What Darwin Teaches About the Drug War
With every passing year the drug problem seems to get worse. The U.S. government responds by pumping billions more dollars into the war on drugs. Federal spending for this “war without end” is more than twenty times what it was in 1980 and still the drug traffickers appear to be winning. Despite more than six billion dollars spent on “Plan Colombia” alone, cocaine production has actually increased in that country. Now the Bush Administration is asking for $1.4 billion more to aid the Mexican government’s drug crackdown through the “Merida Initiative.”
Although it may seem counterintuitive, the “law and order” response by our politicians only intensifies the problem. Instead, they might turn to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to glean insight as to why these “common sense” reactionary solutions often are counterproductive.
As illegal drugs become easier to obtain and more potent, politicians respond in a knee-jerk manner by ramping up law enforcement. After all, drugs are bad so why not escalate the war against drugs? Politicians get to look tough in front of voters, the drug war bureaucracy is delighted with ever expanding budgets, and lots of low-level bad guys get locked up. Everyone wins - including, unfortunately, the major drug traffickers.
As politicians intensified the drug war decade after decade, an unintended consequence began to appear. These “get tough” policies have caused the drug economy to evolve under Darwinian principles (i.e., survival of the fittest). Indeed, the drug war has stimulated this economy to grow and innovate at a frightening pace.
By escalating the drug war, the kinds of people the police typically capture are the ones who are dumb enough to get caught. These criminal networks are occasionally taken down when people within the organization get careless. Thus, law enforcement tends to apprehend the most inept and least efficient traffickers. The common street expression puts it best: “the dealer who uses, loses.” Conversely, the kinds of people law enforcement tends to miss are the most cunning, innovative and efficient traffickers.
It’s as though we have had a decades-long unintended policy of artificial selection. Just as public health professionals warn against the overuse of antibiotics because it can lead to drug resistant strains of bacteria, our overuse of law enforcement has thinned out the trafficking herd so that the weak and inefficient traffickers get captured or killed and only the most proficient dealers survive and prosper. Indeed, U.S. drug war policies have selectively bred “super-traffickers.”
Politicians cannot hope to win a war on drugs when their policies ensure that only the most efficient trafficking networks survive. Not only do they survive, but they thrive because law enforcement has destroyed the competition for them by picking off the unfit traffickers and letting the most evolved ones take over the lucrative trafficking space. The destruction of the Medellin and Cali cartels, for instance, only created a vacuum for hundreds of smaller (and more efficient) operations. Now the police cannot even count the number of smaller cartels that have taken over - much less try to infiltrate and disrupt them.
Moreover, the police have constricted the supply of drugs on the street while the demand remains constant thus driving up prices and profits for the remaining dealers. Increasing drug interdiction creates an unintended price support for drug dealers which, in turn, lures more participants into the drug economy. Of all the laws that Congress can pass or repeal, the law of supply and demand is apparently not one of them.
A public health approach to dealing with illicit drugs should take precedence over “law and order” approaches. Treatment and prevention must take priority over interdiction and eradication because drugs are a demand-driven problem. Politicians, however, continue to devote most drug funding toward cutting the supply. The proposed aid package for the notoriously corrupt Mexican drug war establishment would be better spent on providing treatment for addicts in the United States. Over reliance on politically expedient “get tough” policies will only continue an endless spiral of drug trafficking evolution.
Sanho Tree is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC and directs its Drug Policy Project. The Institute for Policy Studies is the only multi-issue progressive think tank in Washington, D.C. Through books, articles, films, conferences, and activist education IPS offers resources for progressive social change locally, nationally, and globally. www.ips-dc.org.
It makes me sick that my list of reasons to vote for Ron Paul keeps getting longer. (He would end the federal war on drugs and leave it to the states) I don’t want to do it. But, I can’t help it.
peace
Just a small comment here: I’d like to remind people that “survival of the fittest” is somewhat of a misnomer. With respect to Mr. Darwin, it should be remembered that what was really meant by the gentleman’s essays and theories can be best expressed with the phrase “survival of the fit-in-est.” Fitness implies strength, but “strength” is not the salient factor. The ability to “fit-in” with the environment is the real key. There is a real difference here. It is not subtle in any way except linguistically.
The drug laws of the U.S. strengthen the “fitness” (in the true Darwinian sense) of the drug production infrastructure by creating an environment where such entities (numerous as they are) compete to become best suited to operate under the “environment” of the current form of drug interdiction activities. As such, they are driven to either become potent adversaries of the methods employed, or become extinct. Obviously, the drug production industries are winning, largely due to the un-addressed support of market demand.
