The War on Drugs-will it ever end?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The War on Drugs was started by Nixon in the 1970's as a way of controlling the drug love protestors of his ideals. Since then, the rate of people that have been put in jail or prison (they're different things) has skyrocketed and Nixon's successors have not done anything to end it.

Once Reagan came into office, he escalated the War on Drugs even further, incarcerating even more people. (mostly minorities) His wife Nancy started the famous "Just Say No" campaign, and LAPD chief started the infamous DARE program, which was accepted quickly. There were other ways that it was enforced. People were lead to believe that drug abuse was a major problem in the United States.

George W. Bush took the War on Drugs literally, and used violence on drug users. Thousands of SWAT raids for drug-related offences happened, and then there's the Mexican Drug Cartels.

However, unlike his predecessors, Obama has both admitted to drug use in his younger years and seems to be more progressive on drug use, including the announcement of a video about the failings of the drug war. Despite this, there are still violent actions against drug users and high incarceration of them.

Anyway, the point is, is Nixon's War On Drugs ever going to end? If it ends, it would mean surrendering to the drugs and declaring them the winner. Could Americans accept that? How exactly could an ending happening? Marijuana is legal in two states for fun and a few others for medicine, and has a reasonable chance of getting to be as widely accepted as alcohol. Harder drugs have no chance of being legal, so Dr. Feelgood's Cocaine Emporium (not sure where I first saw that used, but apologies to whoever used it first) still will be in business.

So, War on Drugs, will we finally surrender to the drugs? Or will it always be around, with the government always trying to incarcerate everyone who uses them?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If we legalise marijuana the terrorists have already won

[King]

Congress is too old and crotchety and behind the times to act.

[memphis]

Are you under the impression that drug abuse isn't a major problem? If you want to argue that how we address the problem isn't helping, and, instead, creates more problems, I'd agree with you, but it isn't as if chronic drug abuse is a completely harmless thing either.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What I'm saying is that there is a War on Drugs, and asking if it will ever end and ways it could.

[tik 🪀✨]

So, War on Drugs, will we finally surrender to the drugs? Or will it always be around, with the government always trying to incarcerate everyone who uses them?

"All or nothing" is not the choice. What will probably happen is that the focus of resources will shift to some strategy less brazen and authoritarian than the current methods of dealing with the problem. It is much, much more complicated than you are making it out to be. For one, not all drugs have the same effects within the body and mind, nor do they all therefore have the same effects within families, communities, and societies as a whole. This means you need a wider variety of strategies to help directly with drug users as well as to help prevent underlying causes for drug abuse and addiction. You also need to take a damn hard look at why certain drugs became illegal in the first place and make some hard choices.

Like I said, I expect that over time the focus will shift - less as a criminal matter and more towards a potential health problem and also as more of just a symptom of larger problems. Whether you would call that the "War on Drugs" matters little to me, as long as people are getting the help they need or being left the hell alone if they don't need it and aren't causing anyone harm. "No more illegal substance abuse" is an impossible goal, as we have seen, but "minimizing the harm of substance abuse" is worth trying for.

[© tweed]

Are you under the impression that drug abuse isn't a major problem? If you want to argue that how we address the problem isn't helping, and, instead, creates more problems, I'd agree with you, but it isn't as if chronic drug abuse is a completely harmless thing either.

if I were writing the law I'd have strict state monopoly access to the "hard drugs" - people would have to apply for special licences to purchase drugs like meth, morphine, heroin, etc.  the licenses could be temporarily or permanently revoked in cases of driving while high, distribution to children, etc.

there would be a limit on the daily or weekly amount able to be purchased, all purchases would be tracked in a database, and the state monopoly stores would be scary-looking (state troopers acting as the cashiers, etc).

so long as the expenses don't force the price at the point of sale above the black market price (a problem that's cropped up in Colorado, iirc) the stores should maintain their monopoly.

the main benefit would be the purity of the drugs, which would go a long way towards minimizing overdoses.  I would also support the opening of safe injection sites for heroin and morphine (and fentanyl) users to bring the chances of overdose and secondary infection (HIV the big one, but more simply infections as well) down to zero.

the results for drug cartels and "Gangs"/organized crime would be catastrophic (for them).


legalization =/= you can buy heroin at any 7-11 24 hours a day in any quantity.

