The Drug War Thread

[C0ckney]

having read part of a recent exchange between gribbler and ben i was struck by the poverty of the arguments deployed in favour of the drug war. however, there must be some that aren't either ridiculous, insane or based on some pathetic personal grievance.

full disclosure, i'm in favour of the legalisation, taxation and reasonable regulation of all drugs on moral, social and practical grounds. i'd like to hear from those who broadly in favour of current drug policy, that is of keeping drugs illegal for recreational purposes, about your reasons for your views. i would also like to hear from those who support the legalisation of some drugs, especially weed, and not others; i'm curious about your reasons for drawing the distinction.

one other thing, this thread is about matters of general principle and not about the particular legal situation in one country. or to put it another way, if you want to discuss what thomas jefferson would have thought about crack and why this is so important, then please start your own thread.

[giblets]

I think this thread will be disappointing. The main difference between marijuana/cocaine/etc. and tobacco/alcohol is that smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol is part of the mainstream culture that the majority sees themselves as part of- smoking and drinking are vices but they're considered normal. Marijuana/cocaine/etc. are considered counterculture so it's easy to turn the users into an "other" and dehumanize them by calling them "dopeheads" "crackheads" etc.

[Kidlicious]

I blame the hippies

[giblets]

I blame the hippies

Well, it's not really their fault that normal people feel the need to find some aspect of their lifestyle and make it grounds for the police to harass them and lock them away.

[Kidlicious]

Well, it's not really their fault that normal people feel the need to find some aspect of their lifestyle and make it grounds for the police to harass them and lock them away.

Yes it is, because they aren't normal.

[C0ckney]

I think this thread will be disappointing. The main difference between marijuana/cocaine/etc. and tobacco/alcohol is that smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol is part of the mainstream culture that the majority sees themselves as part of- smoking and drinking are vices but they're considered normal. Marijuana/cocaine/etc. are considered counterculture so it's easy to turn the users into an "other" and dehumanize them by calling them "dopeheads" "crackheads" etc.

i think that's true as far as it goes, but what i'm interested in here is how people explain and justify their views on drugs and drug policy, as well as the differences they see, not just between legal and illegal drugs, but also between different illegal drugs.

[korn469]

I can understand the reasoning for a drug war existing. Drugs are very destructive on both an individual and at least a regional level. The negative externalities are not simply limited to those who use drugs. The state has a duty to protect its citizens, so it makes drugs illegal and then it has a duty to enforce its laws.

Full disclosure, I think all drugs should be legal, but only as a measure to defund drug cartels. I think by making drugs legal society must accept much higher rates of addiction, drug use and drug related crime. I also grew up in a community devastated by drug abuse, though ironically it was mostly by illegal use of legal drugs, usually some form of oxycodone or hydrocodone (including oxycontin, percocets, and loritabs) plus xanex along with alcohol and marijuana.

[C0ckney]

thanks korn

I think by making drugs legal society must accept much higher rates of addiction, drug use and drug related crime.

that's an argument that's often used against the legalisation of drugs, but i wonder how true it is. firstly about use, i don't think that legality/illegality has much impact on use; i doubt anyone who thinks smoking crack is bad idea does so because it's illegal. it may some effect have on things like marijuana, but evidence from holland and portugal suggests that the effect is small. i think addiction would still be an issue, but legalisation will hopefully take some of the stigma away and encourage people to seek help earlier. part of the tax revenues could be used to support rehabilitation programmes. in terms of crime, as you say legalisation would take the organised crime element, and all the violence that brings, out of the drug trade, but you'd still have people stealing to get their fix. i think that the changed drug market would reduce this quite considerably, though.

[N35t0r]

I think that addiction rates will go up, but not a lot, and that seeking help will be easier. It still doesn't justify the war on drugs IMHO.

[giblets]

It's hard to say what would happen to addiction rates because without the war on drugs it would be easier for drug addicts to rise out of poverty.

[loinburger]

Depends how you define addiction - about 10% of the population has a genetic predisposition towards drug addiction, and so the number of "addicts" is going to stay more or less the same regardless of the availability and legality of drugs (there may be more addicts if drugs are legal because fewer will poison themselves on bathtub gin or whatever is the impure illegal equivalent of the drug they prefer). Drug "abusers" are those without the genetic predisposition towards addiction who use too many drugs - usually these people will cut back or quit entirely when they suffer negative consequences from their use, e.g. DUIs or lost jobs etc. (whereas the addict will continue to self destruct even in the face of negative consequences) - there will be more abusers if drugs are legal because there will be fewer negative consequences e.g. possession charges.

Ideally I'd like to see drugs legalized and some of the tax revenue put into addiction researc - right now addiction treatment has a horrible success rate.

[Aeson]

I think it's pretty clear legalizing drugs would be a net benefit for society. The best arguments for keeping the drug war going seem to be "I'm heavily invested in alcohol, tobacco, and firearms industries" or "I build prisons for a living" ... or just "I hate people in general and the more suffering there is, the better".

[loinburger]

"Jesus said that drugs were bad, so I'm against drugs."
"In which Biblical passage did he say that?"
"**** you"

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm skeptical that addiction is genetic, loinburger. The few studies I've seen to that effect have assumed causal structures that are largely untestable. But I don't know much about it.

[loinburger]

It's certainly not 100% genetic, but genetics is a major contributing factor - here's a study I googled, there are more. They started tracking addiction rates (where "addiction" means "abuse + inability to quit in the face of negative consequences") after the Vietnam war when a ****load of soldiers returned chemically dependent on heroin (opiate abuse will result in withdrawal symptoms regardless of whether the abuser is "normal" or an "addict") - they detoxed the soldiers, tracked them as best they could, and a year later 10% of them were still abusing heroin, and since then that 10% (+/- 2% or so) has been the magic percentage of addicts (alcohol is included in the percentage along with illegal drugs, tobacco caffeine etc are not), which is an extremely strong indicator of addiction being a genetic disorder (a non-genetic disorder should have far more variation depending on drug availability etc).

Edit: They can mutate mice to become addicts (a doctor person told me about this awhile back but I never bothered to google it)