- #36
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,981
- 26
You're kidding, right?
In any case, the war on drugs is not unsuccessful just because there is some drug use.
You're kidding, right?
Yes, but at the price of increasing incarceration with 400% since the 1960's.BobG said:Aquamarine's graph cuts off at 1990. Here's one that shows homicide rates from 1950 to 2002.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
The homicide rate dropped from 1992 to 2000 and was stable through 2002 at around the same levels as the 1960's.
>________*1925__119**____*1925_to_1977________ >________*1928__144______incarceration_rates__ >________*1932__165***___are_estimates._See___ >________*1934__164**____links_and_endnotes.__ >________*1939__206***________________________ >________*1945__147**____All_the_***peaks_and_ >________*1950__164***___**valleys_are_shown._ >________*1952__162**_________________________ >________*1961__179***________________________ >________*1968__141**_________________________ >________*1969__146***________________________ >________*1971__143___________________________ >________*1972__140**_________________________ >________*1973__144___________________________ >________*1974__153___________________________ >________*1977__194___________________________ >_________1978__203_______452,790__222,585,000 >_________1980__220_______501,886__227,726,463 >_________1981__241_______555,114__229,966,237 >_________1982__263_______610,767__232,187,835 >_________1983__276_______645,713__234,307,207 >_________1984__288_______681,282__236,348,292 >_________1985__312_______742,939__238,466,283 >_________1986__332_______799,171__240,650,755 >_________1987__353_______856,906__242,803,533 >_________1988__388_______949,659__245,021,414 >_________1989__435_____1,076,670__247,341,697 >_________1990__458_____1,146,401__250,131,894 >_________1991__480_____1,216,664__253,492,503 >_________1992__503_____1,292,347__256,894,189 >_________1993__524_____1,364,881__260,255,352 >_________1994__558_____1,469,947__263,435,673 >_________1995__595_____1,585,586__266,557,091 >_________1996__610_____1,646,020__269,667,391 >_________1997__639_____1,743,643__272,911,760 >_________1998__658_____1,816,931__276,115,288 >_________1999__678_____1,893,115__279,294,713 >_________2000__686_____1,937,482__282,338,631 >_________2001__688_____1,961,247__285,023,886 >_________2002__707_____2,033,022__287,675,526 >_________2003__718_____2,085,620__290,342,554
polyb: conspiracy theories don't help any cause -- in fact, they tend to exactly the opposite.
If the Government was accually attempting any of these goals (and doing it properly) then I definately think success is possible, but they're not. They're just terms they give the media to keep them off their back and to keep them from figuring out what's really going on.Burnsys said:War on drugs... More drugs.
War on Terrorism... More Terrorism
War on Poverty... More Poverty
Hurkyl said:In any case,
the war on drugs is not unsuccessful just because there is some drug use.
Correct, almost trivially so, but I wonder if you can bring yourself to focus on and agree with the actual point I made, also quite a simple one: that the war on drugs is not successful just because drug use is down.
Even if drugs were legalized, that wouldn't allow drug users to become better integrated into society - in fact, if drugs were legalized, testing would probably expand even more, creating a whole new class of unemployed drug users.
So do you make a moral distinction between alcohol and other drugs? If not, should alcohol be illegal? Nicotine? (I'm referring to the moral principle not the practicalities here.) Or, if you do make this distinction, why are the problems caused by alcohol different from those caused by things that have been made illegal?russ_watters said:The main arguments for legalization here seem to be focusing on the "war on drugs" - the main reasons for keeping it illegal are moral. So arguing based on the status of the war on drugs will do nothing to change the mind of someone (like me) who considers this a moral issue.
You've got something backwards here. The aphorism "You can't legislate morality" refers to the fact making a law restricting a given behavior does not in and of itself cause people to accept that that behavior is morally wrong, not the idea that laws, especially the effectively universal ones like the prohibition of murder, can't derive from moral values.russ_watters said:Common sentiment. But why is murder illegal? Why is stealing illegal? Indeed, why is anything illegal? In fact, all laws are based on a moral framework.Integral said:We cannot legislate morality!
Well I didn't go into it - I just said there is an argument to be made.polyb said:So what about "morals" such as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
C'mon, I'd expect better rationale from a student of Locke than just "morals"?
