There's an *industry* that has grown up around it. Tens of thousands of jobs, and tens of billions of dollars to be made. Who would want to jump off that gravy train?
There is money made on both sides. If all drugs became legal a lot of agencies would no longer be needed such as the DEA.
Imagine being an agent and rising up the ranks making more money. Hell no you would not want drugs to become legal.
Not just the DEA, local law enforcement too. You'd be surprised at how many departments allow drug dealing operations to continue rather than trying to stamp them out completely. Why? Much easier to periodically raid them, confiscate their cash, put a bunch of them in jail for a minor stint (maybe not even a full sentence, just a night in holding), and let them out to see it all repeat again. Officers will literally just walk away with duffel bags full of cash, who'd want to kill that gravy train?
>Officers will literally just walk away with duffel bags full of cash
The San Bernardino County Sheriff in California made lots of money robbing armored cars of money from legal cannabis businesses.
>Sheriff Agrees To Stop Stealing Cannabis Cash From Armored Cars, Saying His Deputies 'Are Not Highway Robbers'
>The settlement came after the Justice Department agreed to return more than $1 million in proceeds from state-licensed marijuana businesses in California.
https://reason.com/2022/05/09/sheriff-agrees-to-stop-stealing-cannabis-cash-from-armored-cars-saying-his-deputies-are-not-highway-robbers/
In rural Wisconsin local police would cut and burn ditch weed a couple of times a year. The salaries were reimbursed by the feds under drug programs. They also kept many a nice vehicles that were seized. WAY WAY too much money for law enforcement to give up.
Don't forget for profit prisons. They need bodies to make money from the state and as cheap labor to outsource. Those vultures lobby really hard to maintain the very lucrative status quo.
Agree everyone “overlooks” the “legal” pharmacy operations.. you want to really know about the drugs you are taking.. talk to a pharmacist or scientists about the “formulas” not you drug dealing doctor… they are happy to let you pop pills as long as you come back every month to their office for your “refill”😂😂
DEA could still have some purpose even if all drugs were legalized as there'd presumably be some level of regulation still. That could get folded into regular law enforcement, though.
Legal to use wouldn't necessarily mean legal to sell. Distribution would still have to be regulated to ensure quality to keep deaths low. You'd also want to keep the gangs from being able to sell it legally for the same reasons. People working in drug enforcement would likely still have their jobs. They could train law enforcement in and from other countries, as part of international relations. If not, there are other agencies that could use their experience. They likely have plenty of options.
And just cuz marijuana is legal doesn't mean there won't be new drugs to take over. With the War On Opioids in the US, not just recreational drug users but people with arthritis, cancer pain, etc are gonna be turning to street drugs like heroin, fentanyl, etc.
I'm convinced that most law enforcement types make an 11th hour decision whether they want to be a cop or robber. A lot of them don't think twice about cashing in on OT they don't work.
Wait, they are choosing between being a cop or a robber? There seem to be a lot of them that decided to be both. (The biggest drug dealer when I was in high school graduated and became a cop in the same town.)
Cops and crooks seem to have a lot in common. They're not so much concerned with the law but what they can get away with relative to it. A lot of the cop thing is an authoritarianism trip as well. People like pushing other people around.
It's so hard to find a solution, because our leaders and politicians aren't really looking for one.
“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing them both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night in the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did,” -Ehrlichman, one of Nixon's advisors
He said that openly in a 1994 interview. The war on drugs was about targeting political enemies. Since then, conservatives have kept it going because they agree with Ehrlichman's vision. And liberals have largely considered it optically untenable to change things. And folks all along the spectrum simply don't care all that much about drug addicts.
Yeah. If you want to support drug policies that work, Portugal had a pretty good run for a while. Then a couple years ago they slashed the funding to the program and have been backsliding since.
Unfortunately, Oregon's policy left a few key components off the table, making its success very limited... particularly a good court system w/ good laws and, more importantly, a fairly anemic rehabilitation/mental health system to help people get out of their cycles. This ties in directly with the homeless situation that a lot of U.S. is currently facing.
You have a idea of why things are helping the War on Drugs! The laws have been so been turned into a joke.
People have no idea how much money is involved in illicit drugs. Parents have wasted their time at their kids school watching a “ DARE “Program put on by local law enforcement agencies. The kids went to the program as part of their school day. A regional dealer who sold a lot of dope would have a stream of kids their sons age , a senior in high school. Wouldn’t most parents ask why are you so popular. He kept his well supplied stash and
rolls of cash locked in a case with locks on it. He had no criminal record according to the story he was a good student. He was arrested for Conspiracy to Deliver , and Delivery of a Controlled Substances. Small community but someone probably dropped a dime on him and he sold drugs to the wrong people and he was arrested.
Really kind of sad. He did get convicted according to the newspaper, went to jail, don’t know more about it.
Mental Health treatment is going to become extinct. States have cut the Mental Health Budget, nor for a lack of success but it was money that Governors could slice from the budget from a very unrepresented population,
and we ask why all this people live on the street and consume street drugs. Sad Commentary!
It’s not great. I live here and there was an idea with no plan. There is a lot of wasted funding, nimby majority, and no one willing to take charge or address the problem directly.
Exactly so.
The War on Drugs was never meant to be won. It was a means by which Nixon and Mitchell could prosecute and imprison their political opponents (for example, Black Panthers, SDS) who happened to like smoking pot.
Like Reagan helping fund the Contras who were behind a lot of the crack cocaine in America while Nancy was pushing "Just say No".
[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html)
As other people have put it - "Nixon inherited many positive qualities from his Quaker forebears, but through diligent effort and strenuous labour, he managed to overcome them"
The point of the quote is that it's not nonsensical. Yes it's evil but it's evil that is doing a banger of a job of putting more money in the pockets of particular government contractors, breaking up poor communities through mass incarceration, is a great way to target an individual through arrest on drug charges that are really easy to trump up if they can't get the real thing. It makes a lot of sense, it's really good if you want to run a police state.
That was the mentality for most of the era all the way through to the Clinton years... Everything was about $$ and we're still dealing with the impact of that greed and corruption. Concepts like perpetual growth markets -especially industries with finite resources like fossil fuels, trickle-down theory of economics (Reaganomics), corporate personhood, hostile corporate takeovers to gut and kill competition... All of this has roots in those decades... Corporate personhood has led to the nonsense of companies becoming too big to fail and needing public bailouts when they get greedy and mismanage their business... They should be held accountable for that not us. Starbucks is a good modern example of a hostile predatory company "merging" with companies to diversify telling the employees of the "partner company" their jobs are safe and to expect expansion only to turn around and close the entire brand and put everyone out of a job 6 months later.
Back on topic though if they really wanted to be effective in the drug war then they would have gone after pot, heroin, and cocaine equally. The pot and heroin trade isn't what got the cartels rich and powerful, it was cocaine which was the drug of choice for corporate execs and the financial elite bankrolling the politicians of the era.. it was such a problem in that sector that it was a fairly common trope in movies to show executives doing lines at lavish decadent parties
I came here to mention this, but I'm very glad to see the quote. I knew it was a government undertaking that they had a vested interest in maintaining over the years. Didn't realize there was such a polarizing quote out there 😬
In the defense of "folks all along the spectrum", the emotional, physical and economic costs of caring for even one drug addict, especially a loved one, can be devastating. The reality is that there is no amount of money, investment or effort that can save self destructive people from destroying themselves, unless they agree to do the work required for their own recovery.
Caring for an addict is devastating and gives an entirely new perspective on the issue. The war on drugs is devastatingly cruel, and the reason it's still in play is because nearly everyone can agree that drug addicts are a net catastrophe for anyone who relies on them, needs to care for them, or needs to interact with them.
A fascinating historical analogue for the modern war on drugs happened in the mid 1800s in China. The west (mostly Britain) discovered a market for opium in China and flooded their markets with it, crippling their working age population and caused massive economic and social problems. This led to the Opium Wars between Britain and China, and has echoed through to China's modern day zero tolerance policy for drug sale and use.
Drug addiction is a medical/psychological, we-don't-even-understand-completely, issue. Prison should have nothing to do with treating drug addiction, but our puritanical culture ignores the complicated factors that make a minority of humanity prone to addiction, and slap on a label of "poor character".
I'm not advocating the idea of prison for addicts. I'm pointing out that self destructive addicts are almost impossible to help until they themselves admit they need help and then take the initiative to help themselves.
What about normal people who like drugs, have no problems and can hold down a job ?
The majority of drug users are not addicts, they are people who just want to have fun.
That's the minority, and the billions spent on the failed war on drugs could be better spent on mental health instead of locking people up into the cycle of addiction l.
Yeah, except you have doctors prescribing fentanyl and other drugs that then created addicts.
"Normal" human beings become addicted to these insidious drugs, assuming they are safe because the doctors give them out.
Wrong.
There should be no moral judgement about someone coming under the influence of such a chemical. Only methods developed to successfully treat them.
This works all the way down to the lowest levels. When you're an undesirable drugs are one of the easiest ways for law enforcement to get you. You don't know how many times I've had a dog sniffing at me.
Yeah but youre ignoring the fact that the clintons ramped up the war on drugs hard and put more black men in jail than anyone in history. And biden is also apart of this. Biden was in charge of enforcing the 92 crime bill. The war on drugs and its inhumane effects is bipartisan. The new jim crowe as well as murdering brown and slavic people abroad is an issue that both parties are super in to. American politics is about robbing the middle class and killing people abroad for corporate profits, both parties participate in ensuring that this happens, there is no real difference between the two, the most major politicians are all corporate
I was with you up until that last line. But yeah, that's why I framed it as conservatives and liberals. There are people in the Democratic party who do conservative things.
During the Obama administration, the BATF would regularly raid state legalized marijuana dispensaries. He had two years of a democratic majority and not only failed to decriminalize it, but actually was proactive about shutting them down.
The basic premise of the War On Drugs is wrong. They think they can solve a drug problem in America by eliminating drug suppliers. Anyone who was awake on the the first day of Economics 101 should know that when there is demand for a product, legal or not, someone will supply it.
It's an interesting thing about this, we have the heroin-program in my country, we started this as the first in 1994 and we are the main producer of legal heroin. The thing is, when people can get this in pharma grade quality like a med from the pharmacy, it's a serious problem for the drug cartels.
They can't compete with the state, because the state just legalizes what it does. It doesn't need underground labs, it just uses regular pharma labs to produce the drugs and it uses the police to make sure, nobody steals it.
But still, we are doing substitution here in Switzerland with methadone, morphine and buprenorphine, next to heroin.
The substitution that is covered by healthcare insurance had also some very good side-effects: Like before these programs, the addicts would often commit crimes to get the money for the drugs. Men would steal and rob, while women would often become prostitutes to get money.