Unless the priority and funding of enforcement agencies are equally matched by efforts to stem the demand for this trivially-designated subset of ludibund intoxicants, this ridiculous comedy of horrors and hubris will continue. It’s not a legal issue.
wisteria1: “I don’t want to do it. But, I can’t help it.”
THEN DON’T!!! http://www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/Kucinich_Drug_War.pdf
The writer seems to think that the war on drugs being prosecuted by our government is actually designed to reduce drug use. Like most of the other wars on something this country has fought, the war on drugs is the political and legal doublespeak for war on race. A look at the stats of the 2.1 million prisoners that are housed daily in our prisons and you will find many of the real casualties of the war on drugs.
America is a fraud.
Hoa binh
wisteria1: Maybe you just long for Huckabee or Mc Cain? Seriously, I don’t see why anyone would prefer Ron Paul over any other horrid Republican. Then, I look at the issues and vote for the interests of my species, which is human, not capitalist. The presence of Paulbots on here makes me seriously wonder about their sanity. Why would they entertain a comparison between an angry tinfoil hat populist like Ron Paul, and a real compassionate liberal like Kucinich? Why would they think progressives would not be able to tell the difference? I see nothing particularly different between Dr. Paul and his other paranoid, corporate ass-buddies. This includes many Democrats as well, which is probably what confuses black-and-white thinking (binary?) Paulbots, I am sure. If we hate, say, Hillary, we must love Ron Paul, they believe. Where is my holiday airsick bag collection……
Fact is that people used Darwin’s theories the same way others took to the Great Chain of Being belief.
If you want to believe you are better than others, you will concoct whatever facts are required to support that view, no matter how erroneous they are(best example: human supremacy myths).
Hoa binh-
I usually agree with you, as I do here. But I must add more about the racist and classist element to drug repression that has always been present. Anything that these people can use as a weapon to keep themselves wealthy and powerful, which involves keeping many others destitute and inert, they will employ. Information is one of their huge weapons. Keep the animals stupid and confused, fighting among themselves, encourage cannibalism in the form of crime and you have the perfect mix. Slaves who don’t complain!! What could be finer? Then using this mess an an excuse to grab more power, now this could be finer… Why would they ever want to fix drugs, war, crime, poverty, or for that matter anything at all? Without these they would not have power to control by fear and to continuously steal from the controlled masses.
cocaine and heroin is NOT produced within the borders of the united states of america, at least not to an extent where commericialization would be possible.
therefore, any cocaine or heroin found WITHIN the borders of the U.S. is completely the responsibility of the border patrol. they obviously aren’t doing their job. why punish a user? he didn’t bring the drugs in. he’s a victim of poor police work.
and this war on drugs is really a war on the poor.
ALL drug laws are racist, from the very first drug law against opium use (Chinese)
Henry Anslinger, the author of the original Federal drug statutes was also the first pusher, the only way he could get the law passed was to agree to supply the pols with their drug of choice ( source Consumer Union Licit and Illicit Drugs; read it for some REAL shocks )
anytime there is a problem the people in washingto like to call it a war. And then they proceed to lose it.
In the meantime they manage to spend a lot of money.
If you want to find out what is really going on,,you have to follow the money.
And the money really has nothing to do with the war on drugs.
Oh sure. You will see headlines now and then to keep the war on drugs hyped up,,and they may even show how they spent a few million dollars ,,out of billions,,,,but they will never let you follow the money,,,,,because then you would know the true story.
Does “war” on anything really work? Any kind of “force” usually arouses a counter-force in an opposing direction. And perhaps most importantly, war squelches out all compassion.
DARWINIAN DRUG WARRIORS ON WELFARE
It is indeed disturbing to hear the Director of National Drug Control Policy, John Walters, constantly harping on absurd talking points, for example, about how the cannabis of today is far more powerful than that smoked in the hippie generation of the sixties.
Really? Like comparing 12 ounces of beer to 12 ounces of vodka? Like the difference between regulating hard liquor sales more strictly than beer sales? Like the difference between a hedge fund manager sipping on a Martini versus Joe six-pack relaxing in his double wide?