[muon2]

Heroin abuse has become a big issue in the Chicago suburbs. The pricing issue noted by Tweed is a key factor. People with injuries are prescribed opiate pain killers and develop a dependency. Buying the same pills on the black market is expensive so those with serious addiction turn to illegal opiates such as heroin. It's cheaper in part because it isn't controlled for purity and dose.

My concern with creating a state monopoly in addictive drugs is that the state would be responsible for the quality of the drug. The state would turn to reputable manufacturers and that will drive up price. A black market in impure drugs would likely meet the demand of those looking for a cheaper fix, just as it does now for prescription meds. Then the state is back to where we are now - cracking down on dealers of illegal drugs through arrest and incarceration.

[Torie]

Heroin abuse has become a big issue in the Chicago suburbs. The pricing issue noted by Tweed is a key factor. People with injuries are prescribed opiate pain killers and develop a dependency. Buying the same pills on the black market is expensive so those with serious addiction turn to illegal opiates such as heroin. It's cheaper in part because it isn't controlled for purity and dose.

My concern with creating a state monopoly in addictive drugs is that the state would be responsible for the quality of the drug. The state would turn to reputable manufacturers and that will drive up price. A black market in impure drugs would likely meet the demand of those looking for a cheaper fix, just as it does now for prescription meds. Then the state is back to where we are now - cracking down on dealers of illegal drugs through arrest and incarceration.

We have the same issue here in Columbia County. Heroin use is out of control in the local high school. Kids take the opiate prescription drugs, get addicted, but they are expensive, and heroin is cheap, so they switch to heroin. And as Muon2 notes, sometimes they die due to scoring a toxic batch. Lives are being destroyed. The local DA spends most of his time on hard drug, sex abuse and parental abuse (with the parental abuse cases sometimes involving sex abuse) cases. So the "war" must continue. The trick is to use the right tactics in waging the war.

[Maxwell]

Too many people in Congress would rather see poor black youths in jail than to look like they're "weak on crime" to a group of people that no longer exist.

[Simfan34]

The point muon and Torie raise should not be overlooked. "Regulated" legal drugs means a black market and a "war on the black market".

[ElectionsGuy]

Too many people in Congress would rather see poor black youths in jail than to look like they're "weak on crime" to a group of people that no longer exist.

Eh, olds disproportionately vote in higher rates in primaries (especially) and general elections. But still, its pathetic.

Technically the war on drugs will never end because even if there's some changes with marijuana policy, there will always be other drugs illegal that will never be legalized.

[Sbane]

Heroin abuse has become a big issue in the Chicago suburbs. The pricing issue noted by Tweed is a key factor. People with injuries are prescribed opiate pain killers and develop a dependency. Buying the same pills on the black market is expensive so those with serious addiction turn to illegal opiates such as heroin. It's cheaper in part because it isn't controlled for purity and dose.

My concern with creating a state monopoly in addictive drugs is that the state would be responsible for the quality of the drug. The state would turn to reputable manufacturers and that will drive up price. A black market in impure drugs would likely meet the demand of those looking for a cheaper fix, just as it does now for prescription meds. Then the state is back to where we are now - cracking down on dealers of illegal drugs through arrest and incarceration.

We have the same issue here in Columbia County. Heroin use is out of control in the local high school. Kids take the opiate prescription drugs, get addicted, but they are expensive, and heroin is cheap, so they switch to heroin. And as Muon2 notes, sometimes they die due to scoring a toxic batch. Lives are being destroyed. The local DA spends most of his time on hard drug, sex abuse and parental abuse (with the parental abuse cases sometimes involving sex abuse) cases. So the "war" must continue. The trick is to use the right tactics in waging the war.

Incarceration for heroin users? I hope you are not advocating for that.....

Although I understand that something must be done, incarceration solves nothing. They need to be treated.

[muon2]

Heroin abuse has become a big issue in the Chicago suburbs. The pricing issue noted by Tweed is a key factor. People with injuries are prescribed opiate pain killers and develop a dependency. Buying the same pills on the black market is expensive so those with serious addiction turn to illegal opiates such as heroin. It's cheaper in part because it isn't controlled for purity and dose.

My concern with creating a state monopoly in addictive drugs is that the state would be responsible for the quality of the drug. The state would turn to reputable manufacturers and that will drive up price. A black market in impure drugs would likely meet the demand of those looking for a cheaper fix, just as it does now for prescription meds. Then the state is back to where we are now - cracking down on dealers of illegal drugs through arrest and incarceration.

We have the same issue here in Columbia County. Heroin use is out of control in the local high school. Kids take the opiate prescription drugs, get addicted, but they are expensive, and heroin is cheap, so they switch to heroin. And as Muon2 notes, sometimes they die due to scoring a toxic batch. Lives are being destroyed. The local DA spends most of his time on hard drug, sex abuse and parental abuse (with the parental abuse cases sometimes involving sex abuse) cases. So the "war" must continue. The trick is to use the right tactics in waging the war.

Incarceration for heroin users? I hope you are not advocating for that.....

Although I understand that something must be done, incarceration solves nothing. They need to be treated.

My operative word above was dealers. For users with non-violent records, we have had good success with dedicated drug courts.

[Torie]

Heroin abuse has become a big issue in the Chicago suburbs. The pricing issue noted by Tweed is a key factor. People with injuries are prescribed opiate pain killers and develop a dependency. Buying the same pills on the black market is expensive so those with serious addiction turn to illegal opiates such as heroin. It's cheaper in part because it isn't controlled for purity and dose.

My concern with creating a state monopoly in addictive drugs is that the state would be responsible for the quality of the drug. The state would turn to reputable manufacturers and that will drive up price. A black market in impure drugs would likely meet the demand of those looking for a cheaper fix, just as it does now for prescription meds. Then the state is back to where we are now - cracking down on dealers of illegal drugs through arrest and incarceration.

We have the same issue here in Columbia County. Heroin use is out of control in the local high school. Kids take the opiate prescription drugs, get addicted, but they are expensive, and heroin is cheap, so they switch to heroin. And as Muon2 notes, sometimes they die due to scoring a toxic batch. Lives are being destroyed. The local DA spends most of his time on hard drug, sex abuse and parental abuse (with the parental abuse cases sometimes involving sex abuse) cases. So the "war" must continue. The trick is to use the right tactics in waging the war.

Incarceration for heroin users? I hope you are not advocating for that.....

Although I understand that something must be done, incarceration solves nothing. They need to be treated.

The key words in my post were "the right tactics."

[Sbane]

I am glad you both don't think users should be put in jail but that is occurring every single day in this country, and it is a huge problem. Drug abuse will continue until we get these people out of jail and start treating them. At the very least they won't suffer the indignities of going to jail, having to join gangs to protect oneself or selling oneself for drugs.

[© tweed]

Heroin abuse has become a big issue in the Chicago suburbs. The pricing issue noted by Tweed is a key factor. People with injuries are prescribed opiate pain killers and develop a dependency. Buying the same pills on the black market is expensive so those with serious addiction turn to illegal opiates such as heroin. It's cheaper in part because it isn't controlled for purity and dose.

the issue with heroin vs painkillers is not only adulteration, but rather that the process required to manufacture oxycodone/hydrocodone is proprietary and capital-intensive.  heroin is not cheaper simply because it's adulterated, but because oxycodone is not the sort of thing that a rogue chemist can make by himself without some serious financial banking.

compare to diazepines.  analog diazepines are easy for rogue chemists to make and are widely available.

of course, legal heroin could be 'adulterated' too, but with harmless chemicals/saline/preservatives.  the label would ready "comprised of 40% heroin, x% saline, 0.01% ____ sodium (preservative)...

[muon2]

I am glad you both don't think users should be put in jail but that is occurring every single day in this country, and it is a huge problem. Drug abuse will continue until we get these people out of jail and start treating them. At the very least they won't suffer the indignities of going to jail, having to join gangs to protect oneself or selling oneself for drugs.

What did you think of drug courts as part of the solution, as I linked above?

[Sbane]

I am glad you both don't think users should be put in jail but that is occurring every single day in this country, and it is a huge problem. Drug abuse will continue until we get these people out of jail and start treating them. At the very least they won't suffer the indignities of going to jail, having to join gangs to protect oneself or selling oneself for drugs.

What did you think of drug courts as part of the solution, as I linked above?

It is certainly a step in the right direction, and much better than a lot of the rest of the country, but I would still like decriminalization with programs like the drug courts for IV drug abusers and other repeat offenders who need help.

[© tweed]

I am glad you both don't think users should be put in jail but that is occurring every single day in this country, and it is a huge problem. Drug abuse will continue until we get these people out of jail and start treating them. At the very least they won't suffer the indignities of going to jail, having to join gangs to protect oneself or selling oneself for drugs.