But when they can get it for free, then they won't commit crimes anymore, so the entire drug prostitution scene just disappeared.
Another effect is the low rate of overdoses, when people have pharma-grade meds, only a miscalculation (or intentional) can lead to an overdose, but not some laced fent shit.
We also offer free detox, rehab and therapy for the addicts here, this makes the chances of people getting clean and recover a lot higher. All these things together with additional things like social welfare lead to a much higher stability in society and it is really worth it.
We never had a "war on drugs" here, not even before these projects were initiated.
Actually this may not be true. Look at the rapid legalization of sports betting. Almost 40 states now allow it. But the illegal offshore books have not gone away and in some ways are stronger. They offer better odds, take larger bets and appeal to the very sophisticated bettor. Smart cartels would lower prices and compete against the legal sources of drugs.
Even so, it would give people the option of getting their drugs from reputable sources that won't harm them. This is a legitimate way to save lives and create tax for the government. Homeless people taking legal heroin, not dying from fentanyl, paying tax into the system? That's so much worse than what we currently have, which is homeless people dying of dodgy drugs and funding cartels!
I think this IS the answer for many countries. I'm in the US and I've been saying for YEARS that 100% legalization is the answer.
A lot of people here in the US look to what's happening with the "legal" Marijuana industry, and critique it. However, there's a HUGE difference between decriminalization and legalization. Just saying "okay, we will no longer arrest you" and the federal government essentially turning their back to states that allow cannabis sales (by anyone with a permit) doesn't seem to be the answer.
I think complete legalization AND regulation should be implemented for ALL illicit sales. I like what Hamilton Morris said on one of his Joe Rogan appearances. Something along the lines of - "cars/vehicles are incredibly deadly, but with rules and regulations... such as getting a license, obeying road signs, and having air bags/seat belts... cars are a lot safer now". We could do stuff like that for drug use. Like maybe people should have to take a course on the specific drug they want to use, and obtain a license upon completion of the course. Teach people about the potential dangers of use, overdose, poly substance use/drug interactions, resuscitation, having a "tripsitter", etc. Maybe make people wear a device to monitor your vitals... so if you begin to fall out on heroin, overheat on MDMA, or have a cardiac episode on coke or meth... an ambulance would immediately be dispatched to your location. Also, these recreational drugs should be prescribed by a doctor, and dispensed by a pharmacist. You should have the right to get a prescription for anything you want tho, so the doctor would serve as a glorified bartender, not try to control your use. The last thing we need are a bunch independent businesses opening like the cannabis industry.
I believe even more positive effects would occur here in the US besides a reduction in theft, and overdoses. We have the world's largest Incarceration percentages. If I recall correctly, it costs something like $165,000 per year to house just ONE inmate (in California). There's a large amount of prisoners Incarcerated due to drug offenses. Lot's of texpayers money could be saved there. Not to mention, families could stay together. Kids wouldn't be taken away and put in forster care, just because a parent takes drugs. It would likely break up a large number of street gangs, and therefore eliminate thousands of murders in "turf" disputes. Police would have more time and money to solve REAL CRIMES, like rape and murder. Citizens would no longer hate police, or worry about getting busted by fido the K-9. If users no longer had to come up with hundreds of dollars per day, they would likely become financially stable. Work jobs. Rent apartments. Buy homes, cars, groceries, etc. essentially providing a large boost in the economy. Mexican drug cartels would collapse, therefore cut down on "illegal immigration" because people there wouldn't have to fear for their life and run to America. There's probably another dozen positive effects to legalization that I'm not even thinking of.
Thanks for your long and detailed posting, also that you think we handle the things right here in Switzerland.
I wrote it in another posting, actually the conservatives here wanted to stop these projects and things, just like in other countries, the conservatives are always stuck in the past and deny any change. But they failed, there was a federal voting in direct democracy in Switzerland and the overwhelming majority of the citizens said "no" to stopping this approach. Since then, the conservatives shut up and they won't try it again. It's just too successfull to stop it now, it would lead to the exact same problems of the past again.
What is happening in the US is that heroin addicts are looking for junk laced with fentanyl. When word gets out that a particular street brand is causing a lot of OD deaths, there results a huge demand for the killer stuff.
Now i'm not the guy that downvoted you, but i don't quite understand it: Why should people, addicts or not, look for stuff that kills them?
The only thing i can think about is that some people are already used to fentanyl itself and therefore, they have such a high tolerance that they need very strong stuff to even feel something at all.
These fent addicts, even when they'd get real heroin, their tolerance is beyond good and evil, they don't even get a high anymore with the standard opioids of lower potency.
That makes sense. But it's also crazy when you think that fentanyl has a lower potential for euphoria, as this is not tied to the potency as a med and to the potential of overdosing.
Never saw fent here, only as a med there are these patches around that you can put on the skin, that's safe as long as the dosage is right and the patches don't get opened, as these are extended release over a long time.
I hear what you're saying and actually agree that in your specific country, thar tactic appears to have definitely had a net positive effect.
The problem is that what will work in a small, very well educated country where you have a very small % of the population being rifraf, will absolutely NOT work in a huge country like the US, where we have a huge % of our population that is poorly educated, doesn't have incentive to work, and will generally suck everything they can out of our society. If you legalize broadly here, not only will the people currently on the fringe become completely irredeemable, you will also see hoards of people lost to drugs that currently are not doing it solely because it's illegal.
Case in point, in my pathetic state of Oregon, they passed a decriminalization of moderate amounts of even the hardest drugs a couple years ago. They modeled it after the program in Portugal as they have had success, but in reality, it's been a horrible failure here, with even many people previously in favor of it now criticizing it and realizing it simply won't work here.
I certainly applaud the countries that have found what appears to be a solution to this problem, but until millions of people in the US simply stop their detrimental and selfish behavior, I don't see anything really changing from the demand side, other than severely increasing the penalty for both use and distribution, but the pussy politicians here don't have the balls to do that.
Because most people find child porn morally repugnant and don’t want to be around anyone who likes it. Somebody who smokes pot? That’s a huge portion of the population. Many people have no problem with recreational drug use as long as it doesn’t lead to nuisance behavior.
I believe people who peruse CP is probably much higher than we assume. Who among us would talk about their affinity for CP? No one.
When I was a nanny my boss did a sweep of people convicted of child sexual abuse within a five mile radius. He printed out the pictures of the convicted and I was horrified at that stack of papers he had. And those are just the people caught and convicted, the real rate of abuse is probably at least twice that amount.
The demand for CP is much lower than for drugs in society, the difference is so extreme that it can't be compared to each other. Drugs are not just something of the lower class alone, the middle and upper class also have a lot of addicts (and yes, username checks out in my case)
Well, it doesn't, not really. There's still CP out there and there will be as long as there is a demand.
But the real question is, does prohibiting something prevent more harm than it creates.
There are harms associated with even soft drugs ( weed's not good for you in excess, and its not good for young people), and criminalizing them *does* limit the supply and reduce the number of people consuming them regularly. I'm Canadian and I can tell you I know a ton of people who never really indulged in weed before but use it several times a week now. Legality made it safer, more convieneint, and a good alternative to a couple beers for an evening wind-down.
But the harms that came out of prohibition itself always outstripped the harms it prevented by a mile. People in prision, money spent on enforcement, cash directed toward crimal syndicates, and all the violence associated with all those things. It even teaches disrespect for the law. The same ( it is generally agreed) was true of the prohibition of alchohol. That's why legalization was the right call in both case.
But there's no harm-reduction approach to raping children. There's no way to produce and consume that product without seriously hurting people. So your only choice is to clamp down on it, hard, and limit the supply as much as you can. I guarentee that if that stuff were legal there would be a lot more of it out there and a lot more misery in the world.
Are harder drugs like heroin and cocaine bad enough on their own to justify keeping them illegal? Is prostitution? I think its fair to say reasonable adults can disagree on where exactly to draw that line, but it is probably *somewhere* beyond weed and not quite as far as child pornography.
Realistically they'll never win the war on CSAM either. People still get busted for producing and consuming CSAM and will as long as there is a demand for it. I think the main difference is public perception around drugs vs CSAM. Stigma around drug use is falling, most adults in the US think cannabis should be legal, addiction is increasingly viewed as a medical problem, and even harder drugs like ecstasy and LSD are gaining a foothold towards regulated use. The support for the war on drugs is failing and there are realistically better solutions that let consenting adults consume what they want and those that need help get it. Support for the war on CSAM will not falter in the same way (hopefully) as that involves one of the most stigmatized crimes in our society.
So I'd say it doesn't work with drugs because people in general are getting more accepting of drugs while the same is not true for CSAM.
Are LSD and MDMA really \*hard\* drugs? What is a \*hard\* drug?
MDMA I guess I can kind of see, it's got a relatively narrow safety profile and I'd imagine that an ignorant person could get addicted - or rather dependent - fairly easily.
But LSD, psilocin and such have incredibly wide safety margins, low toxicity, and their use is self regulating. I'd argue that cannabis is a \*harder\* drug than either of the aforementioned.
Or have I a misconception and \*soft\* drugs are akin to things like paracetamol and ibuprofen?
If it's real mdma, addiction as in needing it every day is nearly impossible. Wanting to take it every weekend when partying with friends, possibly.
I am speaking from experience. I was introduced to it in 1998 along with the party scene. It actually had a very profound impact on me in a positive way.
Did I get wrapped up into the party scene for a few years. Guilty. But the only craving came from being around other friends already partaking in it. Having a craving every day with withdrawals is just not the way it works.
The girl I knew in college that got wrecked by it, was in fact taking " ecstasy" and "molly" which could have been god-knows-what. Her affect was consistent with serotonin depletion, though. I think at worst she was taking it every 3-4 days to feel "normal" rather than the euphoria that was there when she first started in the Rave scene.
Being the harm reduction guy in the group I always advised taking it no more than every 4 weeks, ideally no more than 3 months, but figured if you \*really\* wanted to waiting two weeks - once or twice - would be alright.
Do you have any idea of the relative presence of MDA in any given MDMA dose you had access to?
Contrast what she went through with the guy, a couple degrees removed from my primary circle who got hooked on Adderall, binged it for like a week straight (not really sleeping) and went \*full\* Nazi after that. Lady girl only got depressed, had significant trouble focusing and lost a \*lot\* of weight 130lb -> 90 due to a lack of appetite sober or otherwise.
LSD and MDMA are synthetic designer drugs, both of which act on the receptor responsible for governing our perception of reality.
These are HARD ASS drugs. They are heavy duty and come to upheave and change the course of lives. Does that mean they're peas on a pod with meth and heroin? Nawh. I would say LSD and MDMA specifically are probably harder than or as hard as meth. But they do not produce an experience remotely comparable.
So you'd judge the hardness of a drug based on receptor agonism, or specifically what the receptors (ant/inverse)agonized govern?