Hurkyl said:All I had meant to say in the post to which you responded was that the existence of drug use did not mean the war on drugs is failing -- that's why I just stated the point I meant to make and abandoned what I actually said.
Hurkyl said:On another note, you keep talking about how ineffective the war on drugs is... but when I've looked at the numbers, they show a huge drop in hard drug use (in the 80s, I think), and the numbers stayed down.
Hurkyl said:How many of you that argue for legalization on the basis that it would destroy the drug cartels would support the re-enactment of prohibition once the cartels are destroyed?
The biggest problem I see with this is that there isn't just one organized drug cartel. You take one down, you just improve life for other groups, often from completely different regions of the world (for example, heroin can come from Latin America or from Asia or Eastern Europe).russ_watters said:The best way to win any war is to first go after the command and control infrastructure, leaving the troops disorganized and uncoordinated, then go after the supply-chain, leaving them unable to fight. Then you don't have to kill the foot-soldiers, they'll surrender en masse (see Iraq, 1991).
Applied to the war on drugs, that means go after the organizational structure of the cartels. They are like large corporations and killing the leaders would severely affect their ability to operate. Going after their supply-chain is a two-fold problem: First and toughest is their money. Banks need to be made to be accountable for the money they have in their banks. I don't know why the Swiss think secrecy is a virtue - it isn't. The money needs to be siezed. Next is their infrastructure - specifically, the transportation networks. The Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard need to take the gloves off and go after the planes and ships that transport most of the drugs.
The way to fight to win is Tom Clancy style. But I know it isn't politically feasible - politicians are wusses.
russ_watters said:loseyourname, we just have two fundamentally different views of the problem. Your view is that the problem is drug use, my view is that the problem is drug crime. Ironically, your view is shared by the drug-legalization types (or, perhaps, they mix the two). If drugs should be legalized, that implies usage isn't a problem - just the crime associated with its trade. Its contradictory.
russ_watters said:loseyourname, we just have two fundamentally different views of the problem. Your view is that the problem is drug use, my view is that the problem is drug crime. Ironically, your view is shared by the drug-legalization types (or, perhaps, they mix the two). If drugs should be legalized, that implies usage isn't a problem - just the crime associated with its trade. Its contradictory.
I thought you implied earlier that your view was that drug use was immoral. Perhaps I misunderstood. To take the position that the problem is drug crime, then to oppose legalization would require an argument that legalization would increase drug crime, which I'm not sure is empirically supportable. (And, yes, of course, the argument only makes sense when restricted to drug related violence and theft, as the overall level of drug related crime would instantly go down if possession were no longer a crime.)russ_watters said:my view is that the problem is drug crime.
Hurkyl said:You say this a lot, but what does it really mean? It's certainly nonobvious that this is a bad thing, nor that it's an indicator that the war on drugs is failing.
And you make juxtapositions like this as if it meant something. Even if improving purity and decreasing price is shown to be a bad thing, you've made absolutely no effort to show that things would not have been worse had this seizure not taken place.
Less "drug use" is not the only measure of success. I believe I've stated that use would indeed go up, but addiction and ruined lives because of it would go down. The primary problem with drug use is the violence the illicit market creates, this is responsible for a majority of drug related deaths. The goal of a war on drugs should be to minimize the deaths related to drugs, and in that respect the wars punitive approach is a failure.It would be silly to expect 100% victory, but your criticisms of the war on drugs seem to be based primarily on the fact that 100% victory hasn't been accomplished. The war on drugs is successful if drug usage is less than if there was no war on drugs, which you admit is the case:
Actually, since overall drug use has been found, by government study, to have a constant rate across all socioeconomic brackets, this is pretty much true. And furthermore, recreational occaisonal use has even less of an impact, and these users make up such a substantial majority of all users, that they can be considered typical.Furthermore, you use selective sampling as if it's representative:
You are obviously trying to imply that this is your "typical" drug user.
However, you've given no reason to think that these people aren't simply the exceptional cases that are better able than to keep their habit from spilling over into other parts of their life... and that might not even be permament.
And you haven't even attempted to say that the druggies are as productive and successful as the others.
(a) It is already known that social use and addiction are not mutually exclusive, at least with alcohol.
(b) Since one can become addicted to some drugs from a single use, moderation won't prevent addiction.