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".

What money am I, the taxpayer, making?

[ 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.

[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.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

This is, again, unbelievably ignorant to common sense. Drug use is demanded because of temptation. Yes, temptation will always exist. Simply because there is demand for something doesn't mean we should legally and cheaply supply it. There are black markets for child porn, murder for hire, tax fraud outlets, and yes, drugs. To argue that drugs are a victimless crime is even further ignorant to any real life experience with drugs or drug users.

Step out of the abstracts for a moment and maybe think about the day in the life of a helpless addict.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Step out of the abstracts for a moment and maybe think about the day in the life of a helpless addict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Addicts aren't helpless.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do drugs, they will do them regardless of the presence of state intervention. The reason people don’t do drugs is because they are aware of the adverse effects, not for fear of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is very clueless and ignorant as well, lacking any understanding of why people abuse substances.

Given legal, cheap drugs like crystal meth and heroin, many people who would otherwise never touch a drug in their life would succumb to the temptation upon losing their job, being divorced, having a loved one die, etc and wanting to drown the pain away. The reason most regular folks avoid this right now is a) fear of the law and b) no access. Legalizing drugs eliminates both of these deterrents.

Many people infact succumb to their depression with alcohol and in rare cases even commit suicide. And infact alcohol can consume one's life and ruin it as well, but that is a different story. Resorting to easy-to-find heroin or meth to eliminate pain would lead to a chance, lets say an incredibly good one, that your life will be entirely consumed by the drug with little chance for recovery.

[/ QUOTE ]

People do things because they want to, not because they are tempted. I heard this propaganda back in 5th grade DARE classes. Some people will do drugs, others won’t... at least everyone will have a choice should they be legalized.

Furthermore, are you saying that the entire concept of demand in economics is based on temptation and not voluntary choice? Humans can make their own decisions. Why are you so against this? If people want to harm themselves, that is their prerogative. Ice cream is bad for you. Should we ban that? Alcohol and tobacco too. Ban those?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The legalization of drugs may increase addiction somewhat, not as much as you think though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is entirely ignorant to not only common sense but to empirical evidence as well. Just look at countries like the Netherlands who have legalized pot and seen pot use among even 10 years olds increase 300+%. Well, at least Needle Park is open and thriving.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two issues:
1) Cultural – Pot isn’t viewed as a bad thing there.
2) Because of issue #1, parents will be very lenient in dictating their children’s actions regarding the use of marijuana.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poor example. One is providing a product which people demand, the other is promoting the illegal use of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Murder for hire is a very demanded service in both the US and the world. Who are you to tell someone how to run their business? By illegalizing it, you limit its supply and drive up profits for hitmen, providing them financial incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

So involuntary is the same as voluntary. I will take note of that in future debates with you.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we're not paying as much to keep so many prisoners alive.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn’t add to your argument, because likewise we could legalize drunk driving and not have to pay so much money to officers and lawyers and judges and jails that punish drunk drivers. That doesn’t mean we should legalize drunk driving.

[/ QUOTE ]
Drunk drivers hurt other people, against their will.

[/ QUOTE ]
And drug users never hurt other people against their will? Clearly you know very little of drugs and their effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of your responses here are out of context. The original comment is referring to the people who are in jail for using and dealing drugs, not harming people because of them. You proceeded to compare that to drunk driving (again the voluntary and involuntary thing you seem to be having trouble with), which I corrected. You then responded again out of context.

As for your most recent response, I am all for punishing those who violate other’s property -- whether it is their life, autonomy, or possessions.



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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is, again, unbelievably ignorant to common sense. Drug use is demanded because of temptation. Yes, temptation will always exist. Simply because there is demand for something doesn't mean we should legally and cheaply supply it. There are black markets for child porn, murder for hire, tax fraud outlets, and yes, drugs. To argue that drugs are a victimless crime is even further ignorant to any real life experience with drugs or drug users.

Step out of the abstracts for a moment and maybe think about the day in the life of a helpless addict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please get this through your head. Drug use is voluntary. Murder is not. Please refrain from comparing the two.
By your definition of demand, the reason I want to buy a pack of gum is out of temptation. I don’t buy the gum out of temptation; I buy it because I have voluntarily chosen to. Should gum be illegalized by the state, I would still demand the gum and someone would supply the gum in a black market. This changes nothing, except for the fact that it is more of a hassle for me to get gum and I have to spend more money on it. I am still going to chew gum though, no matter what the state has to say about it’s legality.