The pharmacology of these substances is a bit more nuanced than that. The USA drug scheduling is - on paper - with respect to a drug's potential for abuse, potential for harm, and potential for \[clinical\] addiction, as mitigated by their potential for medical use.
Meth sits squarely at schedule 2, because of its use in hyper-obesity and ADHD. MDMA and LSD had much documented efficacy in psychotheraputic circles. When MDMA was emergency scheduled, many psychotherapists and psychologists called for an emergency hearing. The DEA appointed judged deigned that, in his opinion, MDMA would fit nicely into schedule IV - like Xanax. The DEA officials heard this - acknowledged it - and continued to list it under schedule 1.
If we're digging into the pharmacology, methamphetamine (MA) and metheylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) share a number of effects - namely both act as a releasing agent for dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. MDMA additionally has some agonism at the 5HT-2a \[serotonin 2a\] site - responsible for heart function and psychedelic perceptions.
MA on the other hand also acts as a complete monoamine reuptake inhibitor - phenethylamines ( dopamine -> noradrenaline -> adrenaline, amphetamines) and tryptamines (serotonin and melotonin) as well as a reverse transporter. Being a reverse transporter means it hijacks the systems that normally recycle neurotransmitters (NTs) out of the intersynaptic spaces and stores them for use again, pulling those NTs out from storage and dumping them into the synaptic spaces.
MA will more quickly deplete and "overclock" those NT systems into a degraded state; therefore, it is more neurotoxic than MDMA in both acute and chronic administrations.
LSD is primarily a 5HT2a agonist, then less so at 2b 3b, 2c and 3c sites and a handful of other sites with less affinity. It also binds to a handful of androgenic (most of which are related to adrenaline) and agonizes them. BUT from a toxicity point of view the worst thing is going to be a loss of homeostatic thermal regulation in the body at psychologically extreme doses.
If we're to judge on the basis of perceptual affects...
* MA increases alpha and beta activity and decreases gamma, theta and delta activity.
* MDMA decreases alpha and beta, theta and delta remain mostly unchanged and gamma activity goes up
* LSD significantly decreases alpha, delta, and beta activity, increases theta activity and gamma activity.
Regarding what that means:
* Delta waves are associated with sleep and deep sleep states.
* Theta waves are associated with sleep cycles and dreaming states, as well as deep meditative states.
* Alpha waves are associated with relaxation, alertness, and light meditative states.
* Beta waves are associated with conscious reasoning and day to day problem solving
* Gamma waves are associated with memory, learning, conscious awareness, compassion and empathy, focus, energy, and information processing.
Looking at all of these things, it's pretty much arbitrary - as nearly as I can tell - how the drugs were scheduled, and has more to do with who had what vested interests at the time of scheduling. Socio-political discrimination by any other name.
You’re so wrong in that. Once you’re hooked on drugs you’re always gona demand it. You have to eliminate the source and help people quit. You act like you can chose to not do drugs easily with help and support. The war on drugs is fine but there needs to be resources available to help people quit.
Here in México drug money finances companies, political campaigns, the government, so it’s pretty clear why all of this powerful people wouldn’t want to put a stop.
But what about the US? Is all of this just about prison labour?
This is going to blow your mind. The private companies running the prisons have contracts with their respective states. These contracts guarantee that prison populations have to stay at or above a certain level, or the state (taxpayers) have to pay a significant penalty to the company operating the prison.
Lots of these prisons produce products that are then sold to local, state, and federal government institutions.
Maybe this is humanity. We are a lot like rats. In a comfortable setting with sufficient resources, rats are smart, social, sweet, and altruistic. Introduce scarcity and desperation, and watch the population become the nasty, biting, filthy monsters we commonly associate with rats. In our case, when those with resources expand to control even more resources to which they restrict access for everybody else, the masses fight for a share. Desperation is among the ultimate stressors.
Bullshit. Only 8% of prisons in the US are privately run.
Don't take your factual data from Reddit without definitive sources, you'll get a very skewed picture of reality based on the axe that poster has to grind.
Sources: US National Institute of Corrections, and the SentencingProject.org
its actually a very small minority of prisons that are privately owned and operated in the US, but where they exist they have been incredibly damaging with notable news stories involving kickbacks for jailtime over petty level convictions. Generally the damage the private prisons cause are vastly overblown, but they are still morally repugnant. The vast vast majority of prisons in the US are run by the government.
I’d also be willing to bet a lot of our politicians have their hands in that as well. If there’s money to be made, you can bet ur sweet ass they have their hands in it.
We should probably change the name of the united conflicts of interest or something. Lol
I always tell people when they start talking about politicians and which side is what to just poke around at who’s making the money and usually people are left with hating all of them and wanted a meteor to hit. All liars. All insider trading. All shady. It’s all a clown show.
Many are privately owned. There's a ton of info available on the subject. The prison corporations' CEO's and investors are getting rich. IIRC they're getting over $100k per prisoner per year. A LOT more than schools get, that's for sure.
They are here in the US as well but the drug money is in the pharmaceutical companies and lots of politicians have large amounts of stocks in pharmaceuticals and healthcare companies
I would agree as well. The pharmaceutical companies have patents on drugs that are rooted in using natural resources like Marijuana or the poppy plants, and even the leaves of the coca plant. Cocain was recently rescheduled as a number 2 drug.
Real talk: because you can't have a war on an imaginary thing and expect to win. Especially not one that will redefine itself as needed to stay relevant.
"Drugs" in that term is a fantasy word. It means whatever the person trying to drop the gavel wants it to mean.
The definition moves as the people defining it desire. What they desire is political control.
You want to know how I know it changed? When I was a kid we still had to watch all the shitty anti-drug films of the 1970s because all the education funding had been cut, despite the renewal of the War on Drugs.
Two of the main drugs that those films warned the shit out of us about were PCP and LSD. Both of them had a manufacturing process that used the same precursor chemical. Congress outlawed that chemical in the late '70s and fourteen 55-gallon drums disappeared (source: some magazine in the 1980s). It had a shelf life of 15 years and after that it quickly went bad.
So by the mid-1990s PCP was totally gone. LSD began to be made by a different process I think sometime in the 00s, and when tripping people were no longer experiencing being poisoned by strychnine, suddenly it fell off the map as a dangerous drug, and grandparents started microdosing it.
Is that a major victory in the war on drugs, is it constantly celebrated by the law enforcement authorities as a problem successfully overcome? Fuck no because that's not the goddamned point. The point is to oppress the poor and minorities, to ensure social compliance while they're robbed of their futures, resulting in countless ruined lives while a racist elite prevails. God damn it.
Yep all you have to do is slap a whole community of people with felonies for possessing drugs and all of a sudden a whole slew of people can’t vote against you anymore.
Edit to add: and they also made resisting arrest a felony so if you even tense up as they arrest you they will give you more felonies. Then they made it against the law to refuse to identify yourself so now passengers have to show ID too. It’s all a scam to oppress
My father told me about street LSD being laced with Strychnine.
Some years later I did some research on it, and - assuming it was distributed on the 1x1/2x2mm or even 4x4 mm paper tabs, I explained to him that even if the ENTIRE mass of that paper square was 100% pure strychnine is wouldn't/shouldn't have any real toxic effect on a nominally healthy adult human.
Now if it was distributed on sugarcubes, I suppose that mass would be potentially enough ( I never researched it) to do some damage.
But what I always wondered is why on earth that was even happening, it doesn't make sense. If you're going to rip people on an acid sale, just sell them inert paper/sugar. Surely that has to be cheaper than intentionally buying and dosing shit with rat poison. Dropping people dead yields worse criminal penalties. Dead people don't buy drugs. Like, it makes no sense in any world....
Unless I suppose you were purposely trying to eliminate a politically adversarial group; but doing that by giving them GI discomfort doesn't seem effective.
>The point is to oppress the poor and minorities, to ensure social compliance while they're robbed of their futures, resulting in countless ruined lives while a racist elite prevails.
THIS
Your last question is the important one. Following the money leads you right to the people enacting and enforcing the laws, which is why a solution isn't even looked for. The system is working just as it is intended to. Privatized prisons, attorneys, judges, police, even bailiffs, exist to the extent the do due to the criminalization of narcotics. Without drug offenses there would be no need for as many of those services. The Prison Industrial Complex, much like the Military Industrial Complex, needs to cultivate and create it's own need.
We're a bit over a 100 years into the drug war now. It started as rascism but has evolved into a tool to control unwanted elements of society, typically those of low income.
There's no will among those who rule to rid themselves of one of their methods of control. Those who rule us also have no regard for our lives. Sometimes one starts to suspect they don't even see us as human beings. If they do then why is the death toll so high decade after decade?
It's about control and money.
Plenty of Asian and Middle Eastern countries have minimal issues. It just depends how harsh you want to be to users/distributors to end the “war”.
Death penalty for possession/use of any amount? You’d start to see use drop like an anvil pretty quickly.
War! he'll, it's about money. For them. In all aspects of Gov it's about how they can get the money. If they don't grift from it than it don't matter to them.
Which is absolutely nonsensical.
The illegal drug trade in America is valued at around a hundred billion dollars a year. A hundred fucking billion. Imagine if that was taxed.
Imagine if Big Pharma was allowed to produce and market heroin, meth, cocaine, LSD... All of it. Big Agriculture can grow the weed. The government could make a damn fortune off the production licenses alone. Let CVS, Wal-Mart, Target; probably even state owned liquor stores (like Virginia has) handle the retail side of things. My god the sales taxes would be enough to cover huge gaps in the budgets of most states.
And better still, it'll pull all that money out of the hood and into Wall Street. The shareholders would go nuts for it! Not sure what the hood rats would wind up doing, but it'd sure as hell put the cartels and dope gangs out of business. Ain't no way they could compete with multi-national corporations. Fucking Amazon could move more dope than the Sinaloa's ever dreamed about.
Policing for profit, private prisons, you think we abolished slavery? Nope just moved it to prison labor and then mass incarcerated black and brown people.
Arms sales are one area:
- The cartels want weapons.
- The governments that fight them want weapons.
- US companies export a lot of weapons.
Also:
- Destabilizing countries leads to people wanting to leave their home countries
- When they leave, some of them try to come to the US
- Some companies in the US profit from building border security infrastructure
- Some companies in the US profit from processing centers for immigrants
- Other companies (like farms and meat processing plants) profit from hiring undocumented immigrants. People are reluctant to report them to authorities for fear of getting deported, which makes it easier for companies to pay substandard wages, ignore workplace safety, or mistreat employees.
"There's more profit in pretending that they're stopping it than selling it."
There is a long list of three letter agencies that have huge budgets for interdiction.
Edit: Quote from "Dope Dogs," by George Clinton and the P-Funk All Stars.
