The War on Drugs

[Bagel of Death]

What is your opinion on the so called "War on Drugs"?

 

Do you believe it's been a success...or a total failure?

 

Should all drugs be outlawed/legalized...or only some? Which ones?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Bagel of Death

[The Midnight Q]

I'm not going to state my opinion in detail here but here's my main point. Whether or not this War on Drugs is agreed upon. The current violence going on in Mexico and South America is directly accredited to the street demand of drugs and narcotics in the United States. I will not state my opinion on marijuana but I will say that particularly the Mexican drug cartels is behind most of the marketshare of the weed sold on the streets in the US. Those same cartels also grow and traffic meth to a certain extent and cocaine. The cocaine itself is grown and processed in mostly Colombia but the cartels down there sometimes work with Mexican groups to get their merchandise into the United States, which has the most demand. The cross-border shootings, kidnappings and murders are accredited to Mexican gangs financed by the drug trade. Many of these kidnappings are also related to human trafficking- another income source for these gangs. One of my classmates from middle school was kidnapped in 2005, she hasn't been heard from since.

One of these gangs known as Los Zetas is for lack of a better term a paramilitary force who are sometimes better equipped than the Mexican government. They're comprised of corrupt and disgruntled Mexican military (a lot of the times corrupt Mexican special forces as well) and operate just across the border from Texas. Their business is warfare, and if you cross the border it is literally a battleground. Even on the US side you hear stories of bombings, high-profile murders and shootings in broad daylight. This group is directly financed by the same Mexican drug cartel trafficking mainly marijuana but crack/cocaine as well.

 

What I can say is I don't give a sh*t about the people thinking drugs should be legal and all. I have my personal opinion about them and I'd rather not share it. Moralities aside, in the end people are dying and it's because of the drug trade.

 

I voted to agree with it even though I don't think that "all drugs are dangerous and should be outlawed". (There wasn't a middle-ground on this one? ) Albeit there are some drugs which I think whoever invented the drug should be shot. My argument is not about whether or not drugs are bad, its how the trade is affecting economy, politics and society.

 

...well I guess that's my rant for the night.

Edited July 28, 2011 by sirbenedictvs

[130671]

As long as no one in the primary consumer states actually expects this war to be finally won at some point in the foreseeable future, its probably ok to go on like this. Its a continuous effort that helps keep drug consumption down to a certain level, more or less.

Really hard to say if legalization and taxation (combined with social stigmatization - "...you're really taking this shit? well, leave me alone and do it somewhere else...and don't talk to me again...") would ultimately be more effective.

[Emmas Friend]

Drugs are big business, criminals involved in the drug trade can be very ruthless. The police should keep battling away, especially to get the really hard stuff off the streets. Not sure if legalising some drugs would work, [it might encourage some people to try it, who wouldn't normally touch the stuff]. Perhaps the police could/should take a more lenient approach to the use of soft drugs, and put more resources into catching the guys who deal the real hard drugs. To be honest I don't think there is an easy solution to this problem, perhaps society has to change before this problem can be sorted.

[Jade]

This post may not be appropriate but it says state.

 

I'm in the middle. REASON:

 

When I did drugs I found it amazing. It is better than alcohol, a great outlet and they are a great deal of fun. It lets you be someone else. I hate people who are very apposed to them like are strict like alcohol, who are those to say who haven't even given the LEGAL one's a chance. I must admit myself I have done both LEGAL and ILLEGAL. And I'm not ashamed to say I'm proud. I don't think I'd do them again but if I could I would. I thouroughly enjoyed them. I will not name the drugs I have done or smoked because that's just too much information. I've been clean for well over a year, but sometimes I do miss them. They've had a big impact on my life, both bad and good. Some problems I have now I think is due to some drug I had taken, but I would never take it back. Drugs let me learn to be free and to be myself. I weren't no drug addict I just did them at partys every now and then, but, yes I am not against them. Though, some Class A drugs I am against.

 

All drugs have different effects on people. Some can be good for you and then someone else can take the same drug and have bad reaction such as depression, vomiting, sadness, slowness etc. I myself have only had one bad experience with a drug and it my friend was getting everything I had about 10 minutes after. He took them 10 minutes after me.

 

Overall I'm in the middle. I wouldn't say no. But that's me and my opinion. I'm a daring sort of person.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Hermione

[ShipOfFools]

I feel that some drugs should be legalized, and some should not be.

 

Weed, on one hand, should be. Crack and heroin, on the other hand, should not be.

 

But I find it ridiculous that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but weed isn't. I don't do drugs, but I've always found that ridiculous. Cigarettes kill more people than weed does!

