It seems the entire drug war has managed to spark almost incomprehensible levels of violence. There's some in the US and Canada, to be sure, but it has turned large swaths of Mexico, particularly, into war zones.
There needs to be a change in thinking. Cracking down on dark net drug sales is nothing but the expansion of a failing war.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
As Americans we all pay for this and it works against us by limiting our options and telling us what we can and can't do for recreation. That $51 billon could easily go towards Medicare for All and with more intelligent drug options the number of Americans addicted to Alcohol and Opiates would decline.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_sheet...
That $51B "cost" is known as "income" to those on whom it is spent (cops, prisons, misc security contractors, weapons manufacturers, on and on).
Similarly, the "only upside is ... artificial monopoly" -- well, for the artificial monopolists, that's a pretty big upside!
I don't think there's some kind of Grand Conspiracy here (ref. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-c... ), but I also don't think one is needed. A whole heck of a lot of people benefit directly from the drug war, and these people are a powerful constituency. The fact that $51B is spent on that constituency instead of on Medicare for All or whatever is, for much of that constituency, a feature and not a bug.
There are a lot of mundane things keeping it going, but sometimes a little bit of conspiracy ends up being right.
As user GatorD42 pointed out when this was brought up before:
>...Baum claims Ehrlichman said that to him in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999).
If the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it doesn't actually describe the drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was:
>...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...
Prohibition creates economic incentives to create cheaper substitutes. These substitutes cause more harm than the original substance.
During alcohol prohibition, methanol was used.
Pressure on MDMA precursor chemicals has led to many more dangerous substitutes like TFMPP/BZP.
I wish we could have fact-based policy, and not just with regards to drugs.
Yes, from time to time. At this point some Mexican states and areas have it institutionalized so much that there isn't a war anymore. There is only danger when two competing powers are in the same area.
Mexico's southern border with Guatemala has an influx of migrants because of Guatemala's now organized drug violence.
Just because it isn't a 'war' so much anymore doesn't mean that the violence that comes with areas being under control of gangs magically goes away.
Authoritarian states beating their subjects has nothing to do with him being beaten in the streets that night.
While I'm against the drug war, I wonder what career drug dealers (and everyone who's part of their economy) would do if drugs were legalized and commoditized.
Would it not lead to an increase of "worse" crimes with "real" victims like kidnapping, human trafficking, robbery, etc. as criminals try to replace their income and sustain their lifestyles?
Also, a lot of people go into illegal drug dealing because it is a high risk/high reward avenue, compared to many traditional prospects, where you can make a lot of money with comparatively little time investment. If I remember correctly, that was one of the stated reasons for why Notorious B.I.G. went into drug-dealing, despite being a good student and initially considering going to college for a more traditional high-education career.
Better off just acknowledging them as an authoritative single party regime, and staying as far away from drug possession as possible, lets you get confused as a competitor.
I think a significant portion of society is aware of this. The problem is that a subset of our society is continuing to push for this antiquated way of life as it is very, very profitable for them. Money makes the world go 'round, after all.
Legalizing drugs will not fix the problem. The cartels run the government now. Do you actually think they will just pick up their things and go home? The violence will continue and they will move onto the next, illegal, lucrative product to sell.
The US in the 1930s had the same problem. It was only stopped by stamping out corruption and outright the murdering of criminals. I don't see Mexico having even a small handle on corruption in the next 50 years.
The Opioid crisis is going on right now..and this is with legal drugs. Drug companies are being sued for millions and millions of dollars.
From one side, I'm told legal adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies. From the other, when bad things happen..like addiction, I'm told it's the fault of the company that made and sold the drugs. This doesn't make any real sense if we are trying to legalize drugs. It will only increase costs as the result of liability insurance and other risks that are now involved.
Legalizing MJ in California is turning into a failure. The problem is that companies that sell legal drugs need to pay taxes and go through many more regulations than the guy down the street selling it. The end result is higher costs for legal drugs.
Legal drug companies selling MJ are being put out of business because the black market is thriving as a result of lower costs and better availability (which will always happen with black markets). The legal market is only helping the black market because there are many people that are using MJ now that otherwise wouldn't have when it was illegal.
When the legalization of MJ was proposed, the proponents (including many people here on HN) said that there would be no black market after it was legalized. This never made sense to me and now I'm being proven correct. The black market is not only there, it's thriving.
How exactly would legalization hurt Mexico? Look at Portugal to see how we should all move towards dealing with drugs and addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal problem.