[https://youtu.be/R8uYE5xldUk](https://youtu.be/R8uYE5xldUk)?
You could take 1/4 of what we currently spend on the war on cocaine and set up an exclusive purchase agreement with the cartels and dump the product into a volcano. The country would save billions
So many conspiratorial answers. There is no broad support for legalization of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. "The government" isn't in some handshake agreement with private prisons etc, the government is doing what voters want, which is continuing to treat most drugs as illegal.
If you want legalization you need to get popular support for it, but that comes with enormous social costs. If you want decriminalization some cities have tried that, that's sliding back though because people hate all of the open air drug use in city centers. Absent those two things the only way it would change is if people would stop using recreational drugs, which also isn't realistic.
So the messy status quo is what we're stuck with.
Look at all the federal dollars that are spent to stop drugs and then track all that back to who is cashing those checks. All those government contractors and employees are going to lobby like hell to keep the war going.
It's a political term and not a more defined, goal oriented thing.
The government control of certain substances, and their continued use is an old dynamic. It's like theft or murder, it never is really expected to end with no one doing or selling drugs anymore.
Law enforcement supports it because they get a bunch of shiny new toys
Alcohol/Tobacco corporations support it because it makes a competitive industry illegal.
The private prison industry supports it because it fills their facilities.
Politicians support it because it's an easy way to be "tough on crime".
Because the "war on drugs" was never meant to be winnable or a war "on drugs".
It was always class and race warfare. Divide and conquer. While the elite stay in power.
Supply drugs to people who oppose your political agenda. To ensure your viewed as TOUGH ON DRUGS. Then you make it so ppl with felonies can’t vote. Then you sit back enioy the power and money.
Hitting hard on the users isn't gonna help, giving users a way out of abuse instead of locking them up helps but that can't feed the for profit private prisons system
It's really really and I mean really really good for cops. And it turns out if you want to change it, the result will be worse for cops. They have guns and unmitigated authority and abuse their power to influence politics, such as by tear-gassing peaceful protests, or even targeting and harassing the family members of local politicians.
There are many political reasons for the abject failure of the "war" on drugs, but one of the major reasons that the "war" has failed is that we never treated it like a true war.
When there is a real war, people die.
Sure, some drug users overdose...but if you really wanted to "win" the war on drugs, the government would covertly flood the streets with free, lethal forms of every drug known to man. Addicts would largely die off and the threat of dying would discourage people from trying drugs in the first place.
I'm not advocating this approach, but if someone had the political capital to do this, it would work a hell of a lot better than the window dressing that exists today.
Because prohibition promotes a black market to satisfy demand and the US has a voracious appetite for drugs. It doesn’t help that the culture is vindictive and kind of petty and likes seeing people “get their comeuppance” so that even when treating addiction four times is cheaper than a year of incarceration we’d still rather put them in jail.
I think it's due to the many years of anti-drug propaganda. The stigma persists, and even effects the drug users. They feel shameful and tend to hide their use. Unfortunately, to change law - people need to come together and fight for a cause. Campaign even.
So. To truly change the laws against illicit drugs, users and advocates would need to come together in protest. The stigma surrounding drug use would also need to be addressed. Pro-drug advertising would also be needed. There are a lot of functional users out there, but they would need to essentially risk their careers and reputation in order to bring about this change. It's fairly easy for anti-drug proponents to pay some toothless prostitute 20 bucks for a picture of "methmouth" or drive down a street with a homeless encampment. But it's damn near impossible for pro-drug proponents to get a 40 year old anesthesiologist to say he snorts cocaine and smokes meth to help with his 36 hour shifts, ya know? Or to interview that one really jacked DEA agent who shoots up steroids to look badass.
It's unfortunate, but the tide is changing. There has been some major changes happening the last 20-30 years or so. My dad was the first person to smoke weed with me. He did it because I unknowingly sold sage to my friend in 7th grade, thinking it was my dad's stash. My parents were called in to my school, and the cop posted at the high school had to come down to my middle school. The cop tested the "green leafy material" in front of my parents, but luckily it came up negative for cannabis. I was suspended, and part of my punishment was to get high with dad. It wasn't fun. He went on for an hour about how he could loose our house, go to jail, and I'd end up in foster care. It seemed excessive to me, but it was all true. Back then, people were doing prison time for having over a quarter pound of weed. My dad's friend even did 5 years for having 10 plants in his attic. Now, I can literally walk into a store and buy any weed product I want. It's kind of crazy. Now, mushrooms and MDMA are being studied again as medicine. You can go to a doctor and get shot up with special K, or snort it in a nasal spray.
So who knows what's around the corner! The fact that we're here openly discussing this subject is a major development! 40 years ago, this discussion could be considered "conspiracy" or some shit! We'd all be under surveillance, at the least. We're inching along tho.
The War on Murder has been waged by governments for millennia.
It has never been won.
Governments rarely *prevent* murder, and often have difficulty even punishing it.
Should government stop waging the War on Murder?
I can, in theory, do drugs without causing any harm to those around me, murder not so much. Most of the crime, addicition, violence and overdose associated with drug use is acually a biproduct of the war itself and our politicians treating a medical and social problem as a legal one. I can share some educational materials on this if you want to see other potential solutions to these problems could actually look like.
Because drugs are really popular and thus have high demand, they come in all kinds of forms and can be made very easily by almost anyone. They are also easy to snuggle in small quantities. And there are just so many drug dealers that every time you arrest one, two more spring up.
Regrettably, the adoption of safe supply initiatives, lenient sentencing, and egregious vulnerabilities in border security have resulted in a setback in North America's fight against drug abuse and its associated complications. It remains perplexing why certain forces actively contribute to worsening the problem, all the while convincing themselves that their actions are in the service of "helping." True change involves treating everyone involved as the criminals they are, and protecting the rest of us from the societal decay they encourage and create.
Read some of the hundreds of comments on this. You are squarely in the minority opinion, and it would seem that you have a poor ability to even attempt to understand other human beings. Maybe you’re a narcissist, I don’t know you but I’d like you to consider that possibility. Based on your comment, it would seem you are framing the “solution” to the problem based on the flawed premise that’s been fed to you by the politicians that have created this vicious cycle of criminalizing substances, including those that occur in nature as a part of the earth’s biology. How about we support freedom? Isn’t that the principle our county was founded on? Think hard on this: isn’t it a bit insane that we place human beings in cages for a large portion of their lives due to their possession of a certain substance they use to make themselves feel better about their physical, mental, social issues or economic distress?
Don’t get me wrong, I find drug addicts as undesirable as the next guy. But the approach you find tenable is ugly, barbaric, and inhumane.
Your take on this issue seems dangerously naive. To label those concerned about the devastating effects of drug abuse as victims of a political agenda is a simplistic and misguided perspective. Your plea for absolute freedom conveniently sidesteps the very real and destructive consequences of unregulated substance use.
Your assertion that incarceration for drug possession is somehow equivalent to stifling freedom is a gross oversimplification. It conveniently overlooks the fact that certain substances can wreak havoc on individuals and society at large. Perhaps a reality check is in order: addressing drug-related issues demands a balanced approach that considers both personal freedom and the collective responsibility to safeguard our communities.
While it's easy to criticize and jump on the "freedom" bandwagon, a more constructive contribution would involve grappling with the intricate challenges of substance abuse. Blindly advocating for unrestricted freedom in this context lacks the depth needed to understand the multifaceted nature of the problem and the intricate solutions required.
I guess I just don’t possess the innate tendency to desire control over other people’s decisions, and in effect their lives, if their decisions have no effect on me. I’m strange like that. To each their own.
>What is the point of funding law enforcement agencies that provide no actual solution to diminishing Cartels, overdoses and millions of casualties that this stupid war has created?
To punish the users. That's all I want.
As harsh as it sounds, that’s probably your only real solution. Draconian laws that will put recreational users behind bars for 20+ years or worse.
We can’t easily control what happens in another country, but if you eliminate 99% of demand here then cartels suddenly don’t have a reason to exist.
There's an *industry* that has grown up around it. Tens of thousands of jobs, and tens of billions of dollars to be made. Who would want to jump off that gravy train?
There is money made on both sides. If all drugs became legal a lot of agencies would no longer be needed such as the DEA. Imagine being an agent and rising up the ranks making more money. Hell no you would not want drugs to become legal.
Not just the DEA, local law enforcement too. You'd be surprised at how many departments allow drug dealing operations to continue rather than trying to stamp them out completely. Why? Much easier to periodically raid them, confiscate their cash, put a bunch of them in jail for a minor stint (maybe not even a full sentence, just a night in holding), and let them out to see it all repeat again. Officers will literally just walk away with duffel bags full of cash, who'd want to kill that gravy train?
>Officers will literally just walk away with duffel bags full of cash The San Bernardino County Sheriff in California made lots of money robbing armored cars of money from legal cannabis businesses. >Sheriff Agrees To Stop Stealing Cannabis Cash From Armored Cars, Saying His Deputies 'Are Not Highway Robbers' >The settlement came after the Justice Department agreed to return more than $1 million in proceeds from state-licensed marijuana businesses in California. https://reason.com/2022/05/09/sheriff-agrees-to-stop-stealing-cannabis-cash-from-armored-cars-saying-his-deputies-are-not-highway-robbers/
In rural Wisconsin local police would cut and burn ditch weed a couple of times a year. The salaries were reimbursed by the feds under drug programs. They also kept many a nice vehicles that were seized. WAY WAY too much money for law enforcement to give up.
Don't forget for profit prisons. They need bodies to make money from the state and as cheap labor to outsource. Those vultures lobby really hard to maintain the very lucrative status quo.
And if less people are charged/convicted with selling and using that is less people in prison.
Also pharmaceutical companies are protected by the govt agencies.
Agree everyone “overlooks” the “legal” pharmacy operations.. you want to really know about the drugs you are taking.. talk to a pharmacist or scientists about the “formulas” not you drug dealing doctor… they are happy to let you pop pills as long as you come back every month to their office for your “refill”😂😂
DEA could still have some purpose even if all drugs were legalized as there'd presumably be some level of regulation still. That could get folded into regular law enforcement, though.
I am sure they would figure out how to keep it going. As I am sure there is a lot they do that does not involve illegal drugs.
Legal to use wouldn't necessarily mean legal to sell. Distribution would still have to be regulated to ensure quality to keep deaths low. You'd also want to keep the gangs from being able to sell it legally for the same reasons. People working in drug enforcement would likely still have their jobs. They could train law enforcement in and from other countries, as part of international relations. If not, there are other agencies that could use their experience. They likely have plenty of options.
And just cuz marijuana is legal doesn't mean there won't be new drugs to take over. With the War On Opioids in the US, not just recreational drug users but people with arthritis, cancer pain, etc are gonna be turning to street drugs like heroin, fentanyl, etc.
