The solution to the U.S. war on drugs

[beerslurpy]

That's really the major problem. There are hundreds of thousands of DEA agents, cops, prosecutors, prison guards, etc, who have worked in these jobs for their whole careers and really AREN'T qualified to do anything else. It's really hard to give pink slips to a bunch of powerful and heavily armed people who are sort of above the law. But that's exactly what we need to do. Sorry to any DEA agents reading this, you're risking your life doing a job that no one needs you to do, and that does more harm than good.

The classic roman problem of how to get rid of the praetorian guard. If you dont pay them, they assassinate you. If you keep paying them, you get steadily worsening codependency, ultimately ending in the bankruptcy of the empire.

The change isnt going to come from above because powerful men inherently enjoy the service of many henchmen. The change will come either because society collapses under the weight of the police apparatus or because some unforeseen convergence of events causes people to take notice of the direction things are going and try to fix it en masse.

I predict that this problem will be left until it is way too late to fix. The corrective action for this is going to be very painful. Either America will descend into the long darkness of tyranny or there will be a genuine civil war resulting in a complete reworking of our government.

 

[Firethorn]

There's plenty of places we can use the DEA agents, with moderate retraining. Iraq and Afghanistan still needs people, after all. Heck, transfer them to Border Patrol agencies.

You can also do the gradual legalization thing, and simple commence a drawdown, attrition through retirement.

My idea is the same as stevelyn.
Legalize it: Kills the black market. Bootleggers aren't considered a major problem anymore.
Regulate it: FDA style regs here, not BATFE. Ensure the stuff is sanitary, cut with safe materials, of a constant purity, free from hazardous contamination. Same as alchohol, better than tobacco.
Tax it: You tread a fine line here. I'd use the money to provide for treatment centers when somebody wants to dry up. Treat it as an insurance program bought with each dose. Oh, and provide funds for a reduced DEA to go after anybody giving them to kids.

The commercial cost of a dose of Heroin, without black market distortions, comes out comparable with a dose of aspirin.

The problems come in when unscrupulous types pushing hard drugs (like heroin or crack) start ruining the lives of others.

I envision that it'd be like alchohol/tobacco today. Advertising not allowed, but available at most drug stores. You wouldn't get the 'Pusher' type because he doesn't have what's effectivly a monopoly on distribution. When the addict can get it straight from the drug store, cheaper and safer, and the pusher is still prosecutable, he has no profit, thus no business, no motive. He'll just have to get a job selling used cars or something.

As for the drug users, many manage to have habits for years while maintaining a paying job. Legalize it, drop the expense, reduce contamination problems and dosage problems, and many more will be able to maintain productive lives while using. Just like smokers and drinkers.

I'm reminded of the Ringworld series. They invent the ultimate drug. A simple brain operation(cheap in the setting), then simple voltage puts the user in a state of ultimate bliss. They tended to die of neglect within a year, without reproducing or causing trouble(they were happy as long as they could get electricity, which was cheap). This was a major problem for society, but within a few years those disposed to be addicts starting running out. Within 20 years it wasn't more than an occasional problem anymore, as the genetics that disposed one to addiction were eliminated.

 

[longeyes]

Legalize.

It's always good to understand your addictions. America needs to know what it's hooked on--and how badly--before it can become responsible. (Our real heroin is debt.)

We need to prevent America from turning into an economic satellite of the Third World, from turning into a narco-economy.

What happens in the Third World will also be instructive.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

The classic roman problem of how to get rid of the praetorian guard. If you dont pay them, they assassinate you. If you keep paying them, you get steadily worsening codependency, ultimately ending in the bankruptcy of the empire.

The change isnt going to come from above because powerful men inherently enjoy the service of many henchmen. The change will come either because society collapses under the weight of the police apparatus or because some unforeseen convergence of events causes people to take notice of the direction things are going and try to fix it en masse.

I predict that this problem will be left until it is way too late to fix. The corrective action for this is going to be very painful. Either America will descend into the long darkness of tyranny or there will be a genuine civil war resulting in a complete reworking of our government.

Yeah basically. The rulers of our country may like the power that comes from having a DEA etc running around, but a) the powers that run this country also like a strong economy, and employing 1% of our population to keep another 1% of the population in prison is an enormous, outrageous drain on the economy and b) these guys are a threat to stable government, and therefore a threat to business and c) these people are a direct threat to the rulers' own families and lives. It is exactly the problem of the Praetorian Guard, who did play a significant role in the downfall of Rome.