The violence in the 1930s WAS caused by the prohibition, sure it had lasting effects but ending prohibition was still the right move.
Can you cite the rise of black market marijuana in California? The market is doing well and bringing in good tax revenue in every state I've read about.
As for the opioid crisis, the issue wasn't that people one day decided they wanted to get hooked on them. The issue was they had pain or were recovering from a surgery and were being prescribed highly addictive medication that was being pushed by pharmaceutical companies without proper warning or care. Marijuana could have been given in these cases and it without the same problems of addiction.
First search result in Google. Black market for pot growing in CA at the expense of the legalized market.
The violence in the 1930s WAS caused by the prohibition, sure it had lasting effects but ending prohibition was still the right move.
No, the violence was caused by criminals funded themselves primarily by breaking prohibition laws. If violence was caused by prohibition, Utah would have been the most violent state in the nation for most of its history, since prohibition was the law in most of Utah for most of its history. It still is the law in parts of Utah.
After all, marijuana was technically subject to prohibition until quite recently, and yet the very lucrative pot market was not marred by violence.
The amount of regulation pretty much guaranteed a "market failure" for legal pot.
Almost like that was the intended outcome...
One of the arguments was that it would being in all sorts of tax dollars that could be used for great things. Tax Dollars=more expensive pot. So from this perspective, it worked as intended, even though many of the supports may not have actually thought it through.
Also, your point was proven factually wrong, as pot is way cheaper in legal states and is way safer, thanks to regulations.
The proof is the cost of legal weed, which is sometimes double the cost of the black market prices, due to regulations and taxes.
"Also, your point was proven factually wrong, as pot is way cheaper in legal states and is way safer, thanks to regulations."
Safer? Maybe. Cheaper? Hardly. You have provided zero proof and your arguments just don't make a lot of sense.
No, the cost of legal weed that is actually 100% what it claims to be is double the cost of black market stuff that might be (or based on police reports and various studies, almost certainly is) adulterated with various contaminants, including lawn grass, actual weeds, and trace amounts of other drugs sold by the dealer or his supplier.
It's like complaining that organic beef is twice the price of grain-finished hormone-treated beef. No duh. You have to pay extra for quality and the proof of quality.
No, left-leaning people wanted more government regulation--and expected pot legalization with regulations. Which is what they got. But a lot of places, primarily right-leaning, chose to simply continue banning pot stores and deliveries within their jurisdictions.
Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. Black market sales are still pretty strong in right-leaning parts of CA. The pot sales are thus still happening there, but they aren't seeing the tax revenues that their more liberal counterparts are seeing.
Yeah, well, this isn't what we're talking about. Left-leaning people wanted pot legalized and regulated and didn't seem to grasp that this means an increase in prices.
"Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. Black market sales are still pretty strong in right-leaning parts of CA. The pot sales are thus still happening there, but they aren't seeing the tax revenues that their more liberal counterparts are seeing."
As stated in the articles I linked to, the black market is thriving in many parts of CA..it has nothing to do with right-leaning areas.
Left-leaning people grasped that this meant increased prices...Pot shops do quite well in liberal areas even though they're more expensive than the corner dealer.
As stated in the articles I linked to, the black market is thriving in many parts of CA..it has nothing to do with right-leaning areas.
It has everything to do with right-leaning areas since the black market is thriving in the many parts of red CA that still prohibit marijuana sales. The black market (for sales to end-customers) isn't doing as well as it used to in left-leaning areas, though the black market for suppliers is still doing well for the suppliers that haven't yet been caught.
"How exactly would legalization hurt Mexico? Look at Portugal to see how we should all move towards dealing with drugs and addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal problem."
Portugal didn't have cartels running entire sections of the country. Drugs may be part of the problem with Mexico, but the cartels are too powerful and legalizing them will not solve the corruption problem..and the violence will continue.
"The violence in the 1930s WAS caused by the prohibition, sure it had lasting effects but ending prohibition was still the right move."
It was. But we had a corruption problem as well. Criminals don't just go away overnight. There are plenty of other ways to make money, once you have money, power, and influence. Legalizing drugs will not solve the corruption problem in Mexico.
"Can you cite the rise of black market marijuana in California? The market is doing well and bringing in good tax revenue in every state I've read about."
A simple google search:
https://reason.com/video/californias-new-recreational-mariju...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-crac...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurphy/2019/04/04/cannabis...