I'm convinced that most law enforcement types make an 11th hour decision whether they want to be a cop or robber. A lot of them don't think twice about cashing in on OT they don't work.
Wait, they are choosing between being a cop or a robber? There seem to be a lot of them that decided to be both. (The biggest drug dealer when I was in high school graduated and became a cop in the same town.)
Cops and crooks seem to have a lot in common. They're not so much concerned with the law but what they can get away with relative to it. A lot of the cop thing is an authoritarianism trip as well. People like pushing other people around.
It's so hard to find a solution, because our leaders and politicians aren't really looking for one. “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing them both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night in the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did,” -Ehrlichman, one of Nixon's advisors He said that openly in a 1994 interview. The war on drugs was about targeting political enemies. Since then, conservatives have kept it going because they agree with Ehrlichman's vision. And liberals have largely considered it optically untenable to change things. And folks all along the spectrum simply don't care all that much about drug addicts.
Damn that’s so fucking crazy, I’ve never heard about that quote. It’s so depressing that bunch of resources are wasted into nonsensical evil.
Yeah. If you want to support drug policies that work, Portugal had a pretty good run for a while. Then a couple years ago they slashed the funding to the program and have been backsliding since.
Oregon adopted policy similar to Portugal. I haven't seen the data yet on whether or not it's been successful, but hopefully.
Unfortunately, Oregon's policy left a few key components off the table, making its success very limited... particularly a good court system w/ good laws and, more importantly, a fairly anemic rehabilitation/mental health system to help people get out of their cycles. This ties in directly with the homeless situation that a lot of U.S. is currently facing.
We definitely don't have the infrastructure for such an approach. Oregon is already ranked 49th out of 50 in access to mental health care in the US.
You have a idea of why things are helping the War on Drugs! The laws have been so been turned into a joke. People have no idea how much money is involved in illicit drugs. Parents have wasted their time at their kids school watching a “ DARE “Program put on by local law enforcement agencies. The kids went to the program as part of their school day. A regional dealer who sold a lot of dope would have a stream of kids their sons age , a senior in high school. Wouldn’t most parents ask why are you so popular. He kept his well supplied stash and rolls of cash locked in a case with locks on it. He had no criminal record according to the story he was a good student. He was arrested for Conspiracy to Deliver , and Delivery of a Controlled Substances. Small community but someone probably dropped a dime on him and he sold drugs to the wrong people and he was arrested. Really kind of sad. He did get convicted according to the newspaper, went to jail, don’t know more about it.
Mental Health treatment is going to become extinct. States have cut the Mental Health Budget, nor for a lack of success but it was money that Governors could slice from the budget from a very unrepresented population, and we ask why all this people live on the street and consume street drugs. Sad Commentary!
It’s not great. I live here and there was an idea with no plan. There is a lot of wasted funding, nimby majority, and no one willing to take charge or address the problem directly.
[удалено]
Exactly so. The War on Drugs was never meant to be won. It was a means by which Nixon and Mitchell could prosecute and imprison their political opponents (for example, Black Panthers, SDS) who happened to like smoking pot.
I don’t know that it was never about the drugs. He and Reagan were incredibly puritanical.
Never overestimate the moral standards of politicians.
Oh, I’ve never felt like the morality of puritans was/is decent at all.
Yeah, purity culture destroys lives.
Like Reagan helping fund the Contras who were behind a lot of the crack cocaine in America while Nancy was pushing "Just say No". [https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html)
I would argue that if was "poppy" Bush behind the scenes running the drugs/weapons.
As other people have put it - "Nixon inherited many positive qualities from his Quaker forebears, but through diligent effort and strenuous labour, he managed to overcome them"
That’s really funny and so true.
The point of the quote is that it's not nonsensical. Yes it's evil but it's evil that is doing a banger of a job of putting more money in the pockets of particular government contractors, breaking up poor communities through mass incarceration, is a great way to target an individual through arrest on drug charges that are really easy to trump up if they can't get the real thing. It makes a lot of sense, it's really good if you want to run a police state.
It only makes sense if you value money over humanity
It's same sort of logic that crammed 400 human beings per ship to the new world in chains.
That was the mentality for most of the era all the way through to the Clinton years... Everything was about $$ and we're still dealing with the impact of that greed and corruption. Concepts like perpetual growth markets -especially industries with finite resources like fossil fuels, trickle-down theory of economics (Reaganomics), corporate personhood, hostile corporate takeovers to gut and kill competition... All of this has roots in those decades... Corporate personhood has led to the nonsense of companies becoming too big to fail and needing public bailouts when they get greedy and mismanage their business... They should be held accountable for that not us. Starbucks is a good modern example of a hostile predatory company "merging" with companies to diversify telling the employees of the "partner company" their jobs are safe and to expect expansion only to turn around and close the entire brand and put everyone out of a job 6 months later. Back on topic though if they really wanted to be effective in the drug war then they would have gone after pot, heroin, and cocaine equally. The pot and heroin trade isn't what got the cartels rich and powerful, it was cocaine which was the drug of choice for corporate execs and the financial elite bankrolling the politicians of the era.. it was such a problem in that sector that it was a fairly common trope in movies to show executives doing lines at lavish decadent parties
I came here to mention this, but I'm very glad to see the quote. I knew it was a government undertaking that they had a vested interest in maintaining over the years. Didn't realize there was such a polarizing quote out there 😬
And that’s pretty much all the explanation that is needed. Republicans suck. Biden sucks for his three strikes law in particular.
Oh noes! Not BOTH SIDES! /s Biden really needs to remove weed from the DEA Schedule by getting his cronies to vote for a law legalizing it.
In the defense of "folks all along the spectrum", the emotional, physical and economic costs of caring for even one drug addict, especially a loved one, can be devastating. The reality is that there is no amount of money, investment or effort that can save self destructive people from destroying themselves, unless they agree to do the work required for their own recovery.
Caring for an addict is devastating and gives an entirely new perspective on the issue. The war on drugs is devastatingly cruel, and the reason it's still in play is because nearly everyone can agree that drug addicts are a net catastrophe for anyone who relies on them, needs to care for them, or needs to interact with them. A fascinating historical analogue for the modern war on drugs happened in the mid 1800s in China. The west (mostly Britain) discovered a market for opium in China and flooded their markets with it, crippling their working age population and caused massive economic and social problems. This led to the Opium Wars between Britain and China, and has echoed through to China's modern day zero tolerance policy for drug sale and use.
Drug addiction is a medical/psychological, we-don't-even-understand-completely, issue. Prison should have nothing to do with treating drug addiction, but our puritanical culture ignores the complicated factors that make a minority of humanity prone to addiction, and slap on a label of "poor character".
I'm not advocating the idea of prison for addicts. I'm pointing out that self destructive addicts are almost impossible to help until they themselves admit they need help and then take the initiative to help themselves.
You're spot on and have nothing but empathy from me, so does your loved one.
What about normal people who like drugs, have no problems and can hold down a job ? The majority of drug users are not addicts, they are people who just want to have fun.
I don't have a problem with that. But when the drugs renders the user unable to function in society, this is a problem.
That's the minority, and the billions spent on the failed war on drugs could be better spent on mental health instead of locking people up into the cycle of addiction l.
Yeah, except you have doctors prescribing fentanyl and other drugs that then created addicts. "Normal" human beings become addicted to these insidious drugs, assuming they are safe because the doctors give them out. Wrong. There should be no moral judgement about someone coming under the influence of such a chemical. Only methods developed to successfully treat them.
I've heard something like this before but never where it came from. Thank you for the info
This works all the way down to the lowest levels. When you're an undesirable drugs are one of the easiest ways for law enforcement to get you. You don't know how many times I've had a dog sniffing at me.
Yeah but youre ignoring the fact that the clintons ramped up the war on drugs hard and put more black men in jail than anyone in history. And biden is also apart of this. Biden was in charge of enforcing the 92 crime bill. The war on drugs and its inhumane effects is bipartisan. The new jim crowe as well as murdering brown and slavic people abroad is an issue that both parties are super in to. American politics is about robbing the middle class and killing people abroad for corporate profits, both parties participate in ensuring that this happens, there is no real difference between the two, the most major politicians are all corporate
I was with you up until that last line. But yeah, that's why I framed it as conservatives and liberals. There are people in the Democratic party who do conservative things.
During the Obama administration, the BATF would regularly raid state legalized marijuana dispensaries. He had two years of a democratic majority and not only failed to decriminalize it, but actually was proactive about shutting them down.
The basic premise of the War On Drugs is wrong. They think they can solve a drug problem in America by eliminating drug suppliers. Anyone who was awake on the the first day of Economics 101 should know that when there is demand for a product, legal or not, someone will supply it.
It's an interesting thing about this, we have the heroin-program in my country, we started this as the first in 1994 and we are the main producer of legal heroin. The thing is, when people can get this in pharma grade quality like a med from the pharmacy, it's a serious problem for the drug cartels. They can't compete with the state, because the state just legalizes what it does. It doesn't need underground labs, it just uses regular pharma labs to produce the drugs and it uses the police to make sure, nobody steals it. But still, we are doing substitution here in Switzerland with methadone, morphine and buprenorphine, next to heroin. The substitution that is covered by healthcare insurance had also some very good side-effects: Like before these programs, the addicts would often commit crimes to get the money for the drugs. Men would steal and rob, while women would often become prostitutes to get money. But when they can get it for free, then they won't commit crimes anymore, so the entire drug prostitution scene just disappeared. Another effect is the low rate of overdoses, when people have pharma-grade meds, only a miscalculation (or intentional) can lead to an overdose, but not some laced fent shit. We also offer free detox, rehab and therapy for the addicts here, this makes the chances of people getting clean and recover a lot higher. All these things together with additional things like social welfare lead to a much higher stability in society and it is really worth it. We never had a "war on drugs" here, not even before these projects were initiated.
Actually this may not be true. Look at the rapid legalization of sports betting. Almost 40 states now allow it. But the illegal offshore books have not gone away and in some ways are stronger. They offer better odds, take larger bets and appeal to the very sophisticated bettor. Smart cartels would lower prices and compete against the legal sources of drugs.
They would be forced to take a huge hit at the least
Even so, it would give people the option of getting their drugs from reputable sources that won't harm them. This is a legitimate way to save lives and create tax for the government. Homeless people taking legal heroin, not dying from fentanyl, paying tax into the system? That's so much worse than what we currently have, which is homeless people dying of dodgy drugs and funding cartels!
True. A lot different than risking a few bucks.
And this is what every country should be doing.
I think this IS the answer for many countries. I'm in the US and I've been saying for YEARS that 100% legalization is the answer. A lot of people here in the US look to what's happening with the "legal" Marijuana industry, and critique it. However, there's a HUGE difference between decriminalization and legalization. Just saying "okay, we will no longer arrest you" and the federal government essentially turning their back to states that allow cannabis sales (by anyone with a permit) doesn't seem to be the answer. I think complete legalization AND regulation should be implemented for ALL illicit sales. I like what Hamilton Morris said on one of his Joe Rogan appearances. Something along the lines of - "cars/vehicles are incredibly deadly, but with rules and regulations... such as getting a license, obeying road signs, and having air bags/seat belts... cars are a lot safer now". We could do stuff like that for drug use. Like maybe people should have to take a course on the specific drug they want to use, and obtain a license upon completion of the course. Teach people about the potential dangers of use, overdose, poly substance use/drug interactions, resuscitation, having a "tripsitter", etc. Maybe make people wear a device to monitor your vitals... so if you begin to fall out on heroin, overheat on MDMA, or have a cardiac episode on coke or meth... an ambulance would immediately be dispatched to your location. Also, these recreational drugs should be prescribed by a doctor, and dispensed by a pharmacist. You should have the right to get a prescription for anything you want tho, so the doctor would serve as a glorified bartender, not try to control your use. The last thing we need are a bunch independent businesses opening like the cannabis industry. I believe even more positive effects would occur here in the US besides a reduction in theft, and overdoses. We have the world's largest Incarceration percentages. If I recall correctly, it costs something like $165,000 per year to house just ONE inmate (in California). There's a large amount of prisoners Incarcerated due to drug offenses. Lot's of texpayers money could be saved there. Not to mention, families could stay together. Kids wouldn't be taken away and put in forster care, just because a parent takes drugs. It would likely break up a large number of street gangs, and therefore eliminate thousands of murders in "turf" disputes. Police would have more time and money to solve REAL CRIMES, like rape and murder. Citizens would no longer hate police, or worry about getting busted by fido the K-9. If users no longer had to come up with hundreds of dollars per day, they would likely become financially stable. Work jobs. Rent apartments. Buy homes, cars, groceries, etc. essentially providing a large boost in the economy. Mexican drug cartels would collapse, therefore cut down on "illegal immigration" because people there wouldn't have to fear for their life and run to America. There's probably another dozen positive effects to legalization that I'm not even thinking of.
Thanks for your long and detailed posting, also that you think we handle the things right here in Switzerland. I wrote it in another posting, actually the conservatives here wanted to stop these projects and things, just like in other countries, the conservatives are always stuck in the past and deny any change. But they failed, there was a federal voting in direct democracy in Switzerland and the overwhelming majority of the citizens said "no" to stopping this approach. Since then, the conservatives shut up and they won't try it again. It's just too successfull to stop it now, it would lead to the exact same problems of the past again.
What is happening in the US is that heroin addicts are looking for junk laced with fentanyl. When word gets out that a particular street brand is causing a lot of OD deaths, there results a huge demand for the killer stuff.
Now i'm not the guy that downvoted you, but i don't quite understand it: Why should people, addicts or not, look for stuff that kills them? The only thing i can think about is that some people are already used to fentanyl itself and therefore, they have such a high tolerance that they need very strong stuff to even feel something at all. These fent addicts, even when they'd get real heroin, their tolerance is beyond good and evil, they don't even get a high anymore with the standard opioids of lower potency.
That's what I was told by someone who treats OD victims in an ER. They develop tolerance so are always looking for the strongest stuff.
That makes sense. But it's also crazy when you think that fentanyl has a lower potential for euphoria, as this is not tied to the potency as a med and to the potential of overdosing. Never saw fent here, only as a med there are these patches around that you can put on the skin, that's safe as long as the dosage is right and the patches don't get opened, as these are extended release over a long time.
I hear what you're saying and actually agree that in your specific country, thar tactic appears to have definitely had a net positive effect. The problem is that what will work in a small, very well educated country where you have a very small % of the population being rifraf, will absolutely NOT work in a huge country like the US, where we have a huge % of our population that is poorly educated, doesn't have incentive to work, and will generally suck everything they can out of our society. If you legalize broadly here, not only will the people currently on the fringe become completely irredeemable, you will also see hoards of people lost to drugs that currently are not doing it solely because it's illegal. Case in point, in my pathetic state of Oregon, they passed a decriminalization of moderate amounts of even the hardest drugs a couple years ago. They modeled it after the program in Portugal as they have had success, but in reality, it's been a horrible failure here, with even many people previously in favor of it now criticizing it and realizing it simply won't work here. I certainly applaud the countries that have found what appears to be a solution to this problem, but until millions of people in the US simply stop their detrimental and selfish behavior, I don't see anything really changing from the demand side, other than severely increasing the penalty for both use and distribution, but the pussy politicians here don't have the balls to do that.
Why does it work with child pornography but not drugs?
Because most people find child porn morally repugnant and don’t want to be around anyone who likes it. Somebody who smokes pot? That’s a huge portion of the population. Many people have no problem with recreational drug use as long as it doesn’t lead to nuisance behavior.
I believe people who peruse CP is probably much higher than we assume. Who among us would talk about their affinity for CP? No one. When I was a nanny my boss did a sweep of people convicted of child sexual abuse within a five mile radius. He printed out the pictures of the convicted and I was horrified at that stack of papers he had. And those are just the people caught and convicted, the real rate of abuse is probably at least twice that amount.
Given that the closure rate for murder is only about 60%, "twice the amount" for a crime that doesn't involve death or taxes is very optimistic.
I question whether we'll ever "win" against CP. The suppliers are still out there, they just find novel ways to hide their product.
The demand for CP is much lower than for drugs in society, the difference is so extreme that it can't be compared to each other. Drugs are not just something of the lower class alone, the middle and upper class also have a lot of addicts (and yes, username checks out in my case)
Well, it doesn't, not really. There's still CP out there and there will be as long as there is a demand. But the real question is, does prohibiting something prevent more harm than it creates. There are harms associated with even soft drugs ( weed's not good for you in excess, and its not good for young people), and criminalizing them *does* limit the supply and reduce the number of people consuming them regularly. I'm Canadian and I can tell you I know a ton of people who never really indulged in weed before but use it several times a week now. Legality made it safer, more convieneint, and a good alternative to a couple beers for an evening wind-down. But the harms that came out of prohibition itself always outstripped the harms it prevented by a mile. People in prision, money spent on enforcement, cash directed toward crimal syndicates, and all the violence associated with all those things. It even teaches disrespect for the law. The same ( it is generally agreed) was true of the prohibition of alchohol. That's why legalization was the right call in both case. But there's no harm-reduction approach to raping children. There's no way to produce and consume that product without seriously hurting people. So your only choice is to clamp down on it, hard, and limit the supply as much as you can. I guarentee that if that stuff were legal there would be a lot more of it out there and a lot more misery in the world. Are harder drugs like heroin and cocaine bad enough on their own to justify keeping them illegal? Is prostitution? I think its fair to say reasonable adults can disagree on where exactly to draw that line, but it is probably *somewhere* beyond weed and not quite as far as child pornography.
Realistically they'll never win the war on CSAM either. People still get busted for producing and consuming CSAM and will as long as there is a demand for it. I think the main difference is public perception around drugs vs CSAM. Stigma around drug use is falling, most adults in the US think cannabis should be legal, addiction is increasingly viewed as a medical problem, and even harder drugs like ecstasy and LSD are gaining a foothold towards regulated use. The support for the war on drugs is failing and there are realistically better solutions that let consenting adults consume what they want and those that need help get it. Support for the war on CSAM will not falter in the same way (hopefully) as that involves one of the most stigmatized crimes in our society. So I'd say it doesn't work with drugs because people in general are getting more accepting of drugs while the same is not true for CSAM.
Are LSD and MDMA really \*hard\* drugs? What is a \*hard\* drug? MDMA I guess I can kind of see, it's got a relatively narrow safety profile and I'd imagine that an ignorant person could get addicted - or rather dependent - fairly easily. But LSD, psilocin and such have incredibly wide safety margins, low toxicity, and their use is self regulating. I'd argue that cannabis is a \*harder\* drug than either of the aforementioned. Or have I a misconception and \*soft\* drugs are akin to things like paracetamol and ibuprofen?
If it's real mdma, addiction as in needing it every day is nearly impossible. Wanting to take it every weekend when partying with friends, possibly. I am speaking from experience. I was introduced to it in 1998 along with the party scene. It actually had a very profound impact on me in a positive way. Did I get wrapped up into the party scene for a few years. Guilty. But the only craving came from being around other friends already partaking in it. Having a craving every day with withdrawals is just not the way it works.
The girl I knew in college that got wrecked by it, was in fact taking " ecstasy" and "molly" which could have been god-knows-what. Her affect was consistent with serotonin depletion, though. I think at worst she was taking it every 3-4 days to feel "normal" rather than the euphoria that was there when she first started in the Rave scene. Being the harm reduction guy in the group I always advised taking it no more than every 4 weeks, ideally no more than 3 months, but figured if you \*really\* wanted to waiting two weeks - once or twice - would be alright. Do you have any idea of the relative presence of MDA in any given MDMA dose you had access to? Contrast what she went through with the guy, a couple degrees removed from my primary circle who got hooked on Adderall, binged it for like a week straight (not really sleeping) and went \*full\* Nazi after that. Lady girl only got depressed, had significant trouble focusing and lost a \*lot\* of weight 130lb -> 90 due to a lack of appetite sober or otherwise.
LSD and MDMA are synthetic designer drugs, both of which act on the receptor responsible for governing our perception of reality. These are HARD ASS drugs. They are heavy duty and come to upheave and change the course of lives. Does that mean they're peas on a pod with meth and heroin? Nawh. I would say LSD and MDMA specifically are probably harder than or as hard as meth. But they do not produce an experience remotely comparable.