I agree with you. This problem won't be corrected until we (like an addict!) hit rock bottom, and that will be muy ugly. My main concern is how that will effect me; what happens is not my choosing and not under my control.

Really, think about it from the perspective of a career DEA agent. Let's imagine Bob has been working for the DEA for the past 20 years, since he was 27 years old. Suddenly drugs are legalized, or regulated or whatever, and the DEA hands him a pink slip. What happens to Bob? It's a highly competitive job market these days. What are Bob's qualifications? He has a college degree from a second-rate college in a subject like "criminal law" or whatever. He has twenty years of experience in busting down doors, collecting evidence, and being a bad-ass. That qualifies him for what, exactly, in the non-law-enforcement world? Nothing. Maybe he could get a job as an $15/hr security guard, but even those are competitive and would be even more competitive if there are a lot of unemployed DEA agents and cops all over the place. Maybe he could get a teaching certificate and be a highschool teacher? All the people who got real jobs after college now have business connections, business experience, and mangement positions. Bob has... well, he's good with guns and breaking down doors and interrogating people!

Oh and on top of that Bob has lost all his special privileges: no more Class III weapons, no more special CCW permit, no more immunity from speeding tickets, no more general fear/respect/deference from the general public who are now his equals.

And there are hundreds of thousands of Bob who would be in that position if drugs were legalized!

Some people think that the War on Drugs was started as a make-work program for cops after Prohibition ended. It makes sense. The whole thing is a make-work program, and a way to keep colored people in their place (prison or on parole).

 

[crazed_ss]

While doing research for a one of my classes i came across some interesting data concerning Drug trafficking into the state of Minnesota.

Since i live in the state of MN this naturally piqued my interest.

DEA Web site http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/minnesota.html

So the conclusion i came to was that if we control the Mexican border we control drug imports into the U.S.

Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

San Diego/Tijuana is the world's busiest port of entry. Come down here and witness the sheer amount of cars and people who cross daily. Much of the drugs are simply driven or walked across. Homeland Security does what they can, but they cant do a detailed inspection on every one of the thousands of cars and people that cross everyday. The traffickers lose some product, but more than enough gets through for them to make a profit. It's detailed nicely in the movie "Traffic"

Kill American demand for drugs and you will win the war on drugs.

"Legalize it" is a ridiculous solution IMO. Who wants to fly on an airplane that's been worked on by a recreational crack user. Who here would trust a cop who is a heroine user on his free time?

 

[beerslurpy]

Actually in previous centuries there were many great men who were casual and frequent users of opium, snuff, coke, weed and later morphia and heroin and it never harmed them one bit. Some people cant handle drugs and will get addicted to them but most people are prefectly fine with recreational use of drugs- look at alcohol for a perfect model of this. Some people like myself drink regularly and never get addicted to booze. Some people cant come within 20 feet of it without becoming binge-drinking uncontrollable alcoholics.

Do you think people would be allowed to consume legal cocaine in a cockpit anymore than they are currently allowed to consume legal booze?

 

[crazed_ss]

Hey wassup man

There's a big difference between alcohol and hard drugs like crack, meth and heroine. It's much more easy to get addicted to them. I've heard of people becoming crack addicts after a couple of uses. No one because an alcoholic after a few drinks. It takes some drinking effort to become an alcoholic

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Legalize pot, decriminilize everything else, go after the dealers, treat the addicts. Simple, too simple for the gub-ment

 

[Sindawe]

Kill American demand for drugs and you will win the war on drugs.

And pray tell, how do we as a nation go about killing the American demand for drugs?

Further, by what right does ANYBODY have telling another adult what they can and can not do/eat/smoke/drink with their own body, so long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others?

I've heard of people becoming crack addicts after a couple of uses.

I've heard of people getting completely wasted from smoking toasted banana peels.

Based on comparisons of those who've quite a substance after becoming addicted to it, the most difficult drug to kick is sold openly in nearly every grocery store, gas station and Wally World in the country.

Its called tobacco.

 

[crazed_ss]

I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use narcotics like cocaine and meth.

 

[walking arsenal]

Wow, didn't expect this thread to take off like this.



Business, borders and what goes through, over, under and around them can be controlled. Notice i said controlled and not stopped. What a lot of people have focused on in this thread is the substance. The problem isn't the substance but it's delivery system namely the people which the DEA says is the mexican runners along with other minorities.

It's like the analogy we use "Guns arent evil people are evil".

My point in this thread was that controlling our borders would solve a lot of our gang problems which is a major source of crime, drugs are also a source of crime but the gangs deliver them here.

They fight over turf to sell them, murders.

They need the money for them, robberies.

See my point?

My conclusion was control the border, control crime by slowing the people that cause the crime.

 

[crazed_ss]

The problem isn't the substance but it's delivery system namely the people which the DEA says is the mexican runners along with other minorities.

At the retail level, independent African American traffickers, African American street gangs, Native American gangs, and independent caucasian groups purchase cocaine, black-tar heroin, and marijuana from Mexican traffickers

I think you let a certain group off the hook when you were blaming everyone.

 

[walking arsenal]

I consider the white male a minority.

 

[Sindawe]

My conclusion was control the border...

Ah, therein lies the rub. How DO we control the border, and traffic across same?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of electrified fences, fields sown with toe-poppers & bouncing bettys, backed up by roaming prides of African Lions & Military target ranges.

I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use narcotics like cocaine and meth.

Cocaine and Methamphetamine are stimulants, not narcotics.

 

[longeyes]

Kill American demand for drugs and you will win the war on drugs.

There's a difference between desperate escapism and a desire for ecstasy. You can be a libertarian and still understand the need for the latter, which is profoundly spiritual rightly comprehended. In fact, tapping into the infinite, by the means of your choice, is quintessentially American.

The Government wants to tell you how to get high and control the means. That's not their prerogative.

 

[crazed_ss]

Umm Ok.

A minority in what respect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
According to the 2005 CIA World Fact (an official statistics agency), America is:

White
81.7% or 216 million, (Including Hispanics and those of Middle Eastern and North African descent)
69% (Excluding Hispanics but including Middle Easterners, North Africans, and others who checked "Some other race" in the Census)
Hispanics 14.1% or 41.3 million
Black or African American 12.9% or 36.4 million,
Asian 4.2% or 11.9 million,
American Indian 1.5% or 4.1 million,
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or more races 2.4%


If you mean white males are a minority of people involved in drugs.. then you might have an argument.

 

[CleverNickname]

"Legalize it" is a ridiculous solution IMO. Who wants to fly on an airplane that's been worked on by a recreational crack user. Who here would trust a cop who is a heroine user on his free time?

I'm not necessarily advocating legalization, but there's nothing stopping an employer from making "no drug use" a condition for employment. And if you say "they'd do drugs anyway", what's to stop them from doing drugs now?

 

[GunnySkox]

I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use narcotics like cocaine and meth.

I'm sorry, but I don't put much faith in the responsibility of people who carry guns around.

~GnSx
Oh, wait.

 

[crazed_ss]

Ah, therein lies the rub. How DO we control the border, and traffic across same?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of electrified fences, fields sown with toe-poppers & bouncing bettys, backed up by roaming prides of African Lions & Military target ranges. Cocaine and Methamphetamine are stimulants, not narcotics.

Ok.. let me rephrase.. I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use drugs like cocaine and meth.

In a perfect world, everyone would be 100% reponsible, but in real life if you let crack users be cops, fix planes, work at nuclear facilities, buy weapons, etc you will have problems. Drugs like crack and herione end up controlling and destroying people's lives.

I grew up in east Oakland, CA I see first hand what drugs can do to people.. It's not pretty. For everyone 1 person who didnt get addicted there's probably 1000 more who are addicted and swore they'd be able to manage their drug use.. now they're out selling their bodies for money or robbing people like you and me to get more cash to support their habbit. If drugs were readily available at the local drugstore that doesnt mean people wont be going to any lengths to get them after they become addicted and have used up their savings and maxed their credit cards.

 

[crazed_ss]

I'm sorry, but I don't put much faith in the responsibility of people who carry guns around.

~GnSx
Oh, wait.

What have legal gun owners done that make you feel this way?

I have a very good reason for not trusting in the responsibility of crackheads and tweakers.

 

[crazed_ss]

I'm not necessarily advocating legalization, but there's nothing stopping an employer from making "no drug use" a condition for employment. And if you say "they'd do drugs anyway", what's to stop them from doing drugs now?