Are people really that stupid, chugging all that vodka down like beer and smoking all that powerful dope like ordinary tobacco cigarettes? It must follow then, that it’s even more harmful to smoke moderate amounts of cannabis instead of using alcohol at all, right? Especially since more powerful cannabis means less lung damage and no hangover, right?
Like they say, what’s John Walters been smoking anyway?
Likewise, it must follow further that “studies” are necessary to determine whether cannabis is “medically useful”, because if it’s not, there’s no way it’s going to be served up in a hospice to a dying cancer patient, much less offered in a bar alongside alcohol.
After all, as a drug from which there’s never been a single death from overdose, cannabis must be criminalized while alcohol, a much more powerful killer, is perfectly legal.
The larger point is that alcohol is not prohibited and subject to massive amounts of drug war spending due to its abuse by alcoholics and in other situations - because a much larger number in society use and enjoy it responsibly in moderation.
Why do the signs on the backs of those large beer trucks only say “drink responsibly” and never “smoke responsibly”, for example the way legal gun owners are said to “shoot responsibly” and drivers are allowed to “drive responsibly”. Even for the “strong” versions of hard liquor, powerful guns and muscle cars, using them is legal while even the most weak form of cannabis, like hemp, is illegal.
Why does MSM invest millions in cops shows that use public resources to humiliate people caught with cannabis but never does stings on alcoholics in bars or a Hummer running down a Prius?
Why did Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year old victim of a mistaken drug bust in Georgia, die in her own pool of blood as the police planted bags of cannabis in her basement to cover up their mistake?
Darwinian indeed. It’s not just a failure of the drug war by virtue of catching the weaker as the stronger escape. The entire drug-war community has become infused with a crazed, drug-like, Blackwater superiority-complex mentality, feeding at the public trough on its increasingly false reason to exist.
But it’s not survival of the fittest. It’s survival of who gets the funding.
It’s fed in large part by public relations specialists who are experts in fear mongering, using polls and studies to feed drug-war welfare warriors the take away messages for public consumption. The same specialists then turn around and feed the same audience Big Pharma commercials to consume vast amounts of unnecessary legal drugs.
Compare, for example, how the messages received about the dangers of a drug like Vioxx that killed over 50,000 people, versus the constant drum beat about meth addiction that went on.
Like the druggies and alcoholics, there’s help for addicted drug-warriors on welfare as well. Put them in a rehabilitation program that educates them on the multiple ways to deal with drug problems, including deregulation and decriminalization. Put them on treatment for cold turkey withdrawal symptoms for cutting massive amounts of useless funding. For the ones with Rambo and protective fetish disorders like Bush, retrain them for jobs like prison guards.
Just say no to the drug war.
Cocaine and heroin are not the current targets of our domestic drug war. First, those two drugs are very powerful (read concentrated) which means that “big weight” can be moved easily. Consumers of cocaine and heroin also tend to be wealthier than consumers of marijuana, crack, and methamphetamine - making them unlikely targets of our drug war. What we call “The Drug War” is really “The Marijuana War”. It’s popular among all classes, but extremely easy for the poor and middle class to obtain. At least one third of every American will try it once in their lives. Smuggling worthwhile amounts of it is difficult because that’s literally several dozen pounds in cinder-block sized units - all of which reek to high heaven with that unmistakable smell. More marijuana is grown domestically than is imported from abroad - so much so that in 2006 it became America’s #1 cash crop. It’s by far the easiest drug to bust people with, and therefore the easiest drug for law enforcement to target. PEOPLE always get busted for pot, and COUNTRIES always get invaded for coke and heroin. Haliburton and the Carlyle Group, along with the CIA and FBI have all been implicated in major drug smuggling operations overseas, particularly in Afghanistan and Columbia.
Think the big picture… The fact of the matter is that marijuana makes up an enormous part of our domestic drug trade, I’d say easily 50% of the value of the entire drug market. Imagine if pot were legal while coke and heroin stayed illegal. Overnight, that’s 50% of the drug market GONE. If demand stayed the same, prices of the other drugs would skyrocket and no one could afford to buy them. If demand dropped, the prices would plummet and all those lucrative drug-producing countries would be worthless. The government’s biggest scam for locking up “undesirables” would shrivel up and die in a couple of years. This is why the domestic “Marijuana War” and the international “Drug War” will never end without a rational leader.
crack IS cocaine, just a different form of it. and heorin addiction doesn’t care if you are wealthy or not.
Been saying this for 20 years. No one in Washington is listening, darlin.’
