http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/25/20080725mexico-drugwar0725-ON.html
Americas war on drug is spreading colateral damage around the world. This is all because of the strategy of interdiction.
I wish Columbia, Mexico and all the others paying for America�??s war on drugs would tell us to go pound sand. .
War on drugs = Epic fail
The best way to go now is the way of the Netherlands. Start making a distinction between hard and soft drugs and maybe you’ll get somewhere.
The problem is not making a distinction between hard and soft drugs.
The problem lies with prohibition and interdiction. The reason why is because Capitalist market economics apply. It is all about supply and demand. When you restrict the supply of any commodity without reducing the demand the price goes up. This is why interdiction is a self defeating strategy. The more they interdict the more money there is to be made.
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
ie In Afghanistan the Taliban funds it’s war against us by making money supplying drugs to dealers in the west. If we went to the model they use in the UK where heroin addicts can get supplied through the NHS it would deny the Taliban an important source of funding. It would free up law enforcement resources. It would deny gangs a source of income.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply. [/quote]
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point?
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver.
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”.
I am interested in the idea of rethinking how we attack the problem - but “demand reduction” may be tapped out as an option.
It’s simple really, you tell people they can’t do something, and there is more incentive to do it.
The people on the “War on Drugs” can’t really want illegal drug use to end - they’d lost their jobs.
War on drugs is retarded.
Alcohol is a drug too.
I don’t hear anyone complaining.
If they legalized marijuana or something then the government(s) would make a ton of money.
It’s win-win by legalizing it…pretty much.
Scientists are working on drug antibodies, so that drugs can be attacked the same way our immune system attacks bacteria and viruses…
Thats one way to decrease demand.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/invention/2008/03/anti-ecstasy-antibodies.html
[quote]Sifu wrote:
ie In Afghanistan the Taliban funds it’s war against us by making money supplying drugs to dealers in the west. If we went to the model they use in the UK where heroin addicts can get supplied through the NHS it would deny the Taliban an important source of funding. It would free up law enforcement resources. It would deny gangs a source of income.[/quote]
Haven’t you been paying attention? People here already bitch about the government providing things such basic things as food and housing.
Besides, there’s evidence that the CIA has been selling drugs for significant periods of time.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point? [/quote]
Treatment costs. We spend over a hundred billion dollars a year on the war on drugs. We have the money to put a nonviolent kid in jail for decades on a first offense. But there is a waiting list for them to get into treatment and then it usually is a 28 day quick fix followed up by NA meetings which are supported solely by donations of the members. [quote]
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. [/quote]
Many of those anti-drug messages are crudely crafted, by people who don’t understand addiction very well.
[quote]
And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver. [/quote]
Illegality really isn’t stopping anyone though. Illegality causes it’s own problems. The biggest problem with illegality is it’s based upon a poor understanding of addiction and the behaviour of addicts.
Addicts are people who have issues with self control. People who don’t have those same issues cannot truly understand what is going on in an addicts head.
One of the signs of an addict is they will horde in order to ensure they have a steady supply. A good example of this was in the movie Paint your wagon, where Lee Marvin was getting chased around his system of tunnels by a bull but here and there he would stop and pull a bottle of wiskey out of a hiding place.
What happens is when an addict has a big stash it is real tempting to get into it and they do. So they use heavily till they run out.
Illegality creates a paranoia where the addict thinks I’m going to run out, so I had better get an extra supply while I have a chance. ie On new years they close the party stores early so people who would normally buy a six pack of beer buy a case, or instead of a liter of wiskey they buy a gallon. Then once they have all this booze they binge out.
So instead of reducing useage illegality drives a cycle of horde then binge making useage worse. This is the problem with people who don’t understand the disease making policy. It is also the problem with the talking heads in the media who have a hissy fit anytime someone suggests changing the policy.
[quote]
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”. [/quote]
Illegality sends out the message, "we can protect you from addiction kids, Mommy and Daddy won’t always be there to protect you from yourself but the government will be"or “Mommy and Daddy you can’t always be there to protect baby from him or herself but the government can and will be, all you need to do is make a law and give billions of dollars to people who will make it happen”. The only real protection any of us have is our own decision making.
[quote]
I am interested in the idea of rethinking how we attack the problem - but “demand reduction” may be tapped out as an option.[/quote]
Addiction has been a part of the human condition ever since the first primate figured out something could get them high. It will never go away. Interdiction and incarceration is the most tapped out option.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
ie In Afghanistan the Taliban funds it’s war against us by making money supplying drugs to dealers in the west. If we went to the model they use in the UK where heroin addicts can get supplied through the NHS it would deny the Taliban an important source of funding. It would free up law enforcement resources. It would deny gangs a source of income.
