War On Drugs: Why?

[drmomentum[$]]

No matter where I turn, it seems to me that the War on Drugs has been a horrible failure.

The only positive thing I can find is that there was a drop in cocaine use during Bush 41 which may or may not have been caused by a tough drug policy. It may just have been a coincidence as wealthier people were opening their eyes to the effect of cocaine after it became more commonplace. Among the poor, the drug policy was not effective.

So, taking a longer view, or even simply an objective view, what good comes to us as a society from spending so much money enforcing tough drug laws? Does criminalizing drug use really make our society safer than treating drug addiction as a health issue? Do facts drive our drug policy, or is it just propped up by rhetoric? Is it just that politicians fear the average American will think a different drug strategy will sound like a pro-drug use strategy? That the subtlety of facts will escape the average voter?

I am more opposed to personal recreational drug use than most people. I have never used an illegal drug, ever. I didn't start enjoying alcohol until my late 20's. I believe heavily in making those kinds of decisions after you have the perspective to understand the consequences.

But I look at our country and I see a reaction to drugs that is both out of proportion to the problem, and ineffective, which is a perverse combination (although not unlike other government attempts at solutions -- perhaps that's what the word "war" means in this case: an overreaction with lots of collateral damage that may not solve the original problem). In the name of saving society, we come down hard on a person for using marijuana, and yet we worry about the consequences of taking grandpa's license away when we know he's a deadly accident waiting to happen, but we don't want to face the responsibility of carting him around because he lives in the next town.

What are we buying with our war on drugs, bottom line? Not in anecdotes spouted by candidates on a podium in an attempt to avoid a contentious subject. An anecdote of an individual is the perfect way to say "we saved this person" while ignoring the hundred who were killed; a politician's clever trick. Can we say this war has improved the country when we step back and look at it? Is it there in the numbers? Can anyone tell me?

If you're reading this and wondering what I'm arguing, I'll summarize it: I can't fathom why we put up with the consequences of the apparently failed war on drugs and I'm hoping someone else has better information or perspective on it.

-JP

[theworm[$]]

Can you or somebody explain to me what the "war on drugs" is? Honestly, I'm not sure. You all know that I'm anti-drugs, I don't support legalization, and I do think that we need to treat addiction as a disease (which we aren't now doing), but I really don't know what the war on drugs is, so I can't intelligently say anything. A war on drugs is like a war on terror - I'm not sure who we're fighting.

[magenta321]

Wasn't DARE a part of the war on drugs? Is DARE still taught in schools?

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Research has cast a lot of doubts on the efficacy of DARE and some communities are finally finding the courage to stop doing DARE in their schools. Some districts in Long Island dropped them recently.

mj
who, despite how her name is pronounced in Spanish, is not a regular afficiando of illegal substances

[erik_kosberg]

Why? Hubris, I suppose.

It's certainly a war we've lost.

[magenta321]

With the disparities between the punishment for those found with crack and those found with coccaine, it seems like it's a war on class or a war on color.

[drmomentum[$]]

theworm said

Can you or somebody explain to me what the "war on drugs" is? Honestly, I'm not sure.

Here's a link. Not that it's necessarily definitive, but it tracks some history of the drug war.

Drug War History

My answer is that you could say our whole approach to fighting the societal ills involved with drug use is "the War on Drugs" but I think it's more appropriate to view the "war" part as the criminalization of drugs, and the massive effort that goes into enforcing those laws.

It's say it's the president's national drug control strategy, especially part III: National Drug Control Strategy Update 2004 - ONDCP

And at least some of part I. But obviously this is just a policy and the "War on Drugs" extends out to all the direct and indirect costs and effects of enforcing drug laws.

-JP

[rmthunter]

The "War on Drugs" is a popular means among politicians of getting votes for not actually dealing with the problem. There is something deep within the American psyche that says you must be punished for doing things that I disapprove of, even if (or maybe that's "especially if") I'm one of the causes of your doing it. (It may be something in other national psyches as well, but Americans seem to disapprove of so much more than others.)

I ran across a story recently of one community that had come up with a solution that actually worked, right at the source -- as I recall, and it's kind of foggy at this point, they targeted dealers, sat them down, talked to them, found out why they were dealing, and then found substitutes for those causes. It seems to have been very effective, which means it will go nowhere -- there is too much of an apparatus built around the "war" at this point to consider solutions that don't involve massive amounts of money, bureaucracy, and social control.

[eplovejoy]

If it can be said that we are waging a war on drugs, then it's the one of the oddest wars we've ever fought. Our making drugs illegal only serves to arm the purported enemy.

Just as in the 1930s with Prohibition, all we've managed to accomplish is to fuel the rise of a vast, powerful criminal superstructure. But unlike Capone and his ilk, the drug lords rule entire countries. The real leader of Afghanistan, for example, is not anyone whose name we know but the person who controls the opium trade that is that nation's biggest industry. The overlords have armies and corrupt officials and communications networks at their disposal. They have endless supplies of impoverished people whose only hope is to work for them. They aren't subject to U.S. tax laws and we don't have an Elliot Ness even if they were. Those of us who don't want the drug lords killing people they don't like are hopelessly outgunned.

The only way we'll accomplish anything meaningful is to decriminalize everything, even the hard stuff like heroin. Make the substances legal, regulate their purity and tax them and then we'll have the resources we need to help those who don't want to be addicted. Otherwise, we're just making life good for the bad guys.

[erik_kosberg]

eplovejoy said

The real leader of Afghanistan, for example, is not anyone whose name we know but the person who controls the opium trade that is that nation's biggest industry.

It's not just one person. Sure, the Taliban makes a lot of money off of the opium trade (remember when they made money from suppressing the opium trade when Bush gave them $43 million in May of 2001?) but the opium business in Afghanistan is also run by anti-Taliban folks like Hazrat Ali (appointed by Karzai as Jalalabad police chief and now an elected member of the Afghan Parliament and the opium lord of Nangrahar Province).

[eplovejoy]

eplovejoy said

If The real leader of Afghanistan, for example, is not anyone whose name we know

I take that back. I should have guessed that Erik would know.