Both sides in the “Drug War” are engaging in co-evolution. The police side does not want to completely destroy the drug supply side because it might result in a reduction or elimination of their budget (loss of jobs). The drug suppliers probably benefit from the phony scarcity created by occasional busts as it is easier to smuggle smaller amounts of pricier drugs. Both sides are gaming the system.
Another factor is that it is becoming more difficult to accept the status quo situation of fear and terror without the assistance of one’s drug of choice be it alcohol, cocaine, crack, pot etc..
arise257 wrote: “Haliburton and the Carlyle Group, along with the CIA and FBI have all been implicated in major drug smuggling operations overseas, particularly in Afghanistan and Columbia.”
Yes, they were all implicated in the Mena, Arkansas drug scandal, along with the Clintons and the Bushes. Note this years bumper crop of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Except for the fact that the CIA needs drug money to fund its really BLACK black ops, it would probably be cheaper to buy all the coca plants and poppy plants from the poor farmers who grow them, while likely paying the farmers MORE than the drug cartels.
I don’t like alcohol. I don’t like the way it makes me feel an hour after even two beers. I drink maybe a case of beer a year. On the other hand I have actually tried marijuana a few (thousand) times but I never inhale. I keep wondering what would happen if I did. Once you’ve seen the movie, Reefer Madness, you won’t inhale either. Pretty scary stuff that cannibis.
Our government and the related corporations gotta be making a LOT of money in Afganistan and Iraq doing the transport part of getting the drugs to market here in the US. Couple that with the amount of money in law enforcement and the for profit prison system and there it is. The drug laws are one of the keys to keeping our economy alive. Nah, couldn’t be.
Veteran ‘66-68
wisteria1: Don’t back off. No one wants to come to grips with the fact that Paul’s the only one coming to grips with real problems.
Progressives should understand that this candidacy is very focused on smashing the fed and the military-industrial complex, and preserving Habeas Corpus.
Beliefs have to be evaluated in terms of their effect or non-effect on public policy. Ron Paul is clear on his objectives and is not out to gut welfare, environmental law, etc. Opposed to gay marriage, he voted No on that constitutional amendment. It’s hard to adjust mentally to the fact of a principled politician who, according to Dennis Kucinich, is “a man of true integrity”
We can debate the pros and cons of libertarian philosophy during and after consensus goals are achieved. Our country is at stake.
For peace
Ending the WOD, as well as the WOT, is one other reason I would consider voting for Ron Paul.
One of the unmentioned side-effects of the WoD is that drug quality has improved immeasurably over the past 20 years. So not only is there more cheaper drugs out there, it is “better”.
Ergo sum, the WoD has made the problem worse.
But hey, a lot more people (on both sides) are getting richer as a result, eh?
Foreverhippie:
How nice to see someone who knows and understands the history behind the drug war. Harry Anslinger was the king of kings as far as propaganda is and was concerned. He got his policies accepted by the general public through lies, peudosscience, and a massive disinformation campaign. Yes, the drug laws have been rascist since their origin…the Chinese and opium, cocaine and blacks, and marijuana and the hispanic population. As I recall, when opium was outlawed for the Chinese, the remained of the population remained free to use any number of patent medicines on the market at the time which contained opium, morphine, or heroin.
One more detail about the drug war…unlike alcohol prohibition which was constitutionally instituted (and repealed), the drug war was initiated through unconstitutional methods. Further, the drug war has led to additional violations of the Constitution by allowing such practices such as asset forfiture (depriving a person of property without due process which violates the 4th article of the Bill of Rights) and illegal search and seizure. In my opinion at least, the war on drugs instituted the first major violation of the Constitution. Once the Constitution had been compromised one time, the door was opened for further violations and has now reached the point of illegal wiretapping being acceptable, torture being acceptable, pre-emptive war acceptable, the list is as endless as following and protecting the the Constituion is now acceptable to obey as long as it is convenient to our elected officials (who swear time and time again to protect the Constituion just to disregard that oath as soon as they assume office.) We are either a Constituiona Republic or not, and at this time we are apparently not. What a shame the American people will so complacently allow what used to be considered the best form of government in the world be destroyed by self serving politicians who care only about increasing their own personall power and wealth.
Hope everyone has a happy New Year and a better 2008!!!
The “War On Drugs” is as phoney as the “War On Terror”.
The “War On Drugs” is designed to keep the “preferred” drug lords in power, under the cloak of eliminating them, and all at taxpayers’ expense.