Haven’t you been paying attention? People here already bitch about the government providing things such basic things as food and housing.
Besides, there’s evidence that the CIA has been selling drugs for significant periods of time.[/quote]
So true. Have you ever read Professor Alfred C. McCoy’s “The Politics Of Heroin”?
And what of the Iran-Contra Affair? In the foreign press they spoke about the drugs for gun trade that was going on the entire time of this sad episode. CIA and other agencies were supplying guns to the Contras AND Sandinistas in return for cocaine and marijuana. This was blacked out in the American press, surprise!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
ie In Afghanistan the Taliban funds it’s war against us by making money supplying drugs to dealers in the west. If we went to the model they use in the UK where heroin addicts can get supplied through the NHS it would deny the Taliban an important source of funding. It would free up law enforcement resources. It would deny gangs a source of income.
Haven’t you been paying attention? People here already bitch about the government providing things such basic things as food and housing.
Besides, there’s evidence that the CIA has been selling drugs for significant periods of time.
So true. Have you ever read Professor Alfred C. McCoy’s “The Politics Of Heroin”?
And what of the Iran-Contra Affair? In the foreign press they spoke about the drugs for gun trade that was going on the entire time of this sad episode. CIA and other agencies were supplying guns to the Contras AND Sandinistas in return for cocaine and marijuana. This was blacked out in the American press, surprise![/quote]
Is this what Rev. Wright was speaking of?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
ie In Afghanistan the Taliban funds it’s war against us by making money supplying drugs to dealers in the west. If we went to the model they use in the UK where heroin addicts can get supplied through the NHS it would deny the Taliban an important source of funding. It would free up law enforcement resources. It would deny gangs a source of income.
Haven’t you been paying attention? People here already bitch about the government providing things such basic things as food and housing.
Besides, there’s evidence that the CIA has been selling drugs for significant periods of time.
So true. Have you ever read Professor Alfred C. McCoy’s “The Politics Of Heroin”?
And what of the Iran-Contra Affair? In the foreign press they spoke about the drugs for gun trade that was going on the entire time of this sad episode. CIA and other agencies were supplying guns to the Contras AND Sandinistas in return for cocaine and marijuana. This was blacked out in the American press, surprise!
Is this what Rev. Wright was speaking of?
[/quote]
I think he was thinking about the FBI trying to bring the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement down by tying to get their leaders hooked on drugs.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point?
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver.
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”.
I am interested in the idea of rethinking how we attack the problem - but “demand reduction” may be tapped out as an option.[/quote]
We could always poison the drugs. That would likely reduce demand. Beyond that I think we are doing so much it is almost ridiculous.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point?
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver.
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”.
I am interested in the idea of rethinking how we attack the problem - but “demand reduction” may be tapped out as an option.
We could always poison the drugs. That would likely reduce demand. Beyond that I think we are doing so much it is almost ridiculous.[/quote]
That has been done before, and if you think about it something like meth may have no market if better Amphetamines were available
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point?
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver.
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”.
I am interested in the idea of rethinking how we attack the problem - but “demand reduction” may be tapped out as an option.
We could always poison the drugs. That would likely reduce demand. Beyond that I think we are doing so much it is almost ridiculous.[/quote]
If you would start with cocaine that would wipe out half of Washington. So yeah, let´s try that.
Osama bin Laden is rumored to have tried this, but the Columbians refused.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point?
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver.
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”.
[/quote]
Is there? The overzealous crusade against smoking would argue otherwise.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The only thing that will ever work is demand reduction through education and treatment. Where that doesn’t work what is then needed is a policy of harm reduction which means a legitimate channel of supply.
Setting aside the merits of how much this work or not, do we really have a shortage of “demand reduction” efforts in society at this point?
It’s my observation that we are indoctrinated with anti-drug messages from as early as grade school, and it is a steady stream all the way into adulthood. And the entire point of all of this is to provide disincentives to drug use, in which case, illegality is one arrow in that quiver.
I am not here to say demand reduction is a bad idea - I am just not sure we don’t already do that about as much as we can.
And there is a “mixed message” problem of saying “while this isn’t illegal, you really, really shouldn’t do it”.
Is there? The overzealous crusade against smoking would argue otherwise.[/quote]
Seems like a mixed message to me when the government is enriching themselves based on this “evil” activity.
Taxing “taboo” goods just gives government an incentive to create more demand for said goods. For example, government uses the tax dollars from tobacco to fund anti-smoking campaigns which amounts to free televised commercials for Big Tobacco.
I wonder how many people sitting at home have said to them selves after watching such ads, “Wow, I better quit,” and not, “hey, I need to run to the AM/PM to get some smokes.”