Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News War On Drugs

  1. Mar 20, 2005 #1
    According to the State Department's annual drug-trafficking report, a federal law took effect in 1985 authorizing the United States to penalize countries that do not control illicit narcotics production. Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, Furthermore, three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state. Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin. Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering the United States. The report also listed Mexico as a major producer of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana destined for U.S. markets. Source: New York Times and Associated Press.

    Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs. By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc. Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments. The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable. Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling. Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly. The counter argument is that this solution is cost prohibitive and will only result in replacing one problem with another. Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production. If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production. This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet. The counter argument, however, is that this policy would prevent farmers from switching to other crops in order to earn a legitimate living. I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today. Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 20, 2005 #2
    What about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happinees"? The imposotion upon an indiviuals' inalienable rights is far more dangerous! That is what is known as tryanny! Even though you may find objection to what others do as for a 'lifestyle', the whole notion of imposing on their liberty is by far more objectionable than anything you have mentioned IMHO! If a person wants to waste their life abusing drugs that is their right and not the right of anyone else to say that is wrong and that they must conform and abide by their notion of morals! Try reading the constitution some time and understand what it really means, I know it is a tough standard to abide by and that every generation since it's inception has failed but that doesn't mean we should give up the standard! I for one am willing to fight and die for those principles and when tryanny is imposed than it my obligation as a citizen to destroy those tyrannts!

    The whole 'war on drugs' nonsense is a racket IMHO. Not only have the rights that are supposed to be gauranteed been trampled but the 'illegal' status has made the drugs that much more profitable! Also as a result we know have more people per capita in jail than any other developed country in the world. Here is an article in the Asia Times along the lines that I have stated.

    Once again just because you say it is a threat and that you object to their 'lifestyle', that in no way endows you or anyone else with the right to impose upon their liberty and rights to live their lives as they see fit. Perhaps it would be better to cut to the chase and start setting up the gas chambers so that we can rid the country of the 'undesirables' so that we can be pure and superior! Then we can take over the world so that the 'superior' american race can have dominion! Does that sound familiar?
  4. Mar 20, 2005 #3
    BS the threat is FROM STUPID DRUG LAWS and the THUGS who inforce them
    if drugs are legal the mobs and the pigs both are out of a job

    btw marijuana is NOT A DRUG it is nontoxic
    and totaly misclassed with real drugs that can kill you

    all our drug laws are RACE BASED just as bad as any other jim crow laws
  5. Mar 20, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    lol wow the nuts are coming out of the woodwork for this one. The government is in charge of protecting its citizens, even if that means protecting them from themselves. I suppose you guys are probably pro-gun control (which makes you hypocrits). As far as afghanistan goes, there country has always lived off the drug trade so there hasnt been a change based on what the US does. And as any intelligent human being knows, drugs make you act a tad bit crazy. How many people have gone off and murdered other people because they were on drugs eh?

    I know a friend who got hospitalzed because he was doing marijuana and told off a bunch of guys and the guys came and beat the **** out of them. So its not exactly something people can do and go about their lives perfectly normal. And the "race based" thing is just something really wacked out people use when they dont actually use logic in their thought process. All ethnicities are jailed for drug use and the simple excuse that of the chinese opium problem doesnt cut it. ray_b, your crazy rants make me think your on the same thing your protesting for.

    Im for legalization... just in exchange, i dont want to pay for you idiots winding up in the hospital and i want my constitutional right (far more of a right then you guys misinterpret drug use as) to carry a firearm incase some heroin addict tries to mug me for my money because he wants more drugs but cant afford them. I also dont want my taxes raised to support poor people out on the street because they spent all their money on drugs. Fair deal all the way around.

    Im sure your appauled at the idea of me not paying for you guys dieing out in the street but hey, im appauled at most drugs. And you guys are so anti-government but i bet you'd cry to that same government if some healthcare company came along that denied coverage to anyone who used or ever used drugs and offered cheap prices to people who were clean.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2005
  6. Mar 20, 2005 #5
    Three cheers to Pengwuino for common sense and logic.