It never was a sincere effort to eradicate drugs.
Consider the situation in Afghanistan. Actually, everything is going to plan. At last the Taliban (who had virtually eradicated opium production) have worked hard to reverse the “error of their ways.”
And now that the boys in Washington have the money and cover of the “War On Terror” they are free to finance the warlords of their choosing.
Same in Colombia.
Anyone who sincerely believes the “War On Drugs” is an honest effort to eradicate illegal drugs has simply not been paying attention to the facts on the ground.
The war on drugs is a big vacuum cleaner sucking people without economic prospects into a life of crime and then into prison. If you think about it, the demand remains constant, the potential profits remain constant, and the lure into the drug business remains constant. Imagine if we basically left the mid and low level drug dealers alone. Those who were established would remain in control of the market, and other potential dealers would not have an in into the business.
However, in reality, we are constantly pulling established dealers off the streets and into prison (where their potential as a human being is degraded even further), thus inviting another human into the dealer position, and ultimately into prison.
As long as the demand remains constant, there is a constant pool of suppliers, and the prison population grows and grows.
Even if you consider drug use to be a bad thing (and I don’t think it is for marijuana) putting drug dealers in prison does not help anybody in any way.
Punishment does stop an unwanted behavior but there are other unintended consequences of punishment. Like when a child is punished repeatedly for an infraction or using the wrong behavior, learns no new acceptable behavior but learns to avoid people that punish. It doesn’t teach a preferred behavior. There are way more addicts than there are treatment centers. Treatment centers could and should provide a comprehensive approach that is inclusive of society. One of the factors that affect drug use or abuse is that it is conducted in secret. Drug abusers are well outside society before they enter the criminal justice system, rehabilitation or they seek private alternatives. Then there are people like Rush Limbaugh that never face the social consequences of drug abuse. Even the president GW if he honestly filled out an employment application would not be hired as a congressional page let alone president.
The war on drugs is a farce, just like the war on terror. We have 5% of the population and consume over 1/2 of the worlds illegal drugs. The drug trade is estimated to be 400 - 600 billion. Afghanistans poppy harvest has exploded since the Taliban left, and produce 95% of the worlds heroin. The poppy harvest was 300 metric tons in 2001, and today it is 8200 metric tons.
Do you really think we are leaving all those profits to the Taliban? Really?
The retail price of illegal drugs is at least 30 times the local production costs. We spend 100 billion dollars a year fighting illegal drugs when we could easily just buy the friggin drugs for 20 billion per year. Since the war on drugs started in 1982 we have 1.3 million more people in jail/prison (at least they get free health care). Our incarceration rate of 2.2 million people is the highest in the world, we have 2 times as many people in jail as in China, with 4 times less population.
Also, as was pointed out, our government has been among the biggest drug traders in the world funding our black operations to overthrow governments, etc. How in the world is it possible that the GWOT has not lead to substantial reductions in the illegal drug trade w/o government support. How does that money get laundered today with the tightened restrictions on moving money in and out and insistence than banks know their customers. Thats the smoking gun right there.
Now we are going to outsource the war on Drugs in Afghanistan to Blackwater with a multi-billion dollar contract. I mean, they should pay us.
When we first started trading with China in the early 70’s, restricted as it was, China had nothing to give us that was worth anything but Opium. Thye used to joke they reserved their best opium for their American customers. An so the show continues 30 years later.
“…angry tinfoil hat populist like Ron Paul…”
Show me the anger. He’s very calm and composed. Show me the tinfoil hat. He’s lucid and logical — his arguments make sense. You don’t have to show me the populism; that’s on display for everyone to see.
Here are two salient facts about drugs and drug use:
1. Any drug — prescription drug or not — is available any day on the street for an elevated price.
2. Everyone who has decided to use drugs is either already using them or about to obtain them.
That is the reality of the situation. It is unremarkably identical to the situation that existed during alcohol prohibition, which gave rise in America to organized crime in general, and the mafia in particular. Like the drug cartels and dealers of today, organized crime of the alcohol prohibition era thrived precisely because of prohibition, not in spite of it.
But wait! Who benefits from drug prohibition? The CIA benefits. Obviously drug dealers benefit, but let’s look at who benefits on the side of the law. Because of prohibition, the CIA has opportunities to profit from drug trafficking in order to finance clandestine operations that would not pass scrutiny. It is beyond believable that the CIA would not take advantage of that. Indeed, we have seen evidence that they do.