What did you think of drug courts as part of the solution, as I linked above?

are you familiar with the drug "courts" in Portugal.  if you get ticketed for possession of a personal use quantity in Portugal, you're given an appearance date at a "Drug court".  it's mandatory that you show up.  they listen to your story and recommend a certain course of action, but do not coerce you into following their orders.

decriminalized drug possession in Portugal is universally recognized as a massive success, even by its abstinence-or-nothing (often 12-step) detractors).

--

I think decriminalization is a bit of a half-ass policy wise, because while it's accepting that drug users are not criminals and will continue to use drugs, they leave the manufacture and distribution of drugs in the hands of (rather hardened) criminals, instead of out in the open.

a full legalization of drugs would be catastrophic to organized crime; would lead to a decrease in drug overdoses (due to purity always being a guessing game with hard drugs); and would create legitimate, tax-paying jobs and even more tax revenue at the point of sale.  problem users would be less stigmatized and more likely to reach our for help.

of course: a lot of police, the DEA, prosecutors, correctional officers, defense attorneys, drug treatment counselors, parole officers would be left with a whole lot less to do.... which is why it's going to take an awful long while, but the radical shift in marijuana policy over the past ten years does give me a glimmer of hope -- hope, something I rarely have when it comes to my pet political issues.

[muon2]

a full legalization of drugs would be catastrophic to organized crime; would lead to a decrease in drug overdoses (due to purity always being a guessing game with hard drugs); and would create legitimate, tax-paying jobs and even more tax revenue at the point of sale.  problem users would be less stigmatized and more likely to reach our for help.

When you say full legalization, what do you mean: over-the-counter availability, state license to users, or medical oversight and prescription? Would you advocate different availability models for different drugs (eg heroin vs methamphetamine vs marijuana)? If so, who would make decisions on classification, and how does one suppress the black market?

[TNF]

a full legalization of drugs would be catastrophic to organized crime; would lead to a decrease in drug overdoses (due to purity always being a guessing game with hard drugs); and would create legitimate, tax-paying jobs and even more tax revenue at the point of sale.  problem users would be less stigmatized and more likely to reach our for help.

I'm not sure if I'd say that's entirely accurate. Sure, it would cut out the smaller-time gangsters without political connections, but I have a hard time believing that the big king-pins, sitting on piles of cash, won't directly move into cornering the now legitimate market. I mean after all, legalized gambling has more or less just ratified a lot of what went on before, with former gangsters becoming 'legitimate' capitalists in the casino business.

Even with full on legalization, organized crime is still going to be in business in some less lucrative sectors. One of the knock-off effects of full on legalization might actually be a massive expansion in human trafficking and the sex trade, which would present us with a lot of other issues as well. Not saying that we shouldn't legalize every drug (I'm for full legalization of everything), but we have to combine that with some kind of thorough campaign against organized crime, if we intended to strike a real blow at gangsterism by doing so.

I should note that smashing organized crime isn't my main motivation behind supporting full on legalization (ending mass incarceration is), but doing so is nonetheless beneficial, given the role of gangsters in enforcing the dictates of Capital, be it through controlling and manipulating labor unions, sending goons to kill union leaders and bust up picket lines, and having more or less a controlling interest in the entire entertainment industry.

[Sbane]

Tweed, do you think it is ethical to hand someone some heroin and a syringe, knowing that it could possibly lead to an overdose? Safe injection sites are an option, but I don't see how it is ethical to have IV drug abuse be legal in any other setting.

It is also not necessarily true that drug overdoses happen due to uncertain purity on the black market. Plenty of people overdose on prescription opiates and you know exactly what you are getting with those pills. I am not sure if legal heroin will produce less overdoses than black market heroin.

[Ebowed]

Tweed, do you think it is ethical to hand someone some heroin and a syringe, knowing that it could possibly lead to an overdose? Safe injection sites are an option, but I don't see how it is ethical to have IV drug abuse be legal in any other setting.

You could kill yourself by drinking two big bottles of whiskey, but people get away with buying that all the time.

The odds are that if you provided heroin addicts with unadulterated product in a safe and harm-reductive environment, they are not going to overdose.  It's not like they'd be trying to kill themselves.

[politicus]

You could kill yourself by drinking two big bottles of whiskey, but people get away with buying that all the time.

One actually, if you do it fast enough. In high school my dad saw one of his class mates lean back his head and empty a bottle of Scotch as part of a bet. Died of alcohol poisoning.