Why the war on drugs will never be won

[PoBoy321]

There are currently 1.3 million adults in prison(source ). Of that 1.3 million, 24.7% are incarcerated for drug offenses ( source ).

In 2002, there were 840,000 police and detectives in the United States ( source). In addition, there are 695,000 lawyers (source), 200,000 paralegals ( source) ad 84,000 probation and corrections officers (source) working in the United States. That is nearly 2,000,000 people in the United States working in an industry which relies on crime to happen.

If we were ever to "win" the War on Drugs, 25% of these people, almost 500,000, would be out of a job. If that were the case, politicians who really fought to end the drug problem in the United States would lose the support of police groups across the country and would themselves be out of a job. That seems to me like a pretty good incentive to perpetuate the drug problem in America, rather than end it.

Just a little food for thought.

[mmcd]

The correct answer is far simpler: People like to get [censored] up. Always have, always will.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
The correct answer is far simpler: People like to get [censored] up. Always have, always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is certainly true, but can't you see why the gov't has a vested interest in never doing anything about it?

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The correct answer is far simpler: People like to get [censored] up. Always have, always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is certainly true, but can't you see why the gov't has a vested interest in never doing anything about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, no progress is made in the war in drugs because "winning" is impossible. Too many people want them on the demand side, and there's too much money to be made on the supply side. If, by some miracle, drugs were completely irradicated, the politicians would just find a new issue and declare "war".

[imported_CaseClosed326]

That and people feel good about themselves thinking that the government is doing something about it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The correct answer is far simpler: People like to get [censored] up. Always have, always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is certainly true, but can't you see why the gov't has a vested interest in never doing anything about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing they will do is make more laws and restrictions that will require more lawyers, prison guards etc.

[New001]

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusion, I think it's a stretch to equate the 24.7% and the 500,000. Just because there are 25% fewer criminals (and, I assume, 25% fewer crimes being prosecuted, policed, etc.) does not mean 25% of the workers in this field (all of the occupations you listed) would no longer be needed.

That didn't come out quite how I want it, but I can try to elaborate if you want. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise too.

Duck!!!

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
The correct answer is far simpler: People like to get [censored] up. Always have, always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually pretty good. When people demand something, the market will always provide it, whether legally or illegally.

Note that in Soviet Russia, non-government rationing of food was illegal. Because the command economy was so woefully inefficient, the "mafia" stepped in and supplied food to people who demanded it (of course, this was much more difficult under Stalin with his policy of Dekulakization [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]). This proves that even under the most oppressive of conditions, what is demanded will be supplied.

Anyway, because of this undeniable truth, it is not even a question as to whether the war on drugs is a waste of money. The problem posed by PoBoy, though, is of serious concern, as are all matters regarding public choice.

What money am I, the taxpayer, making?