's the case, why have any laws if apparently they don't dissuade people from committing crimes?


It's a program that the government should support because it saves A LOT of money and doesn't ruin the lives of peaceful people.

Perhaps if they don't want their lives to be "ruined," they should stay out of drugs in the first place. I have no sympathy for people who choose that path--they deserve to sit in jail for many years.

Drugs must be kept illegal, and it would simply be irresponsible to do otherwise. I happen to believe we haven't fought the War on Drugs hard enough, and it's time to get serious. The federal government should not tolerate states like Washington and Colorado blithely defying the rule of law by legalizing marijuana; those states should be given an ultimatum, and should they choose to continue allowing marijuana to be sold and consumed, they ought to face crippling retribution.

[Korashk]

To which I say: So what? Drugs are a scourge on society, and those who consume them ought to be harshly punished.
Why? They aren't doing anything wrong by using drugs and by and large aren't hurting people.

The constant wailing from the left about prison "overcrowding" is really nonsensical, in my view.
It it really nonsensical to be outraged at the incarceration of those that haven't hurt anyone? Close to 50% of the people currently in prison in America today are there for nonviolent drug offenses.

One of the stated purposes of the government is to provide for the public safety and well-being through the establishment of a police force and the punishment of criminals.
I agree with the punishment of actual criminals, but a guy who gets 10 years for smoking a joint because it's his third strike is not substantively a criminal.

With the massive amounts of money liberals insist we spend on subsidized healthcare, food stamps, public transit projects, etc., I find it curious how they suddenly begin screaming from the rooftops if someone dares suggest we spend more to combat crime or perhaps build a few more prisons to accommodate more criminals.
The problem is that these policies don't actually reduce crime. They essentially manufacture it. Addicts and people with other problems relating to drugs essentially have nowhere to go when problems arise from the current culture of their habit. If a drug user gets jacked up by a dealer he can't go to the police for help, so the violence (actual crime) is allowed to flourish because the cause of that crime (the outlawing of drugs) often gets the victim punished just as harshly as the instigator.

The way I see it, a large prison population is a good thing, not a bad one--
Umm, what? I don't even know how to respond to this. I'm not sure that prison population has any correlation to anything to do with the disposition of a society.

it means the menaces of society are locked away where they can do no harm to others. Why are we concerned about this?
We're concerned about this because 50% of people currently serving time have caused harm to nobody for their current sentence.

You cannot assume that events in one tiny European country will replicate themselves here, in a nation of 300 million+ people.
It's a first world country with a similar-enough culture that as a sample includes well more then enough subjects to satisfy statistical norms. To get a margin of error of 3% on a population of 300,000,000 one only needs a bit less than 200,000 subjects, and we're using about 10,000,000. If I understand the calculations of The Survey System's Sample Size Calculator.

Legalization of any drug, marijuana included, would send a message to people that drug use is acceptable and that it is sanctioned and approved by the government.
Umm, no it doesn't? Do many people think that alcohol and tobacco use are sanctioned by the government in any context that implies that the government wants you to use them?

It is simply a fallacy to state that illegality has no effect on rates of use.
No, it's an assertion. Statements of fact are rarely, if ever, logical fallacies.

If that's the case, why have any laws if apparently they don't dissuade people from committing crimes?
That's what I've been saying for years, but it's kinda off-topic.

Perhaps if they don't want their lives to be "ruined," they should stay out of drugs in the first place.
I don't have statistics on hand, but let's just be real here. The fact that drugs are illegal is by and large the reason that these people's lives are ruined by using them. Most people use alcohol (a drug that is undeniably worse for society than narcotics and marijuana) responsibly. Very few people ruin their lives because of it. Why couldn't other drugs be the same?

Drugs must be kept illegal, and it would simply be irresponsible to do otherwise. I happen to believe we haven't fought the War on Drugs hard enough, and it's time to get serious. The federal government should not tolerate states like Washington and Colorado blithely defying the rule of law by legalizing marijuana; those states should be given an ultimatum, and should they choose to continue allowing marijuana to be sold and consumed, they ought to face crippling retribution.
They're using a substance that makes them feel good that rarely directly affects anyone but themselves and you're basically claiming that they're the scum of the earth. How can you read about all of this evidence conclusively proving that the War on Drugs is a terribly policy and then claim that it should be more rigorously applied?

And don't think I didn't notice that you hardly responded to any of my sumstantive claims about the drug war's negative aspects.