    I agree that your personal rights end at my nose and my wallet, so if you can do stuff with out affecting me by all means go for it. Also if it is the law then it is the law deal with it, either obey it or work to have it legally changed in the system It is there to keep our civilization in order and keep the hounds of anarchy and chaos away.
  7. Mar 21, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My concern with legalizing drugs (as opposed to decriminalizing) is that some of these drugs are so highly addictive that for some people, trying it just once is too much. If you try something, and are then addicted, have you really made a choice to use the drugs, or have you been trapped by addiction? Even if it were made legal, it would need to be pretty heavily regulated to make sure people were mature enough to really know what they were risking when they tried it, and to be sure they weren't putting anyone else at risk.
  8. Mar 21, 2005 #7
    Yes I agree if you want to make it legal let the law makers change the law to alow it to be heavily regulated and taxed. That way it becomes an individuals choice to do it and if the majorly f-up there person there is a large tax pool and /or some form of insurance to take care of that individual and any cost created from there choices.

    Because if you boil it all down it all comes down to choices and personal responsibility for those choices
  9. Mar 21, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Also, before anyone tries to use the illogical excuse that "drug dealers will dissappear, our streets are going to be safer"... as ive had this arugment many time with people who have no sense of logic... well no, drug dealers will not dissappear. What WILL happen though is that now you give criminals a perfectly legal means of making money! The people who use drug dealers will continue to use them because they choose them over what would be a socialized narcotic government organization. The drug dealers will stay and you have now helped them finance legally their other criminal activities whether it be murder, bank robbery, burglary, etc. And the government would not turn it into their industry either. The US government has a tradition of keeping industries private so theres no logical reason as to why they wouldnt keep drug sales into the hands of private corporations. And hell, you'll soon enough (because theres no reason to think there wont be) see just street corner drug dealers using legal permits and actually be able to ask for the protection of the police as opposed to running from them.
  10. Mar 21, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The exact same Constitution that allowed Prohibition... Every generation sinec has drawn its laws farther and farther away from the actual meaning of the Constitution if you do study history at all.
  11. Mar 21, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, most of the drug dealers will hopefully be competed out of business. Only those already too far addicted would continue to use a dealer, while having legitimate, regulated businesses selling would ensure drugs free from dangerous contaminants, and that they actually are the drugs someone has gone out to buy, not like dealers who might cut their drugs with rat poison on the street.

    However, you can't start out with a high tax at the outset. A lower tax at first might encourage some dealers to become legitimate. If the taxes are too high, they'll continue to deal and sell at the same prices as legitimate dealers, but keep the entire profit to themself (yeah, they can go from illegal dealing to tax evasion).

    But, you're also right that it won't make other crimes committed by those dealers go away. If anything, with their loss of income from dealing, they'll have to compensate by doing something else, like mugging more people. They've grown used to a lavish and criminal lifestyle. Or they'll start stealing from the legitimate dealers and undercut the legal prices selling stolen drugs.
  12. Mar 21, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No they wont turn legitimate and open up store fronts or anything. People arent very willing to sell to drug dealers and very few people will be willing if such things happen (selling office space). People are going to see higher priced drugs at retail outlets... or much cheaper products at dealers they've always used. Seeing as how most of these people are poor because of their drugs, there going to go to the cheapy dealers.

    I mean look at some crappy liquor stores or 7-11's vs a place like Whole Foods. The prices are higher at whole foods or any other big name food place while stuff at these crappy places are much cheaper and less quality yet people still go to the 7-11's. And no, they wouldnt be out-competed. The retail stores selling it would be selling it at a higher price because they hve to pay sales tax and excise taxes to boost their price.
  13. Mar 21, 2005 #12
    Then instead of the just the FBI and DEA coming after them now the IRS and the ATFD (ATF with a new drug unit attached) can go after them. Shudders That sounds likes loads of fun.