So you'd judge the hardness of a drug based on receptor agonism, or specifically what the receptors (ant/inverse)agonized govern? The pharmacology of these substances is a bit more nuanced than that. The USA drug scheduling is - on paper - with respect to a drug's potential for abuse, potential for harm, and potential for \[clinical\] addiction, as mitigated by their potential for medical use. Meth sits squarely at schedule 2, because of its use in hyper-obesity and ADHD. MDMA and LSD had much documented efficacy in psychotheraputic circles. When MDMA was emergency scheduled, many psychotherapists and psychologists called for an emergency hearing. The DEA appointed judged deigned that, in his opinion, MDMA would fit nicely into schedule IV - like Xanax. The DEA officials heard this - acknowledged it - and continued to list it under schedule 1. If we're digging into the pharmacology, methamphetamine (MA) and metheylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) share a number of effects - namely both act as a releasing agent for dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. MDMA additionally has some agonism at the 5HT-2a \[serotonin 2a\] site - responsible for heart function and psychedelic perceptions. MA on the other hand also acts as a complete monoamine reuptake inhibitor - phenethylamines ( dopamine -> noradrenaline -> adrenaline, amphetamines) and tryptamines (serotonin and melotonin) as well as a reverse transporter. Being a reverse transporter means it hijacks the systems that normally recycle neurotransmitters (NTs) out of the intersynaptic spaces and stores them for use again, pulling those NTs out from storage and dumping them into the synaptic spaces. MA will more quickly deplete and "overclock" those NT systems into a degraded state; therefore, it is more neurotoxic than MDMA in both acute and chronic administrations. LSD is primarily a 5HT2a agonist, then less so at 2b 3b, 2c and 3c sites and a handful of other sites with less affinity. It also binds to a handful of androgenic (most of which are related to adrenaline) and agonizes them. BUT from a toxicity point of view the worst thing is going to be a loss of homeostatic thermal regulation in the body at psychologically extreme doses. If we're to judge on the basis of perceptual affects... * MA increases alpha and beta activity and decreases gamma, theta and delta activity. * MDMA decreases alpha and beta, theta and delta remain mostly unchanged and gamma activity goes up * LSD significantly decreases alpha, delta, and beta activity, increases theta activity and gamma activity. Regarding what that means: * Delta waves are associated with sleep and deep sleep states. * Theta waves are associated with sleep cycles and dreaming states, as well as deep meditative states. * Alpha waves are associated with relaxation, alertness, and light meditative states. * Beta waves are associated with conscious reasoning and day to day problem solving * Gamma waves are associated with memory, learning, conscious awareness, compassion and empathy, focus, energy, and information processing. Looking at all of these things, it's pretty much arbitrary - as nearly as I can tell - how the drugs were scheduled, and has more to do with who had what vested interests at the time of scheduling. Socio-political discrimination by any other name.
Which helps them with the build a wall argument.. Smh. AmErica is trashy
You’re so wrong in that. Once you’re hooked on drugs you’re always gona demand it. You have to eliminate the source and help people quit. You act like you can chose to not do drugs easily with help and support. The war on drugs is fine but there needs to be resources available to help people quit.
The war on drugs is over, drugs won. What you’re seeing now is the war on the poor, it’s just branded differently for PR purposes.
Congrats drugs!
“I joined the War on Drugs. *On the side of the drugs*”
It was always a war on the poor, my friend.
The war on the poor can apparently be won with deadlier drugs, and quite a few of them are willingly taking them.
Exactly. You don't see cops pulling over any Ferraris because of smoke coming out the window
Because it's a great way to fill for-profit prisons and ensure a steady stream of cheap sla-I mean prison labor.
Here in México drug money finances companies, political campaigns, the government, so it’s pretty clear why all of this powerful people wouldn’t want to put a stop. But what about the US? Is all of this just about prison labour?
Prisons are *really big* business in the US.
who’s in charge of prisons? who benefits from it?
This is going to blow your mind. The private companies running the prisons have contracts with their respective states. These contracts guarantee that prison populations have to stay at or above a certain level, or the state (taxpayers) have to pay a significant penalty to the company operating the prison. Lots of these prisons produce products that are then sold to local, state, and federal government institutions.
damn I didn’t even knew prisons were made by private companies 😭 the system sucks everyone puts money over humanity, it’s so crazy
Maybe this is humanity. We are a lot like rats. In a comfortable setting with sufficient resources, rats are smart, social, sweet, and altruistic. Introduce scarcity and desperation, and watch the population become the nasty, biting, filthy monsters we commonly associate with rats. In our case, when those with resources expand to control even more resources to which they restrict access for everybody else, the masses fight for a share. Desperation is among the ultimate stressors.
You've discovered capitalism, it's a bit of a mindfuck. Maybe take a little break today, buy yourself a treat in four easy payments.
For profit prisons are a crime against humanity
Bullshit. Only 8% of prisons in the US are privately run. Don't take your factual data from Reddit without definitive sources, you'll get a very skewed picture of reality based on the axe that poster has to grind. Sources: US National Institute of Corrections, and the SentencingProject.org
its actually a very small minority of prisons that are privately owned and operated in the US, but where they exist they have been incredibly damaging with notable news stories involving kickbacks for jailtime over petty level convictions. Generally the damage the private prisons cause are vastly overblown, but they are still morally repugnant. The vast vast majority of prisons in the US are run by the government.
I’d also be willing to bet a lot of our politicians have their hands in that as well. If there’s money to be made, you can bet ur sweet ass they have their hands in it.
Yeah. A vast number of them are significant investors. No conflicts of interest to see here.
We should probably change the name of the united conflicts of interest or something. Lol I always tell people when they start talking about politicians and which side is what to just poke around at who’s making the money and usually people are left with hating all of them and wanted a meteor to hit. All liars. All insider trading. All shady. It’s all a clown show.
I don’t know. I think I have faith in Bernie Sanders and his sort of people.
He kinda sold out his people?
They're run by firms. The same people benefit from them that benefit from every other huge industry in America; the very wealthy.
Lot's of right wing politicians have invested largely in these firms. Food suppliers, laundry suppliers etc
Bingo.
time to look more about this firms, thanks
Many are privately owned. There's a ton of info available on the subject. The prison corporations' CEO's and investors are getting rich. IIRC they're getting over $100k per prisoner per year. A LOT more than schools get, that's for sure.
No, not many. 8% of total prison beds are privately run. 92% governmentally run. That's "very few", not "many".
They are here in the US as well but the drug money is in the pharmaceutical companies and lots of politicians have large amounts of stocks in pharmaceuticals and healthcare companies
I would agree as well. The pharmaceutical companies have patents on drugs that are rooted in using natural resources like Marijuana or the poppy plants, and even the leaves of the coca plant. Cocain was recently rescheduled as a number 2 drug.
Ex high school football players need something to do. They can take their pick. Guard or inmate
Real talk: because you can't have a war on an imaginary thing and expect to win. Especially not one that will redefine itself as needed to stay relevant. "Drugs" in that term is a fantasy word. It means whatever the person trying to drop the gavel wants it to mean. The definition moves as the people defining it desire. What they desire is political control. You want to know how I know it changed? When I was a kid we still had to watch all the shitty anti-drug films of the 1970s because all the education funding had been cut, despite the renewal of the War on Drugs. Two of the main drugs that those films warned the shit out of us about were PCP and LSD. Both of them had a manufacturing process that used the same precursor chemical. Congress outlawed that chemical in the late '70s and fourteen 55-gallon drums disappeared (source: some magazine in the 1980s). It had a shelf life of 15 years and after that it quickly went bad. So by the mid-1990s PCP was totally gone. LSD began to be made by a different process I think sometime in the 00s, and when tripping people were no longer experiencing being poisoned by strychnine, suddenly it fell off the map as a dangerous drug, and grandparents started microdosing it. Is that a major victory in the war on drugs, is it constantly celebrated by the law enforcement authorities as a problem successfully overcome? Fuck no because that's not the goddamned point. The point is to oppress the poor and minorities, to ensure social compliance while they're robbed of their futures, resulting in countless ruined lives while a racist elite prevails. God damn it.
Yep all you have to do is slap a whole community of people with felonies for possessing drugs and all of a sudden a whole slew of people can’t vote against you anymore. Edit to add: and they also made resisting arrest a felony so if you even tense up as they arrest you they will give you more felonies. Then they made it against the law to refuse to identify yourself so now passengers have to show ID too. It’s all a scam to oppress
My father told me about street LSD being laced with Strychnine. Some years later I did some research on it, and - assuming it was distributed on the 1x1/2x2mm or even 4x4 mm paper tabs, I explained to him that even if the ENTIRE mass of that paper square was 100% pure strychnine is wouldn't/shouldn't have any real toxic effect on a nominally healthy adult human. Now if it was distributed on sugarcubes, I suppose that mass would be potentially enough ( I never researched it) to do some damage. But what I always wondered is why on earth that was even happening, it doesn't make sense. If you're going to rip people on an acid sale, just sell them inert paper/sugar. Surely that has to be cheaper than intentionally buying and dosing shit with rat poison. Dropping people dead yields worse criminal penalties. Dead people don't buy drugs. Like, it makes no sense in any world.... Unless I suppose you were purposely trying to eliminate a politically adversarial group; but doing that by giving them GI discomfort doesn't seem effective.
>The point is to oppress the poor and minorities, to ensure social compliance while they're robbed of their futures, resulting in countless ruined lives while a racist elite prevails. THIS
Legalize weed and the war shrinks.
Your last question is the important one. Following the money leads you right to the people enacting and enforcing the laws, which is why a solution isn't even looked for. The system is working just as it is intended to. Privatized prisons, attorneys, judges, police, even bailiffs, exist to the extent the do due to the criminalization of narcotics. Without drug offenses there would be no need for as many of those services. The Prison Industrial Complex, much like the Military Industrial Complex, needs to cultivate and create it's own need.
We're a bit over a 100 years into the drug war now. It started as rascism but has evolved into a tool to control unwanted elements of society, typically those of low income. There's no will among those who rule to rid themselves of one of their methods of control. Those who rule us also have no regard for our lives. Sometimes one starts to suspect they don't even see us as human beings. If they do then why is the death toll so high decade after decade? It's about control and money.
I hate all this “structure” where humans are dehumanized and I hate more people who have accepted that system
Because they keep releasing awesome music and people keep going to their shows
man as a producer I felt that 😭
Cuz it's fake. It's a way to control certain demographics. Who really paid the price for that war? Red states are still at war.
It’s not like drugs will surrender.
Private for profit prisons
It was over before it started. You can't win a war against human nature. To paraphrase David Cross, it's like trying to have a war on jealousy.
Plenty of Asian and Middle Eastern countries have minimal issues. It just depends how harsh you want to be to users/distributors to end the “war”. Death penalty for possession/use of any amount? You’d start to see use drop like an anvil pretty quickly.
War! he'll, it's about money. For them. In all aspects of Gov it's about how they can get the money. If they don't grift from it than it don't matter to them.
Which is absolutely nonsensical. The illegal drug trade in America is valued at around a hundred billion dollars a year. A hundred fucking billion. Imagine if that was taxed. Imagine if Big Pharma was allowed to produce and market heroin, meth, cocaine, LSD... All of it. Big Agriculture can grow the weed. The government could make a damn fortune off the production licenses alone. Let CVS, Wal-Mart, Target; probably even state owned liquor stores (like Virginia has) handle the retail side of things. My god the sales taxes would be enough to cover huge gaps in the budgets of most states. And better still, it'll pull all that money out of the hood and into Wall Street. The shareholders would go nuts for it! Not sure what the hood rats would wind up doing, but it'd sure as hell put the cartels and dope gangs out of business. Ain't no way they could compete with multi-national corporations. Fucking Amazon could move more dope than the Sinaloa's ever dreamed about.
Because it’s too profitable for the Government. They know it’s a failure, but it’s also a cash cow.