Who else? Well, the DEA itself owes its entire existence to drug prohibition. Survival is a powerful motivator. I’m sure the DEA lobbies Congress to continue prohibition. It’s not believable that they wouldn’t.
Terrorist organizations profit handsomely from drug prohibitions, and without well-financed terrorists, there would be no “war on terror” and thus no rallying cry for Republican and Neocon policies of destruction in the Mideast and repression at home.
These and other factions benefit from drug prohibition. Too bad the public is not one of them. Public safety and community health are ignored in favor of draconian interdiction measures that ensure the pernicious continuation of prohibition and high profits for those involved in the trade.
Imagine if all a user had to do to obtain their fix would be enter a clinic and ask for a prescription. Maybe they would have to endure a sales pitch to enter rehab (which no doubt some percentage of them would do) but then they’d get their daily dose — and for a small price that would not inspire them to commit property crime in order to pay for their habit.
Imagine, then, streets with no drug dealers! Thus no deals gone bad. No shootings! And at the borders, no drug smuggling! Imagine how refreshing it would all be. I’d even bet that drug use would decrease.
arise257 “Consumers of cocaine and heroin also tend to be wealthier than consumers of marijuana, crack, and methamphetamine - making them unlikely targets of our drug war.”
What? You make me laugh.
arise257 “What we call “The Drug War” is really “The Marijuana War”. It’s popular among all classes, but extremely easy for the poor and middle class to obtain.”
You don’t know a damn thing about illegal drugs do ya?
arise257 “Smuggling worthwhile amounts of it is difficult because that’s literally several dozen pounds in cinder-block sized units - all of which reek to high heaven with that unmistakable smell.”
Nope you don’t know a damn thing about illegal drugs.
arise257 “ More marijuana is grown domestically than is imported from abroad - so much so that in 2006 it became America’s #1 cash crop.”
It’s been America’s number one cash crop for many years. Not because of the amount grown but because of the prices paid. Domestic grown is not only expensive it’s hard to find. Imported is cheaper and by far more readily available.
arise257 “It’s by far the easiest drug to bust people with, and therefore the easiest drug for law enforcement to target..”
I guess that’s why 9 out of 10 arrests are for the other illegal drugs. You can figure that out by reading the paper, 10 pounds of crack busted here, 20 pounds of coke busted over there, 30 pounds of heroin busted yesterday. 20 pounds of MJ busted three weeks ago accidentally at a routine traffic stop.
arise257 “Haliburton and the Carlyle Group, along with the CIA and FBI have all been implicated in major drug smuggling operations overseas, particularly in Afghanistan and Columbia..”
Yea and guess what, their not smuggling MJ because there’s not any real profit in it. MJ is by far the most commonly used drug in the USA but it’s not because it is cheap.
arise257 “If demand stayed the same, prices of the other drugs would skyrocket and no one could afford to buy them..”
Actually purity would rise and prices would drop as more dealers turned toward selling them.
No ending MJ prohibition wouldn’t change the war on drugs that much and this country would still be stuck with the violent crime and massive government corruption that is associated with the black market.
The only way to control the illegal drugs is to legalize and regulate them like we do tobacco and alcohol. Prohibition causes far more harm to this country than recreational drugs use does.
Rjhuntington ”Imagine if all a user had to do to obtain their fix would be enter a clinic and ask for a prescription. Maybe they would have to endure a sales pitch to enter rehab (which no doubt some percentage of them would do) but then they’d get their daily dose — and for a small price that would not inspire them to commit property crime in order to pay for their habit.”
That’s if you figure everybody is an addict. 99 percent of the people would only buy once a week or on special occasions just like it is now. Everybody automatically assumes that because you use a drug recreationally you’re an addict. That is very wrong, it’s only around 1 percent of the population that becomes addicted and that includes alcohol. Tobacco (nicotine) is the only drug that addicts a higher percentage of the population. The percentage of people who abuse drugs for a period of time in their lives is higher but that doesn’t mean they become actual addicts.
I’ve seen too many people in my life that I thought were lost to drug addiction just up and quit overnight without any help from a rehab institution. In my opinion the drug rehab industry is taking advantage of the drug war to prosper and grow.
Shawn “In my opinion at least, the war on drugs instituted the first major violation of the Constitution. Once the Constitution had been compromised one time, the door was opened for further violations”
You hit the nail right on the head. Very few people notice that the war on terror is modeled after the war on drugs. Very few people notice that the war on drugs and the war on terror are actually one and the same. They are being carried out as a war on common people in every country including our own. The true goal in the war on terror and the war on drugs is to control the population especially minorities.
Sorry to be off topic but, from Ron Pauls web site
“The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.”
That is nothing more than a flat out lie. Universal Health Care is working in every country that has implemented it. Long waiting periods are the norm in America it doesn’t matter if you’re seeing a doctor or waiting for surgery. The only time there isn’t a waiting period in America or anywhere else is when there is a life-threatening situation otherwise you still have to wait for scheduling. Most Canadians are pleased with their health care system and yes some do come to America for cosmetic surgery and the like. Socialized medicine will work in America for the people but it won’t work for the corporate for massive profit health care system we have today.
Ron Paul is probably the best choice for the republican ticket but he has one major flaw, he’s a republican and can no longer be trusted to take the best interest of the common citizen.
legalize and regulate drugs = cartels can’t make money selling their product here
how does that not work to end the power of cartels?
Years ago I read that most police department budget ahead of time how much they’re going to make by confiscating property from drug busts. Apparently they are entitled to keep a big part of the loot (eg the cars, boats, houses, farms ‘associated’ with the transportation or production of the drugs).
They can be compared to ants who cultivate plant lice infestations because they milk them.
Which means they depend on the income, supposedly up to one third.
Caveat: read this many years ago, don’t know whether it’s still the case.
PS: Sex and MJ combined are highly recommended.
There is an award called the “Darwin Awards” which highlights homo sapien stupidity. Usually dumb criminals and other nitwits qualify for this award. However, the “Darwin Award” should go to all Drug Warriors for their imbecility. Sadly their imbecility is wrecking human lives with their silly “We gotta lock you up to help you” mentality.
The “War on Drugs” is really all about money, just like everything else the government does:
The DEA makes a lot of money by warring on drugs.
The prisons are full of people who have been arrested for one drug infraction or another, thereby providing employment for huge numbers of police officers, prison guards and people who build prisons.
Politicians make money by getting elected because they’re tough on drugs.
The drug trade employs a lot of CIA people.
And so on. . .
People take illegal drugs basically as an escape from the hopelessness of their lives, so the best way to fight illegal drugs is to fight poverty, which also happens to be the best way to fight abortion and war.
But if you seriously ameliorated poverty a large number of heavily entrenched corporate interests would suffer, simply because they profit handsomely, whether directly or indirectly, from drugs, abortion and war.
I think we should legalize marijuana because of the incredible waste of police forces, and the way it encourages organized crime to get involved.
We’re new to this county and I read the local news with interest. Late summer is pot bust time around here. I wasn’t surprised when the stories of the feds coming in to arrest growers showed up but I was surprised when, each time, the crime was attributed to “Mexican Drug Organizations.”
I scoffed. It sounded like bigotry to me. I asked how they knew, since they never catch the growers. They explained the watchers are not masterminds — they are illegal aliens who are paid to come up for the season, plant fields in public parks, then wait it out till harvest. They usually just run off a little ways into the woods when the police arrive, then head home. This surprised me. I would have expected most arrests to be local folks on private land.
The police are all very proud of the fields burned and I have to say I’m glad when they drive growers out of public parks. They can get quite serious with trespassers and I see no reason hikers should need fear being shot if they are mistaken for revenuers or thieves.
All of this would go away if they’d legalize it. The police could use the extra time to shut down more meth labs before they blow themselves and their neighbors to kingdom come, no one would be tempted to grow in public parks because there’d be no point, and we could all get on with our lives.
After Bush/Cheney almost any politican might seem better, but not Ron Paul. He is a republican, he might be a great guy (and I doubt that) but he is sitting on a pile of corruption the is just too big to hide. The smell downwind isn’t much better.
And as far as drugs go, Meth is at epidemic proportions in America and it is a far more toxic drug than most of those mentioned here. It is cheap (anyone can make it) very addictive, an destroys people relatively quickly.
The war on drugs has always been a farce. It is designed to jail the competition while the fat cats rake in the money. The United States has 10% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners. Those numbers are a direct result of our war on drugs.
Ron Paul is another farce. He claims to support the Constitution. Funny… where in the hell is his Impeachment resolution? Ron Paul voted to Impeach Clinton over a blow job but has not done jack to Impeach Bush and Cheney… and those two scumbag criminals are beyond a doubt the biggest threat to the Constitution in my almost 60 years on this planet.
The reality is those who support Ron Paul are just as foolish as those that support the war on drugs. They both support something that does not work.
The entire idea of a war on drugs is insane. Legalize ‘em all. Our civil rights and constitutional protections against government intrusions began to unravel with the criminalization of what are essentially private and victimless behaviors. The only people to have an advantage from the criminalization of drugs are the police, courts, and prisons who make a good living prosecuting and locking up people. When Prohibition ended, the entire “law enforcement” apparatus was diverted into a war on drugs so that they would have something to do, especially against those drugs that non-whites favored. Thus, alcohol and tobacco are legal, whereas marijuana is illegal. Racist laws don’t add up to a sensible social health policy. Legalize ‘em. If he were alive, Peter Tosh would advertise ‘em. They’d be good adverts, for sure.
ps. Darwin never wrote about “survival of the fittest.” Can’t find it in his theory or in his books. The phrase was added by others who supported his theory, notably Thomas Huxley.
Opinionated “All of this would go away if they’d legalize it. The police could use the extra time to shut down more meth labs before they blow themselves and their neighbors to kingdom come, no one would be tempted to grow in public parks because there’d be no point, and we could all get on with our lives.”
How many illegal meth labs have you even heard of that blows up. A few houses occasionally catch on fire and burn down but that happens all the time even without meth labs.
Treefrog Meth is at epidemic proportions in America and it is a far more toxic drug than most of those mentioned here.
Epidemic proportions yea right? There is a lot of meth use in this country and no matter what you do it’s not going to stop. As far as toxic, well I have to laugh every time I see them on the news wearing their bulky white suits removing chemicals from a house that millions of people work around every day. It’s all a show folks, nothing but a show.
Treefrog It is cheap (anyone can make it) very addictive, an destroys people relatively quickly.
I don’t think it’s cheap based on the grape vine mind you. It’s not that easy to make right. I’ve known quite a few people who have abused it and didn’t become addictive and weren’t destroyed. If you pull one bad apple out of the barrel do you consider the whole barrel destroyed?
Everything you two know about meth is based on propaganda. Don’t get me wrong I’m not advocating meth use but if it is made right by someone who knows how to do it right using the right chemicals in a controlled environment it’s no more dangerous to people than 107 proof wild turkey whiskey. Actually may even be a little safer.
Throw everything you know about illegal drug use out the window because it’s all based on government propaganda.
Hell the government even gives meth (made right) to troops in the field especially the Air Force. A lot of kids in this country are doing a form of prescription meth.
“The police side does not want to completely destroy the drug supply side because it might result in a reduction or elimination of their budget (loss of jobs).”
I disagree, pundit. I doubt there is a law enforcement officer or agency in this nation who is worried there would have nothing to do if marijuana was legalized.
rickster
I am no authority of Meth use or what particular drugs people use but it is pretty common where I live. I consider it a pretty nasty drug and I doubt if anyone makes it is a way that doesn’t damage the people that use it. I have seen to many users and former users in my work and the damage is obvious. You should google some before and after pictures of users.
Treefrog I am no authority of Meth use or what particular drugs people use but it is pretty common where I live.
Probably more common than you are aware of.
I consider it a pretty nasty drug and I doubt if anyone makes it is a way that doesn’t damage the people that use it.
Some of it is pretty nasty; there are some out there that really know what they’re doing when they’re making it. The drug itself in a pure form with clean substances to control its concentration levels is not any more harmful to the individual than strong whiskey is.
I have seen to many users and former users in my work and the damage is obvious.
With out question you are seeing the ones who have major problems with it. I have seen many people who I thought were lost forever because of their use of it.
Treefrog “You should google some before and after pictures of users.”
You mean view intentionally selected people who have done the worst of the worst to get that way. You can do the same thing with alcoholics, their before and after pictures look just as bad.
What I’m driving at is if we had a controlled and regulated market we wouldn’t have near the problems we are having today. I was around in the seventies when it was called crystal meth, the clean chemicals were easily available and you couldn’t find before and after pictures like you find today. I really don’t think its use is any more wide spread today as it was back then.
You can actually go pull people out of the gutters that have the systems of meth use that don’t even do any drugs including alcohol.
Don’t believe the government propaganda. For every person you can find having problems with any illegal drug you can find thousands who aren’t. You can do that with candy bars too.