    Hummmm... check enabled modes,
    /sarcasm on

    Ok cool, guess that last statement is good :wink:
  14. Mar 21, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually the board of equalization would come after them. There worse then the FBI! Wanna catch bin laden, just tell the BOE that he owes sales tax on his business and we'll find him in 5-10 business days.
  15. Mar 21, 2005 #14
    Those willing to exchange liberty for security deserve neither-paraphrase of Franklin

    It is the liberty of any individual to live their life as they see fit even if you object to their lifestyle. That is a tough standard isn't it? The authorities that we the people grant to the government are also ours to take so I don't buy the authoritarian nonsense concisely because many scoundrels will take advantage of it! That is one reason for me not to buy 'it is the law' nonsense. Too often those powers have been abused and will continued to be abused as long as we the people let tyranny take shape.

    I am perfectly capable of controlling my guns! Hell I learned how to shoot guns using a daisy BB gun, great for training you how to aim and other such elementary notions one need to use those tools. Besides how else do we keep the government in check except with the threat of violent overthrow as a last resolve. The founders understood this idea very well!

    Now letting your buddy off the hook for his idiotic behavior because he smoked some pot tells me that you nor your buddy take responsibility for your own actions. Well too bad, you are held responsible for your actions I don't let anybody use the excuse of drugs or alcohol, period. I don't care what you are on, you are still responsible for your actions. It is truly pathetic that you would advocate such personal irresponsibility! Should I re-iterate the point anymore?

    As for the fear you have of being mugged because someone is trying to get their fix at inflated prices, well once again I think advocating personal responsibility is key here. There are a lot of if's here but as soon as that person harms you that is when policing and/or governmental action is necessary. Regardless of their 'reasons' they have still committed an offense against you and they are to compensate you in some mean or manner. That is what is known as justice. If you want to blame the drugs then I will re-iterate.... no forget that I have said it enough!

    Personally I am anti corrupt government and I think that is something to consider in this grand labyrinth we call america! To say that our government is not corrupt is to have your head in the sand!

    Moonie you bring the most sensible points IMHO. They would have to be regulated and lets face it, legal drugs are becoming less regulated. Strange Irony isn't it? 'Legal' drugs can be dangerous yet no one seems to point that out. The legal issues are actually irrelevant because people will continue to use drugs for recreational as well as medical purposes, the question in my mind is who do I trust nowadays. Doctors are in on the Big Pharm Corps gig and drug dealers are in many respects no different: they are all trying to make a buck! They could care less what happens as long as they have their asses covered. The Pharm Corp.s have more money to play that game than small time drug dealers.

    This is one complicated problem and no one seems to mind the erosion of the constitutional rights that have been incurred since this so called war on drugs was started. I do know that politicians are more than willing to grand stand and exploit the moral platitudes about dangers to society but what is truly worse, they fact that people use drugs regardless of the legal status(which BTW invokes a forbidden fruit desire for some) or the compromise of what is the liberty of a person to live their lives as they see fit. Of course maybe it is time to scratch the constitution and set up an autocratic regime that is answerable to no one!?!?!
  16. Mar 21, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When did i excuse my friend ... err 'let him off the hook'. For one, when i heard about it, i went home and laughed my ass off about it and wished it happened more often. It made me very happy to see this guy wind up with a concussion and some broken ribs in a hospital (well, i have other reason to hate him too but haha, hilarious in any case). In any case, you really dont understand what Benjamin Franklin meant. He said 'basic'. Your right to go get yourself killed is not exactly a basic right and im sure he would agree. Hell, i know he would agree seeing as how this was the generation that said it wanted a nation to "Insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare" which pretty much means make sure citizens arent killing themselves. Unfortunately, people like you have thrown caution to teh wind when attacking the Constitution and using your own horrible misinterpretations to try to get your way.
  17. Mar 21, 2005 #16
    No s**t sherloc! That is part of the problem!

