CDZ War on drugs cannot be won

[John Marston]

The reason any war on drugs cannot be won, unless you have a full blown totalitarian state, which executes all drug users, is the same reason we could not win the war on drinking booze. Humans, some of them, will get high, regardless of the laws. The same goes for prosititution which serves the male sex drive. If the physical demand is there, and it is, waging a war against common human behavior is done because some people refuse to accept reality, and instead try to make the world mold itself into their ideals. This is a very old thing, this stupidity. And a refusal to accept the reality of what a human being is.

You may as well make it a felony to lie, period, in any circumstance. You would have to lock up all of the population, as you caught them. For human beings lie, whether its white lies or black lies. That is a fact of existence, so is drug use, so is drinking, so is prostitution.

When you go and wage war against things humans have done since they dropped down from the trees (I do not mean homosexuals), it's a nefarious thing, for you ruin other human beings, just because you are not smart enough to live in reality. And never underestimate the power of human stupidity

 

[Disir]

Which is why it should be decriminalized for smaller amounts and nailed for larger amounts and crossing state lines.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The war on drugs was never undertaken to be won. Neither was the war on poverty or the war on terror. The course of human history has been especially clear about ideological wars of this variety - they can not, and never have been won. You can not beat ideas with bombs and guns, or incarceration and property confiscation.

These "wars" are designed by the State for a perpetual motion control mechanism over the population. When you have a population that is so indoctrinated into the thought process of the omnipotent State, you get these types of cultural results.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Of course it won't, because people don't want it too. You can't have a successful war against the majority of the population.

 

[jwoodie]

The war on drugs was never undertaken to be won. Neither was the war on poverty or the war on terror. The course of human history has been especially clear about ideological wars of this variety - they can not, and never have been won. You can not beat ideas with bombs and guns, or incarceration and property confiscation.

These "wars" are designed by the State for a perpetual motion control mechanism over the population. When you have a population that is so indoctrinated into the thought process of the omnipotent State, you get these types of cultural results.

The "war on drugs" can only be won through education, as it is regarding smoking. Unfortunately, the legalization of drugs has been a rallying point for left wing activists who see it as an effective way to influence public opinion into accepting self destructive behavior.

 

[Katzndogz]

There never was a war on drugs. Wars are not fought by accommodating the enemy. Once the "war" was fought by using taxpayer support for rehab, medical care, sentences of counseling, community service, halfway houses, considering addiction a disability and putting users on SSI, giving them section 8 housing, state paid medical care, it stopped being a war and became an accommodation. Wars are not fought by accommodating the other side.

Put drug use back to the point it was when all drugs were legal and very few people used them. The punishment is instant, draconian and permanent, administered by the public. No food, no shelter, die in the streets, threaten someone and the death penalty is administered on the spot. Let families do what they used to do, lock users up in attics and basements as unfit to live among people. Now you have a case for legalization.

 

[PratchettFan]

There never was a war on drugs. Wars are not fought by accommodating the enemy. Once the "war" was fought by using taxpayer support for rehab, medical care, sentences of counseling, community service, halfway houses, considering addiction a disability and putting users on SSI, giving them section 8 housing, state paid medical care, it stopped being a war and became an accommodation. Wars are not fought by accommodating the other side.

Put drug use back to the point it was when all drugs were legal and very few people used them. The punishment is instant, draconian and permanent, administered by the public. No food, no shelter, die in the streets, threaten someone and the death penalty is administered on the spot. Let families do what they used to do, lock users up in attics and basements as unfit to live among people. Now you have a case for legalization.

You are suggesting police officers execute people without charges or a trial?

 

[Katzndogz]

There never was a war on drugs. Wars are not fought by accommodating the enemy. Once the "war" was fought by using taxpayer support for rehab, medical care, sentences of counseling, community service, halfway houses, considering addiction a disability and putting users on SSI, giving them section 8 housing, state paid medical care, it stopped being a war and became an accommodation. Wars are not fought by accommodating the other side.

Put drug use back to the point it was when all drugs were legal and very few people used them. The punishment is instant, draconian and permanent, administered by the public. No food, no shelter, die in the streets, threaten someone and the death penalty is administered on the spot. Let families do what they used to do, lock users up in attics and basements as unfit to live among people. Now you have a case for legalization.

You are suggesting police officers execute people without charges or a trial?

Did you see me say something about police officers? I read it again, and still didn't see anything about police officers.

 

[Darlene]

When I saw this post, I just thought "duh." That's a no-brainer statement.

 

[Darlene]

I say legalize cannabis for medical use and recreational use, just regulate it like alcohol. All other drugs....I don't give a crap about. They kill. No deaths have ever been caused directly from cannabis use.

 

[PratchettFan]

There never was a war on drugs. Wars are not fought by accommodating the enemy. Once the "war" was fought by using taxpayer support for rehab, medical care, sentences of counseling, community service, halfway houses, considering addiction a disability and putting users on SSI, giving them section 8 housing, state paid medical care, it stopped being a war and became an accommodation. Wars are not fought by accommodating the other side.

Put drug use back to the point it was when all drugs were legal and very few people used them. The punishment is instant, draconian and permanent, administered by the public. No food, no shelter, die in the streets, threaten someone and the death penalty is administered on the spot. Let families do what they used to do, lock users up in attics and basements as unfit to live among people. Now you have a case for legalization.

You are suggesting police officers execute people without charges or a trial?

Did you see me say something about police officers? I read it again, and still didn't see anything about police officers.

Then who is it you want to do summary executions?

 

[Katzndogz]

There never was a war on drugs. Wars are not fought by accommodating the enemy. Once the "war" was fought by using taxpayer support for rehab, medical care, sentences of counseling, community service, halfway houses, considering addiction a disability and putting users on SSI, giving them section 8 housing, state paid medical care, it stopped being a war and became an accommodation. Wars are not fought by accommodating the other side.