"As for the opioid crisis, the issue wasn't that people one day decided they wanted to get hooked on them. The issue was they had pain or were recovering from a surgery and were being prescribed highly addictive medication that was being pushed by pharmaceutical companies without proper warning or care. Marijuana could have been given in these cases and it without the same problems of addiction."
Who decides to get hooked on anything? Some people get addicted to things faster than others. No matter how many warnings you give someone, it will happen...and the company will get sued for millions of dollars.
The cigarette companies are a good example of this. Cigarettes have been know to cause cancer for 50+ years. Yet, we will have people smoking, getting cancer, and suing these companies for millions of dollars.
Again the 'Portugal' argument is misplaced.
Portugal has not legalized drugs.
Portuguese Police will throw you in jail forever if they catch you with large amounts of any drugs.
The material difference between Portugal and most other advanced nations is how they treat possession of small amounts - instead of jail, you get therapy.
Great, I wish the same for America.
But 'Legalizing hard drugs' is a complete different, position, it's not close to reasonable.
Thanks to 'Fentanyl' the argument becomes glowingly problematic - OD's are skyrocketing everywhere, and 'overdose' now kills considerably more people than guns and cars every year.
Given that OD's are rising rapidly, and the others are contained - OD's are soon going to be the cause of concern.
Full legalization of 'hard drugs' would mean it's in your coca-cola (again), meth in your red bull, opiates for any little thing. Though many would stay away, and many frankly can 'handle their drugs' - a material chunk of civilization would be addicted, to the point it would be a massive mental health crisis.
We are already pushing reforms to seriously limit the number of opioids prescribed because it's such an addiction problem. In Canada, you get sometimes 1, 2 or 3 opiate pills only (!) because of the concern.
Decriminalization of small amounts may very well help.
But 'legalization' of hard drugs will yield a health catastrophe pretty quickly.
I'm always shocked at the sheer lack of understanding of social consequence in these forums. I get the 'Liberty' argument, I get 'Harm Reduction' (though it's not always a great story), I get 'thinking out loud' for bold new ideas.
But legalization of hard drugs for most civilizations will yield destruction.
The 'war on drugs' will continue for as long as they are addictive and powerful.
Fentanyl is just the beginning.
What poeple don't talk about is the damage that UNDER-prescription does, politicians (not doctors) are taking away what quality of life people do have left. People receiving pallative care are often being denied pain adiquate pain medication, I wouldn't call that civilised.
This opioid chrisis stems from doctors carelessly prescriping pain medication and patients (who haven't been educated), being just as careless. The term 'pain killer' has done a huge amount of damage, if you try to kill your pain, you're going to have problems (very fine line between no pain and high), the goel is to be able to function, simple things like be able to sleep.
I don't think Naloxone is helping matters, it provides a safety net allowing adicts to take ever higher doses.
Yes, so think of what would happen if you could buy opioids willy nilly, wherever.
So yes, thanks - even with 'intelligent actors' in the system, it's also a problem.
FYI - the crisis is definitely not just 'doctors' - it's a whole assembly of problems. Doctors can be misinformed, patients can be demanding, regulatory issues, pressure from drug companies.
Apparently America is getting better at prescribing fewer opioids as well, so this is good, but 'getting smart about how to prescribe opioids' (which is good) is one part of the 'war on drugs'.
As for medical uses of Fentanyl, super, that's great, all for it if there's legitimacy - but it's again it's going to 100% have to be 'a controlled substance', ergo, people arrested for smuggling quantities, which they will, ergo, 'war on drugs' continues.
Beside, the concern about "hard drugs" used recreationally, are the same as with alcohol. Prevention against abuse is the key to reasonnable use.
They are not, though.
Weed (not a hard drug), sure.
But meth, coke and opioids are not very much like alcohol at all really.
I can see legalization of folks chewing on coca leaves maybe, i.e. something like coffee ... but beyond that ... I don't think it's going to work in any regulatory environment.
The 'liberty' it provides the few who can a) handle their stuff and b) have safety nets (i.e. middle and upper class) is not enough to warrant the terrible effects it will have on others.
These things are already a problem in some workplaces: construction, truck driving, because of the intensity of competition etc. - loosening the bounds just creates more problems.
I do think we should decriminalize, but I don't think that our little party at Burning Man is worth the damage that it will wreak in other places.
Pain is an important signal and, in general, should only be treated enough to take the edge off. Ideally, the root cause should be addressed.
Of course, there are plenty of chronic and terminal conditions where opiates are appropriate.