    As for your friend it sounds like he got his due!

    As for citizens killing themselves, hell i think that is their right, you want to kill yourself go right ahead, who am I to stop you! That goes with the right to life clause and the idea of free will! It's not my responsibility to stop someone from offing themselves if they really want to! I may not agree with it but I certainly will respect their decision to do so! As for parental notions of government protecting me from myself well I am sorry but I don't trust those people well enough to do so, besides I'm grown up enough to make my own decisions. Hell considering the nonsense I have seen pulled by those peole in govenrment, especially lately, why should I trust them with anything? They are ruthless scoundrels that respect nothing except their own precious hides!
  18. Mar 21, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, legalization of deadly drugs would be a law drawing farther and farther away from the Constitution. Thinking the Constitution gives us the right to do absolutely anything and everything is drawing farther away from the Constitution. Saying laws shoudl be written to forbid people from putting up a Cross or erect churches or mosques would be another example of people going farther away from the Constitution (under the excuse of the non-factual seperation of church and state).

    Lets just say i wanted to make a business. But guess what, i dont want to sell to or hire mexicans (im mexican so dont even start). Should it be my right to do such things? And really... if i have the right to do whatever i want... isnt it also my right to demand drugs be illegal? My right to live in a safe society? Because unfortunately, thatw ould mean for every right you have, i have the right against it. Thankfully this doesnt happen in America or any country really and we have a government that decides where the line is drawn and whos rights win out to what extent because someones rights do have to win out; cant have it 2-ways. You can protest all you want and cry all you awnt to Congress but until a majority can say they want drugs legalized, dont cry to us about your "rights" because we have our rights to and the majorities rights win out in a situation like this.
  19. Mar 21, 2005 #18
    So the mob rules, eh?

    At least your starting to grasp the complexity!

    Remember that the standards set by the constitution are some pretty tough ones and it sure is easier to succumb to the tyranny of such things as mob rules, moral platitudes, or other nonsense than try to adhere to the challenges that were set up by it. Try looking into Locke sometime, I think you'll find it enlightening.

    BTW, any time your 'rights' infringes upon the rights of others than you have failed the standard as outlined by the constitution. To say that someone's rights has to win out then not only have you forsaken the rational precept of compromise and negotiation but you have also started a war! Are you willing to die for that because with that mentality you will start fights! Couldn't I say that I have a right to not have to tolerate intolarable people? How about a right free of tryants who want to tell me how to live, how I will spend my money, and who I will associate with and perhaps marry? Does your freedom to be a tryant have presidence over the freedom of an individual because if you think it does than you better to be willing to die for that because you'll end up pissing off the wrong people! I for one place the individuals liberty above that of the mob or would be dictators. I am willing to kill and die for that principle! That is what a large protion of that document is about, not the freedom of some jerk to be a bully!
  20. Mar 21, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually, the US Constitution establishes just that. Majority rules, majority in congress, majority in electing people, majority in making laws. And you seem to be pulling the "i want everything my way" tantrum but in a much more eloquent fashion. It is a fact of the logical world that we live in that 1 groups rights do have to win out and heres why. If one group says its our right to live in a country free of drugs and another groups right to say we have the right to do as many drugs as we want, one side obviously must win out. You cant have it both ways, it is impossible and illogical. You cant live in a country where drugs are freely distributed yet its a country free of drugs. Impossible. One side, by the rules of our universe, must win out and no 1 persons opinion should be the ultimate opinion (which would be saying what your trying to say should be the case). I could very well turn your argument entirely against you and say if the US decided everyone should have acess to drugs, my opinion that we deserve to live in a world free of drugs has exactly the same baring as what you are saying. I could then use the same rhetoric you just preached of starting a war because this "mob" told me drugs are good and shoudl be distributed to anyone and everyone.
  21. Mar 21, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One small point of order - if the Constitution had allowed for prohibition, it would have been put into a law, not an amendment.

    Carry on.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook