Should the authorities admit defeat in the war on drugs?

Post Reply New Topic

Lol, I've always believed that war is bad and ugly stuff as well as quite often a way to resettle economic numbers on paper but I hadn't quite drawn that connection of parents sacrificing their children on the battlefield to pay their tab. Much like we have 60 million plus babies now sacrificed on the altar of Aphrodite we also have millions sacrificed for all too similar reasons on the altar of Ares. Such is never really 'doing what one wants' in the sense people want to sport it but its really an abdication of personal power, ie. vice and myopia really don't qualify as freedom.

That also goes to underscore the positive the relationship is of self-discipline and responsibility to freedom and liberty. I wish things like that could be spoken of on the political platform and really pull at people's ontological heart-strings but sadly people have a way of saying that if something seems that high or abstract on first glance then it's not practical enough to warrant real consideration.

Neilsen wheels - I agree with your post and yes strange substances are being used by young people now compared to my day.

My point is that if drugs (whichever drugs we are talking about) were available over the counter most people would opt for getting them that way.

If businesses like the big pharmas and tobacco companies were free too innovate and produce new drugs that could trigger a huge industry. Then there would be coffee shops like starbucks selling joints and cakes along with their mind blowing expressos.

Weed in Amsterdam is sold in coffee shops and the natives there seem to be happy buying it. Plus there will be big farms to grow it and cultivate it so more jobs.

If high strength MDMA ecstasy came back I might start going out again

Politicians will not give up on prohibition easily. Prohibition provides an excuse for exercising increasing amounts of regulation and power over the public.

ruveyn

I agree. I don't think the UK will ever legalize drugs. Over here we are stuck in the "drugs are bad" mentality.

Techstep - Yes I agree, there just really is not a carrot to be offered by the politicians, "just get on with being nothing and don't cause any trouble either". The guys I see around here have already been beaten pretty hard with that hammer, although they would never recognise, or admit it.

Rob dM - I feel that a distinction needs to be made between natural substances and those that are processed. Cannabis products, mushrooms and opium I would put into a different category than heroin, cocaine and any of the synthetics.

If weed was legalised there could be no restrictions on grow your own. Just the same as you can brew your own beer if you choose to. The only limitations would be in selling some on and be covered by earnings to be declared for income tax. Unlikely, I know.

Personally I'm reluctant to give any more power or money to the pharma or tobacco companies. Obviously once processing is involved, especially for intro-venous use, and offered for sale by the government, substances would need to be produced to the same standard as any other approved drug. I can not say that this would not be an improvement over heroin and cocaine processing in illegal labs using dirty equipment, random quality control and lots of toxic chemicals.

Any new recreational drugs synthesised would need to go through the testing and approval process same as any other marketed drug. These costs are avoided by the "Not for human consumption" labeling of the current distributors who put a substance out on the general market just to see if it sells or not.

This does not remove the issues of sharing needles, damage to health - physical and mental, overdosing and the fact that an addict is rarely able to be employed or lead a generally constructive life. The drugs would also need to be supplied to addicts as the government can not benefit from the proceeds of crime or prostitution.

So the only way this would work, for most of those who have addiction issues, would be for them to be supplied with housing, welfare payments and top quality drugs. Where is the incentive to change for these people?

Most kids recognise hard drug users by the state they are in and, in some ways, this is a useful deterrent. How many more people would fall into the abyss if the gates are opened wide and addiction is seen as acceptable?

It would also need to be a global agreement, if the EU chose to legalise and the US continued on it's futile war then there would be no international trade, I can't see that agreement happening I'm afraid.

The last I heard of Amsterdam (2010?) there was a projected closure of a third of the coffee shops as organised crime had muscled their way in, and the legal prostitution too, and a massive amount of cash was not being recorded for tax purposes.

I like the idea too, I feel the reality is a speedball in hell.

Last edited by neilson_wheels on 09 Aug 2013, 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think they probably should admit defeat even though they probably wont admit defeat.

Cocaine grows on a plant (coca.) Amphetamines grow on plants (All the ephedra species, including some that grow native/wild here in the States.) You get the plants and basically decant them down. I'm surprised this isn't already widespread with amphetamine production, apparently most still import psuedoephedrine powder from China for this process. Pretty much all drugs, though, are plant derived from their source materials. For example, MDMA needs sassafras trees, most steroids use diogesin which is derived from Mexican wild yam, etc.

Even without you needing to grow them in the country, ordering said drugs is still easy. For example, anabolic steroids are illegal in USA. However, Chinese sellers openly advertise raw bulk steroid powders on sites like alibaba for foreigners to buy. North Korea's another country that sells drugs. To the actual producers of drugs, it really does cost nothing at all to make on a factory level. And the thing with the illegal drugs, they've all got no patents, so every generic pharm. company would want in on it.

So the drug cartel leaders in power now DO NOT want drug legalization, not at all. The money would go quickly away from them and to said pharmaceutical companies. These guys are smart. They probably have people lobbying to keep drugs illegal. Also, the bigger pharm companies would lose in this battle, again, to some random Chinese, Indian, or Eastern Euro company who can undercut their prices with cheaper labor.

Legalizing drugs simply is too big of an economic paradigm shift to allow happen. Lots of revenue would simply be lost.

So for now, we pretty much penalize the stupid by keeping drugs illegal. That's what it comes down to, social control. Lower class/not as smart people get categorized and penalized for a life decision that generally goes along with that type of lifestyle. Meanwhile, the rich if they need drugs, are smart. They call up their doctor and get opiate painkillers (lol like 15% of the US population is on opiate painkillers) instead of getting addicted to heroin like those dirty urban people. If they want an upper, they get Ritalin or amphetamines, again, by calling up their doctor.

I'm sorry I'm so pessimistic about this whole thing, but this type of question is like a 5 year old kid asking "Mommy, why can't people get along?"

I think the string of words "War on drugs" is an idiotic string of words. Unless we are talking about the repercussions of soldiers in battle fighting while under the influence of drugs, then fine.

If it is referring to the governmental effort to restrict or prohibit the sale and use of drugs, then it needs a better name, one that actually makes some vague kind of sense.

"Prohibition of drugs", now that is rather accurate.

That made me laugh.

I think the politicians use terms like "war" because it sounds severe. They think it leaves the impression that they are tough on the issue. But like most of their s**t it is just an empty phrase. I honestly don't think they have done anything different about the drug issue since the term "war on drugs" came into use. If anything drugs have become more widespread.

I want to see someone dressed up as a cocaine molecule accept the Instrument of Surrender from the US president on an aircraft carrier somewhere.

LOL. Or we could have a hybrid of Triffids and Pot plants invading the white house and the president being devoured.

The government of the United States isn't going to admit they were wrong and I don't blame them. The best we can hope for is that they'll slowly shift their attention and funding away from it to the point where the war on drugs is, in effect, over. I don't see that ever happening in my lifetime.

If I could make one backward time travel trip this is it: I would go back to the time of Carrie Nation, a she-devil 6 foot 2 inches and weighing 200 lbs. I would shoot her f*cking dead the minute she raised her hatchet to a keg of suds or a bottle of whiskey.

This snuffing alcohol prohibition in its cradle.

The only why to put an end to prohibition is to kill prohibitionists. No mercy, no pity, no arguments, just death.

Anyone who assumes the right to tell another autonomous human what he can or can't do and back it by force has forfeited his/'her right to live.

ruveyn