[Jade]

I think that one day Weed will be legal some day. Like the weaker version of weed slang term "cheese" will be legal.

[Sgt Harbinger]

I think that drugs should be illegal, unless prescribed by a doctor. Of course, the Marine Corps has a more strict policy on drugs; even if I was prescribed an illegal drug, if I was to take it, I would be administratively separated from the military, and my career would be down the drain, but that's beside the point. The point is that the people that abuse the drugs are killing themselves, and that needs to stop. People take them, then they get addicted and the next thing they know, they are on their deathbed. That's why they're illegal in the first place and it should stay that way.

[Monkey Cartwheels]

Im am strongly against them (Sorry Jade).

Im not a big fan of things that alter your mind and body, I always like to know that I am fully in control of myself.

Thats why Im also against alcohol.

[azlan]

I think that some drugs should be decriminalized, however, others definitely should not be.

 

Milder things like Marijuana (weed) and 'Magic Mushrooms' should be able to be sold over the counter like tobacco (although I do not agree that they should be stocked on shelves where younger people can access them, and they should be subject to the same 18+ age restriction that cigarettes and alcohol are. There's a few reasons for this

 

• In the eyes of the law, once a person reaches the age of 18, they are considered an adult, and able to make there own choices and decisions, so they should be able to choose to use or not use a drug
  
• It cuts out the criminal element from use, so weakens organised crime's grip on the trade, and stops people being pushed onto harder substances by dealers
  
• If regulated and taxed, the extra income would more than make up for any increase in NHS costs etc..
  
• Removing dealers from the equation would help lower the amount of drug related theft, as prices are fixed and not liable to spiral
  

 

Harder substances (that is, anything that is chemically addictive, rather than habitually addictive) like crack cocaine, heroin and crystal meth should definitely remain illegal, although, I personally believe that users should be given treatment rather than punishment, and that dealers, suppliers, mules etc.. should face much tougher sentences (10 year minimum I think would be a good place to start)

[Bagel of Death]

Interesting perspectives from all of you.

 

I would like to quote Dr. Ron Paul: "All these wars are just to scare the people into giving up their liberties and their money to the government."

 

The 'War on Drugs' was started by President Nixon. Drugs were illegal long before then, of course, but it was Nixon who first used the term 'War on Drugs', and who greatly increased the money to fund anti-drug enforcement.

 

It seemed to me at the time that the real purpose of the War on Drugs had nothing to do with drugs. It was just a way to give police and prosecutors more power. Nixon campaigned as a Law and Order candidate. The War on Drugs gave police the power, for the first time in US history, to break down doors. To stop people at random on the street and question them with no 'probable cause'. To confiscate money or property without due process. The War on Drugs also meant mandatory sentencing, taking power away from defense attorneys and judges and giving it to prosecutors. Since then, our constitutional protections have been continually eroded, but the drug problem in the US has continued to grow.

 

The War on Terror can be seen as no more than a follow-up to the War on Drugs, with the Patriot Act giving the government power to ignore Habeas Corpus, to torture prisoners, to 'render' them to overseas prisons, etc. etc. The whole thrust of this is to give government more power to get around the Bill of Rights.

 

I don't believe in simply legalizing all drugs. Narcotics and other dangerous drugs should be controlled. However, from the Progressive Era, when the government began getting involved in this, we went too far. Even alcohol was banned eventually (for a while.) Nothing in the War on Drugs does much to actually alleviate drug problems, only to use them as a pretext for oppression, for government control.

 

Certainly marijuana could be legalized, and I think we'd all be better off. Hard drugs are still a terrible problem. However, we should see addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one. People who are addicted to drugs are not necessarily criminals. Some become criminals in order to support their habit, but the only crime most addicts and users ever commit is just buying and using. The jails are full of these people and while incarcerated they learn to hate the unfair system that put them there as well as how to become real criminals. A good percentage of street crime in the US is tied to illegal trade in narcotics, and we could do a lot to eliminate much of that.

 

The cost in human suffering as a direct result of this travesty is enormous. The cost in dollars is enormous. I don’t advocate drug use; however, I am against people being deprived of their freedom to do as they wish in this matter. People addicted to drugs are sick in the same way as a person addicted to alcohol. Prison is not an effective treatment plan. Also, many people who use drugs such as marijuana are not addicts and they have no problems. They are productive and function just as well and often better than people who don’t use. Punishing people such as these is just wrong and un-American.

 

The problem is that no politician wants to be the first to suggest legalization. Nobody wants to be blamed for being 'soft on drugs', instead they all want to outdo each other on being 'tough on drugs'. Several states now (12 or 14, I forget) have legalized medical marijuana, all by ballot initiatives. Progressive changes like this always come up from the people, not down from government. =/

[Emmas Friend]

Illegal drugs will always be around, its just a case of how best to deal with them.

 

Kids should be educated about the use of drugs, and what damage they can cause.

 

Legalising weed might be a way forward, but it would have to be tightly regulated.

 

The big dealers must be taken out of the equation, I'm talking about the people who ship tons of the stuff, from country to country.

 

Find out why people take drugs, and act upon it.

[The Midnight Q]

The big dealers must be taken out of the equation, I'm talking about the people who ship tons of the stuff, from country to country.

 

Whenever I think of the "War on Drugs", I literally think of the actual shooting war. The debate as to whether drugs and all that crap should be legalized is a whole other argument imo. The fight against drugs in the streets of the 1st world is a totally different theatre compared to the fight against drugs in the jungles of the 3rd world. Quite particularly Latin America, the drug war is a big issue. Paramilitary police and government military actually go toe to toe with assault rifles and helicopters against the drug cartels who are equally as armed.

 

One big story about this war was Killing Pablo (a book by Mark Bowden), it was basically about the Colombian and American governments' war against the drug lord Pablo Escobar and the systematic takedown of his Medellin Cartel. Colombia's equivalent of the DEA as well as a specialized team tasked particularly to take down Escobar; another element involved was US Special Forces group "Delta Force". This was serious business. Groups of US Special Forces are constantly being deployed to South America to aid in the War on Drugs.

[halleluJah]

all the "drugs" like marijuana, salvia, mescalin, magic mushrooms, etc etc should be legalised, they're like, way less harmful than pharmaceuticals even. actually, they're not harmful in any way. but the other processed hardcore addictive chemicals like cocaine, ecstasy, etc shouldn't be.

[Sgt Harbinger]

Whenever I think of the "War on Drugs", I literally think of the actual shooting war.

 

Yes, so do I. However, think of the "Cold War." If my mind serves me correctly, the Cold War is a popular historical event, but there was no shooting in it. It was just simply a prolonged debate, just like this is...so think of this as "The Cold War on Drugs" lol.

 

Anyway, I still stand my ground on no drugs being legalized.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Turbo

[The Midnight Q]

Yes, so do I. However, think of the "Cold War." If my mind serves me correctly, the Cold War is a popular historical event, but there was no shooting in it. It was just simply a prolonged debate, just like this is...so think of this as "The Cold War on Drugs" lol.

 

Anyway, I still stand my ground on no drugs being legalized.

 

As it may seem like a 'metaphorical' war, I do still believe that the Cold War was an actual war. Hideo Kojima's Solid Snake actually put it this way- "It's no longer about nations, ideology or ethnicity. It's an endless series of proxy battles fought by mercenaries and machines." The Korean War, Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs incident, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, even the Eastern Bloc's invasion of former Czechoslovakia were strategic 'battles' between the USSR and NATO during the Cold War. Formalities aside, these conflicts were proxy wars fought between the USSR and NATO. Neither the US or Russia wanted to get their hands dirty between each other. "...all in the name of averting catastrophe from weapons of mass destruction..."

 

To put it in terms of this topic this so called "War on Drugs" , whether the battlefield is in the Congress committees, in the streets civilization, the hills of Afghanistan or the jungles of South America, battles are fought either with words or with rifles. In the end, military forces are involved and committed to combat operations, making this into war imo.

[halleluJah]

BS, there is no war on drugs, only greedy and corrupted people making money.

[Emmas Friend]

As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will always be someone ready to supply them.

Perhaps if they legalised some of the so called softer drugs, it might put some dealers out of action. I read an article in the paper the other day, it said that Heroin use had gone down quite dramatically in the UK. This is good news, it shows that some progress is being made. The battle against drug dealing/addiction will not be won overnight. It will take many years of hard Police work, and Education of people, especially young kids, not to take drugs. Imo there will always be some sort of drugs problem, the trick is to get it to as little as possible.

[Revan]

The War on Drugs has been called the War on Families, and it's certainly true. Every year, thousands of people are taken away from their families due to a simple personal choice, and are incarcerated for drug-related crimes, many of them small time. The use of drugs is a victimless crime, and there is a very large amount of hypocrisy involved with the War. Legally, I can take antidepressants that will INCREASE MY RISK FOR SUICIDE, and these are perfectly, utterly legal. Yet, if I attempt to self-medicate using a certain illegal herb (which, by the way, has absolutely no negative side affects or physical addictive potential) as a treatment for depression, I am called a menace to society.