Put drug use back to the point it was when all drugs were legal and very few people used them. The punishment is instant, draconian and permanent, administered by the public. No food, no shelter, die in the streets, threaten someone and the death penalty is administered on the spot. Let families do what they used to do, lock users up in attics and basements as unfit to live among people. Now you have a case for legalization.

You are suggesting police officers execute people without charges or a trial?

Did you see me say something about police officers? I read it again, and still didn't see anything about police officers.

Then who is it you want to do summary executions?

Anyone who feels under threat by a drugged out maniac. No charges. Do a tox screen on the dead guy, if he has drugs in his system, no charges.

 

[PratchettFan]

I say legalize cannabis for medical use and recreational use, just regulate it like alcohol. All other drugs....I don't give a crap about. They kill. No deaths have ever been caused directly from cannabis use.

What about the deaths caused by making it illegal? During prohibition there was all kinds of deaths associated with the illegal traffic in alcohol. Now, it is just another business. Quality is controlled, users have access to treatment and people injured by defective products have recourse to the courts. Making drugs illegal does not stop the trade, it does not make it any safer for society, but it does cost a huge amount and causes untold suffering. It is counter productive.

 

[martybegan]

As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.

The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.

 

[PratchettFan]

There never was a war on drugs. Wars are not fought by accommodating the enemy. Once the "war" was fought by using taxpayer support for rehab, medical care, sentences of counseling, community service, halfway houses, considering addiction a disability and putting users on SSI, giving them section 8 housing, state paid medical care, it stopped being a war and became an accommodation. Wars are not fought by accommodating the other side.

Put drug use back to the point it was when all drugs were legal and very few people used them. The punishment is instant, draconian and permanent, administered by the public. No food, no shelter, die in the streets, threaten someone and the death penalty is administered on the spot. Let families do what they used to do, lock users up in attics and basements as unfit to live among people. Now you have a case for legalization.

You are suggesting police officers execute people without charges or a trial?

Did you see me say something about police officers? I read it again, and still didn't see anything about police officers.

Then who is it you want to do summary executions?

Anyone who feels under threat by a drugged out maniac. No charges. Do a tox screen on the dead guy, if he has drugs in his system, no charges.

I see.

 

[PratchettFan]

As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.

The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.

The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?

 

[martybegan]

I say legalize cannabis for medical use and recreational use, just regulate it like alcohol. All other drugs....I don't give a crap about. They kill. No deaths have ever been caused directly from cannabis use.

What about the deaths caused by making it illegal? During prohibition there was all kinds of deaths associated with the illegal traffic in alcohol. Now, it is just another business. Quality is controlled, users have access to treatment and people injured by defective products have recourse to the courts. Making drugs illegal does not stop the trade, it does not make it any safer for society, but it does cost a huge amount and causes untold suffering. It is counter productive.

Agreed. the cost of enforcement is not taken into account with any arguments that favor continuing the status quo.

What would be needed is treatment facilities for those who get addicted.

I would favor something along a three strikes rule. First time we clean you up and let you go. 2nd time we clean you up, and you have to submit to monthly drug tests, because you have lost your privilidge to use said drugs. Fail a test or get addicted again? the 3rd strike is a "Hotel California" solution. We provide a facility where they can go nutty on their drug of choice, and while they can check out any time they like, they can never leave.

 

[martybegan]

As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.

The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.

The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?

I also think the 2nd system doesn't work, i was offering the binary solution.

If you execute everyone caught selling drugs, people would only risk selling for higher costs. at that point maybe you would see supply side enforcement affect demand.

 

[PratchettFan]

As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.

The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.

The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?

I also think the 2nd system doesn't work, i was offering the binary solution.

If you execute everyone caught selling drugs, people would only risk selling for higher costs. at that point maybe you would see supply side enforcement affect demand.

If people selling drugs were concerned about being killed, they wouldn't be dealing drugs. Not given the type of people they have to deal with in order to get product. All mandatory death sentences would do would be to make it clear there was no up side to allowing oneself to be arrested. So you don't diminish the problem, you just increase the death toll.

I get we are on the same page. You cannot prohibit people from getting intoxicated. You can only make it more dangerous for them and the rest of society. The real problem is that the war on drugs does create a lot of votes and huge grants to police departments. It's a multi-billion dollar industry on both side.

 

[martybegan]

As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.

The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.

The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?

I also think the 2nd system doesn't work, i was offering the binary solution.

If you execute everyone caught selling drugs, people would only risk selling for higher costs. at that point maybe you would see supply side enforcement affect demand.

If people selling drugs were concerned about being killed, they wouldn't be dealing drugs. Not given the type of people they have to deal with in order to get product. All mandatory death sentences would do would be to make it clear there was no up side to allowing oneself to be arrested. So you don't diminish the problem, you just increase the death toll.

I get we are on the same page. You cannot prohibit people from getting intoxicated. You can only make it more dangerous for them and the rest of society. The real problem is that the war on drugs does create a lot of votes and huge grants to police departments. It's a multi-billion dollar industry on both side.

Yes it is. Drug lords get rich, the low level drug sellers get rich, live fast, and die young, and police departments get more and more militarized by the year.

Right now if you sell drugs, yes there is a risk of death, but it is considered a fair risk for the rewards. If you (i know this is argumentum ad absurdum, but hear me out) make selling drugs a crime punishable by execution within, say 3 months of conviction, the current reward (price of drugs) would probably not be worth the risk to a large portion of the drug dealing population. Thus two things can happen, less people sell because there are less people willing to risk that level of death for current prices, or prices go up to entice more people to sell at the level of risk.