I dont know how things work in TX, but ,many jobs here do not tolerate drug use. I'm a contractor who works on a federal government project. If I were to pop positive on a urinalysis, I'd be instantly fired. That simple.

When I was in the Marines, drug use was absolutely not tolerated. You could expect a bad conduct discharge for using drugs. Loss of VA benefits and everything.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

One thing that people tend to overlook: It's pretty much an historical fact that a certain percentage of any population likes to alter their state of consciousness with some substance. That percentage doesn't change much for politcal/legal reasons. Generally substance abuse is also somewhat higher where it's prohibited.

Of course the next thing you get with prohibition is a black market. Historically, governments never can control black markets, but they keep trying.

 

[GunnySkox]

What have legal gun owners done that make you feel this way?

What'd Sigmund Freud do to make you feel this way about people who snort the coke?

What'd Xyz(can't remember which) Earp's wife ever do to make you feel this way about people who do laudanum (opium)?

Legal gun owners != legal recreational drug users, because there aren't any of the latter, because society refuses to allow them to exist.

I have a very good reason for not trusting in the responsibility of crackheads and tweakers.

For all the reasons you could give me that you refuse to allow me to seek chemical euphoria (you MIGHT get addicted, you MIGHT start robbing people, you MIGHT get the diseases off the needle, you MIGHT x-y-z...) I could give you an equally piss-poor reason why you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun (you MIGHT shoot someone because they said your shoelace is untied, your gun MIGHT go off, you MIGHT flip out one day and start plugging people in the mall).

Punishing people for hypothetical crimes is wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong with stuffing your body with screwy chemicals.

~GnSx

 

[miconoakisland]

Solution

Like many others, I suggest legalizing drugs.
Relocate all the DEA agents to Border Patrol and Immigration.

Crime will go down and our jails and court system will be streamlined.
The money saved could go into rehab and education.

As for junkies working on planes and in nuclear power plants, etc., most companies drug test, so this is a non-issue!

Criminalize the acts commited while on drugs, just like criminalizing the acts commited by drunks.

"The streets will run wild with drug-crazed maniacs if drugs are legalized!"
(Sound familiar?)

"But if it keeping drugs illegal saves just one child...."

Hire the ex-DEA as bouncers at all the pot bars and opium dens that will open up as a result. Retrain them to go after pedophiles, theft ID, and internet predators.

The legal economic boom created by legalization (taxes, new businesses, less court and jail backlogs, etc) will free up much more resources and create many more jobs in a short amount of time.

To eliminate the demand for drugs in order to eliminate the supply is an unrealistic goal (while good intentioned) and will never happen.

Making laws to curb self-harming human nature (drugs, prostitution, etc) has been tried since the beginning of laws and has yet to ever work. Humans will always engage in efforts to degrade themselves no matter what laws are in place. The answer isn't more or harsher laws, it's education and rehabilitation.

Manufactured drugs would be able to be tagged so they would show up in drugs tests for, say up to 60 days, unlike many current illegal drugs (coke, LSD, mushrooms, etc.) and since dealing drugs on the street wouldn't be possible, the current pushers would be forced to either get help to quit or get a menial job where no drug testing is required.

Polititions aren't used to simple solutions that pay for themselves and make sense, they just think that charging their constituents more to throw money at unrealistic goals is what is gets them re-elected, and, unfortunately, history supports this way of thinking. "The people that elected me want me to eliminate the demand and be tough on users, so I will increase taxes to pay for more jails, LEO's, court officers/judges and questionable tactics to go after recreational users and street dealers in the hope to get to the bigger fish! If that doesn't work, I'll just increase taxes again and spend even more money! It doesn't matter if it works or not, look how much money I'm spending of yours to do what makes you feel good and righteous!"

The simplest solution is the most difficult to get through a thick head.

 

[crazed_ss]

I know this kind of opinion isnt popular here, BUT..
ensuring our society doesnt go to crap because of drug addicts is more important than your need to get high.. regardless of how responsible you feel you are. If that means outlawing cocaine and crystal meth, then so be it.

I feel that i can safely drive my Camaro at 100mph on the highway. Does that mean we shouldnt have a speed limit and simply expect everyone to be responsible drive to their abilities?