 

If One actually cares about preventing and stopping crime, the illegalization of drugs is the exact opposite of what is effective. The legalization of drugs would deal a huge blow to violent crime, as gangs and cartels will no longer hold monopolies on the drug trade, thus undercutting their operations right at the source.

 

Further, educating kids about drugs does not mean lying to them about their effects. Being honest with kids about exactly what a drug does to you will allow Them to make decisions based on Truth, rather than indoctrination. For too long, drugs such as marijuana and heroin have been grouped in the same category in the mind of anti-drug pariahs who preach to kids via the D.A.R.E program here in the United States, and similar programs world wide. Let's be honest, and tell them that while heroin will turn anyOne into a shriveling shell of a man by nearly all accounts, the worst thing One can get from using marijuana is the munchies and a quick heartbeat.

 

~Revan

[Majestic122]

I live in the Netherlands, which is historically and presently, a liberal country. Abortion is legal, euthanasia is legal, same-sex marriage is legal and selling soft drugs is legalized here, too. That said. I see it as a smart move. Regulations cause the quality of the product to rise through inspections, money can be made off taxes and it denies organized crime part of their income. If you force these activities underground, you may encounter problems such as dealers selling poor quality goods or forcing even small-time drugs dealers to enter the world of organized crime.

[TK-976]

I think that some drugs should be decriminalized, however, others definitely should not be.

 

Milder things like Marijuana (weed) and 'Magic Mushrooms' should be able to be sold over the counter like tobacco (although I do not agree that they should be stocked on shelves where younger people can access them, and they should be subject to the same 18+ age restriction that cigarettes and alcohol are. There's a few reasons for this

 

• In the eyes of the law, once a person reaches the age of 18, they are considered an adult, and able to make there own choices and decisions, so they should be able to choose to use or not use a drug
  
• It cuts out the criminal element from use, so weakens organised crime's grip on the trade, and stops people being pushed onto harder substances by dealers
  
• If regulated and taxed, the extra income would more than make up for any increase in NHS costs etc..
  
• Removing dealers from the equation would help lower the amount of drug related theft, as prices are fixed and not liable to spiral
  

 

Harder substances (that is, anything that is chemically addictive, rather than habitually addictive) like crack cocaine, heroin and crystal meth should definitely remain illegal, although, I personally believe that users should be given treatment rather than punishment, and that dealers, suppliers, mules etc.. should face much tougher sentences (10 year minimum I think would be a good place to start)

You, sir, took the words right out of my mouth.

[Thessalie]

I said "Don't agree with it--it's a waste of money! Some and/or all drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed".

 

And to go further I totally agree with Majestic122 :

I live in the Netherlands, which is historically and presently, a liberal country. Abortion is legal, euthanasia is legal, same-sex marriage is legal and selling soft drugs is legalized here, too. That said. I see it as a smart move. Regulations cause the quality of the product to rise through inspections, money can be made off taxes and it denies organized crime part of their income. If you force these activities underground, you may encounter problems such as dealers selling poor quality goods or forcing even small-time drugs dealers to enter the world of organized crime.

That's what I always thought, thus i can't say much more about that topic.

The more you forbid, the more you'll be sure that it'll happen anyway !

 

And see above TH-976's reply, it's basicaly all that I have to say

[Data Vampire]

The War on Drugs is a joke. All that it is really accomplishing is driving up the prices of street drugs and making drug dealers and crime syndicates more and more ruthless. Others in this thread have stated that illicit drugs (not just narcotics but also stimulants, opiates, etc.) are a huge money maker for the demi-monde. Since the War on Drugs seems focused primarily on disrupting the supply, it can never be won, since the demand is still there. As long as there is a demand for a product or service, someone will be willing to supply it whether it is legal to do so or not.

 

A more effective (but excruciatingly expensive and difficult) approach would be to focus or reducing demand while simultaneously disrupting supply lines. This would make the costs of operating a drug distribution ring in a particular area (be it a city, state/province/county or even a whole country) far exceed any revenue generated by the drug trade in that area. Crime Syndicates are just as profit driven as legal businesses and corporate entities, they just make more money because their activities and products are not legal and thus not regulated by any governing body or consumer protection agency. By killing any chance of them making a profit in a particular area, one could effectively drive them away to greener pastures.

 

Like I mentioned before, however, to do so would be brain-shittingly expensive and the logistics alone are enough to induce an aneurysm. That being said I think this sort of approach, rigorously implemented, would be far more effective than "lol u hav a joint. FIFY BAZILLION YEARS IN PRISON ENJOY THE BUTTRAEP!"