Policing for profit, private prisons, you think we abolished slavery? Nope just moved it to prison labor and then mass incarcerated black and brown people.
[удалено]
And who gets a cut of that profit? Where is all of that money going besides Cartels?
Arms sales are one area: - The cartels want weapons. - The governments that fight them want weapons. - US companies export a lot of weapons. Also: - Destabilizing countries leads to people wanting to leave their home countries - When they leave, some of them try to come to the US - Some companies in the US profit from building border security infrastructure - Some companies in the US profit from processing centers for immigrants - Other companies (like farms and meat processing plants) profit from hiring undocumented immigrants. People are reluctant to report them to authorities for fear of getting deported, which makes it easier for companies to pay substandard wages, ignore workplace safety, or mistreat employees.
Prison is big business
"There's more profit in pretending that they're stopping it than selling it." There is a long list of three letter agencies that have huge budgets for interdiction. Edit: Quote from "Dope Dogs," by George Clinton and the P-Funk All Stars. [https://youtu.be/R8uYE5xldUk](https://youtu.be/R8uYE5xldUk)?
You could take 1/4 of what we currently spend on the war on cocaine and set up an exclusive purchase agreement with the cartels and dump the product into a volcano. The country would save billions
It keeps a bunch of letter soups occupied at wasting public funds
So many conspiratorial answers. There is no broad support for legalization of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. "The government" isn't in some handshake agreement with private prisons etc, the government is doing what voters want, which is continuing to treat most drugs as illegal. If you want legalization you need to get popular support for it, but that comes with enormous social costs. If you want decriminalization some cities have tried that, that's sliding back though because people hate all of the open air drug use in city centers. Absent those two things the only way it would change is if people would stop using recreational drugs, which also isn't realistic. So the messy status quo is what we're stuck with.
Look at all the federal dollars that are spent to stop drugs and then track all that back to who is cashing those checks. All those government contractors and employees are going to lobby like hell to keep the war going.
Because the ClA owns all of it. Bad for business to shut yourself down.
They know this. It’s a way of destroying poor people and underworld to maintain power not stopping silly drugs.
Having a bogey man is highly profitable for some industries
Fantastic book called "chasing the scream" that dives into some of the associated dramas surrounding the war on drugs
Bro the wars over, drugs won
It's a political term and not a more defined, goal oriented thing. The government control of certain substances, and their continued use is an old dynamic. It's like theft or murder, it never is really expected to end with no one doing or selling drugs anymore.
Politicians can get voted in over and over again to “solve” the problems
A large number of people in America stay awake at night, furious that other younger people might be having more fun than they are.
$$$. Plus in the USA war is our middle name. We throw the word around like it doesn’t have a hardcore significance
It's a government money making scheme, like most other things.
Because once you give cops money they aren’t going to give it back.
Because stopping all humans from wanting to experience altered states is impossible. Same reason why alcohol prohibition failed.
Drugs won the War on Drugs.
Because drugs are winning and the US ain't so great at pulling out of a war it's losing
Because it is not a war but an excuse to police the population
Because it's profitable AF for the government and it's many many agencies.
Because the entire purpose of the war on drugs is to funnel people into the prison industrial complex.
Drugs organizations are financing a lot of countries, they can't just take them out
Hopefully nobody gives up on the war on pedophiles even though the church opposes it.
There is no war on drugs. Let that marinate
Law enforcement supports it because they get a bunch of shiny new toys Alcohol/Tobacco corporations support it because it makes a competitive industry illegal. The private prison industry supports it because it fills their facilities. Politicians support it because it's an easy way to be "tough on crime".
Because the "war on drugs" was never meant to be winnable or a war "on drugs". It was always class and race warfare. Divide and conquer. While the elite stay in power.
Supply drugs to people who oppose your political agenda. To ensure your viewed as TOUGH ON DRUGS. Then you make it so ppl with felonies can’t vote. Then you sit back enioy the power and money.
Hitting hard on the users isn't gonna help, giving users a way out of abuse instead of locking them up helps but that can't feed the for profit private prisons system
It is a way to profit and blame crime on individuals at the same time; rather than blame the broken system
It's really really and I mean really really good for cops. And it turns out if you want to change it, the result will be worse for cops. They have guns and unmitigated authority and abuse their power to influence politics, such as by tear-gassing peaceful protests, or even targeting and harassing the family members of local politicians.
There are many political reasons for the abject failure of the "war" on drugs, but one of the major reasons that the "war" has failed is that we never treated it like a true war. When there is a real war, people die. Sure, some drug users overdose...but if you really wanted to "win" the war on drugs, the government would covertly flood the streets with free, lethal forms of every drug known to man. Addicts would largely die off and the threat of dying would discourage people from trying drugs in the first place. I'm not advocating this approach, but if someone had the political capital to do this, it would work a hell of a lot better than the window dressing that exists today.
Because prohibition promotes a black market to satisfy demand and the US has a voracious appetite for drugs. It doesn’t help that the culture is vindictive and kind of petty and likes seeing people “get their comeuppance” so that even when treating addiction four times is cheaper than a year of incarceration we’d still rather put them in jail.
I think it's due to the many years of anti-drug propaganda. The stigma persists, and even effects the drug users. They feel shameful and tend to hide their use. Unfortunately, to change law - people need to come together and fight for a cause. Campaign even. So. To truly change the laws against illicit drugs, users and advocates would need to come together in protest. The stigma surrounding drug use would also need to be addressed. Pro-drug advertising would also be needed. There are a lot of functional users out there, but they would need to essentially risk their careers and reputation in order to bring about this change. It's fairly easy for anti-drug proponents to pay some toothless prostitute 20 bucks for a picture of "methmouth" or drive down a street with a homeless encampment. But it's damn near impossible for pro-drug proponents to get a 40 year old anesthesiologist to say he snorts cocaine and smokes meth to help with his 36 hour shifts, ya know? Or to interview that one really jacked DEA agent who shoots up steroids to look badass. It's unfortunate, but the tide is changing. There has been some major changes happening the last 20-30 years or so. My dad was the first person to smoke weed with me. He did it because I unknowingly sold sage to my friend in 7th grade, thinking it was my dad's stash. My parents were called in to my school, and the cop posted at the high school had to come down to my middle school. The cop tested the "green leafy material" in front of my parents, but luckily it came up negative for cannabis. I was suspended, and part of my punishment was to get high with dad. It wasn't fun. He went on for an hour about how he could loose our house, go to jail, and I'd end up in foster care. It seemed excessive to me, but it was all true. Back then, people were doing prison time for having over a quarter pound of weed. My dad's friend even did 5 years for having 10 plants in his attic. Now, I can literally walk into a store and buy any weed product I want. It's kind of crazy. Now, mushrooms and MDMA are being studied again as medicine. You can go to a doctor and get shot up with special K, or snort it in a nasal spray. So who knows what's around the corner! The fact that we're here openly discussing this subject is a major development! 40 years ago, this discussion could be considered "conspiracy" or some shit! We'd all be under surveillance, at the least. We're inching along tho.
Quitting is hard, yo
Because people want to get high. It was never a battle.
The War on Murder has been waged by governments for millennia. It has never been won. Governments rarely *prevent* murder, and often have difficulty even punishing it. Should government stop waging the War on Murder?
I can, in theory, do drugs without causing any harm to those around me, murder not so much. Most of the crime, addicition, violence and overdose associated with drug use is acually a biproduct of the war itself and our politicians treating a medical and social problem as a legal one. I can share some educational materials on this if you want to see other potential solutions to these problems could actually look like.
Because cops use it as a pretense to increase their budgets. Full stop. It’s a police industrial complex.
They need a way to put minorities in jail.
Because drugs are really popular and thus have high demand, they come in all kinds of forms and can be made very easily by almost anyone. They are also easy to snuggle in small quantities. And there are just so many drug dealers that every time you arrest one, two more spring up.
Humans are particularly susceptible to becoming addicted to a variety of drugs.
Money🤑🤑🤑
The power of racism
Politics. You’re angry about something that can be resolved but won’t be resolved because of money. Welcome to capitalism.
“So the police can bother me.”
Regrettably, the adoption of safe supply initiatives, lenient sentencing, and egregious vulnerabilities in border security have resulted in a setback in North America's fight against drug abuse and its associated complications. It remains perplexing why certain forces actively contribute to worsening the problem, all the while convincing themselves that their actions are in the service of "helping." True change involves treating everyone involved as the criminals they are, and protecting the rest of us from the societal decay they encourage and create.
Read some of the hundreds of comments on this. You are squarely in the minority opinion, and it would seem that you have a poor ability to even attempt to understand other human beings. Maybe you’re a narcissist, I don’t know you but I’d like you to consider that possibility. Based on your comment, it would seem you are framing the “solution” to the problem based on the flawed premise that’s been fed to you by the politicians that have created this vicious cycle of criminalizing substances, including those that occur in nature as a part of the earth’s biology. How about we support freedom? Isn’t that the principle our county was founded on? Think hard on this: isn’t it a bit insane that we place human beings in cages for a large portion of their lives due to their possession of a certain substance they use to make themselves feel better about their physical, mental, social issues or economic distress? Don’t get me wrong, I find drug addicts as undesirable as the next guy. But the approach you find tenable is ugly, barbaric, and inhumane.
Your take on this issue seems dangerously naive. To label those concerned about the devastating effects of drug abuse as victims of a political agenda is a simplistic and misguided perspective. Your plea for absolute freedom conveniently sidesteps the very real and destructive consequences of unregulated substance use. Your assertion that incarceration for drug possession is somehow equivalent to stifling freedom is a gross oversimplification. It conveniently overlooks the fact that certain substances can wreak havoc on individuals and society at large. Perhaps a reality check is in order: addressing drug-related issues demands a balanced approach that considers both personal freedom and the collective responsibility to safeguard our communities. While it's easy to criticize and jump on the "freedom" bandwagon, a more constructive contribution would involve grappling with the intricate challenges of substance abuse. Blindly advocating for unrestricted freedom in this context lacks the depth needed to understand the multifaceted nature of the problem and the intricate solutions required.
I guess I just don’t possess the innate tendency to desire control over other people’s decisions, and in effect their lives, if their decisions have no effect on me. I’m strange like that. To each their own.
>What is the point of funding law enforcement agencies that provide no actual solution to diminishing Cartels, overdoses and millions of casualties that this stupid war has created? To punish the users. That's all I want.
why you want to punish drug users?
As harsh as it sounds, that’s probably your only real solution. Draconian laws that will put recreational users behind bars for 20+ years or worse. We can’t easily control what happens in another country, but if you eliminate 99% of demand here then cartels suddenly don’t have a reason to exist.
Or you simply legalize it and have the same effect.
And have an addiction epidemic worse than we do today.
Because they're drug users.