• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War on drugs, or The Epic Failure... and a possible way out of the constant loss...

N0s4a2

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
73
Reaction score
5
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Drugs...
Not so much the illegal substances, but 'mind-alteringsubstances"...

Since the dawn of quasi-intellectual life (or however one prefers to define it), since the dinosaurs even, maybe, were aware of mind-altering substances (in the form of plants, usually), and used these as thus.

Animals, just like humans, like to flip out of their minds, every so often.
Considering this... drugs were around, and used, even in pre-Homo times, when we joyfully hopped trees still.

In a different manner of speaking, drugs predates the Homo, and has always been part of the Homo species.

All went well, there was free love, there was public nudity, there was groovy music, and there was... Nixon, codenamed "Der Party Pooper".
June, 1970, I believe it was, that Herr Party Pooper Nixon got the brilliant idea, to make our beloved past time fun into a prohibited product, for reasons which no one can comprehend.
Since the moment that this went into effect, it is estimated that around 1 trillion dollars was spend... without much to show for, in all truth.
But, we will go on, for was is all?

Now, imagine the next idea:
Legalize ALL drugs.
Have it made in special designed and made in factories.
The drugs would be of very high quality (so drug related deaths would be absolutely minimal), and it would be quality checked around the clock.
The drugs would be sold in either special made shops, or apothecaries.

The effects of this:
1) Drugs would be 'plentiful', thus cheap.
2) Drug Crime would because of this plummet to nigh zero percent, due to much lower prices.
3) Drugs can be tracked, abuse can be fairly easily detected and snuffed out.
4) Due to the high tracking, children will be largely protected from pushers.
5) Considering it is now "home-coocked" fun, brewed in a local happy factory, people have jobs, both in the factory as outside, since some drugs need several ingredients such as plants, which could be grown locally (I think).
6) Depending on what the price to make it would be, compared to the price it will sell for, the state might gain a bit money of off it.
7) The state would save out the yearly millions it spends on the war against crime.
8) The state would no longer have drug-officers in jeopardy battling crime lords and their minions.
9) The large drug lord houses will implode on themselves.
10) the high quality of the drugs will prevent many an accident from 'bad dope'.
XX) And who knows what else of benefits that might come with this.

Are there NEGATIVE side effects to such a system?
Probably, though I can't tell what these would be, in the short or long term.

TL/DR:
Legalizing drugs will cut down in drug war expenses, and drug war related deaths.
Drug Crime will virtually, if not entirely, vanish.
Less drug related accidents/deaths.
State has control and tracking of who, what, where.
Children mostly are now protected due to tracking.

Thoughts?
 
Drugs...
Not so much the illegal substances, but 'mind-alteringsubstances"...

Since the dawn of quasi-intellectual life (or however one prefers to define it), since the dinosaurs even, maybe, were aware of mind-altering substances (in the form of plants, usually), and used these as thus.

Animals, just like humans, like to flip out of their minds, every so often.
Considering this... drugs were around, and used, even in pre-Homo times, when we joyfully hopped trees still.

In a different manner of speaking, drugs predates the Homo, and has always been part of the Homo species.

All went well, there was free love, there was public nudity, there was groovy music, and there was... Nixon, codenamed "Der Party Pooper".
June, 1970, I believe it was, that Herr Party Pooper Nixon got the brilliant idea, to make our beloved past time fun into a prohibited product, for reasons which no one can comprehend.
Since the moment that this went into effect, it is estimated that around 1 trillion dollars was spend... without much to show for, in all truth.
But, we will go on, for was is all?

~snipped some to free up space~

TL/DR:
Legalizing drugs will cut down in drug war expenses, and drug war related deaths.
Drug Crime will virtually, if not entirely, vanish.
Less drug related accidents/deaths.
State has control and tracking of who, what, where.
Children mostly are now protected due to tracking.

Thoughts?

My first thought, reading your post was this: Was the drug war Nixon's idea? I'm not so sure about that. Seems to me I remember reading about anti marijuana laws and drug laws going back into the 40's, at least. Oh...wait...it was MUCH earlier than the 40's.

To begin with, cannabis of any sort, whether for medical or recreational purposes, remains illegal under federal law. The federal government first regulated marijuana in 1937, when Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. As with the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914, Congress deemed an act taxing and regulating drugs, rather than prohibiting them, less susceptible to legal challenge. As a result, the 1937 legislation was ostensibly a revenue measure. Just as the Harrison Act used taxation and regulation to, in effect, prohibit morphine, heroin and other drugs, the Marijuana Tax Act essentially outlawed the possession or sale of marijuana. More stringent measures followed. In 1952, the Boggs Act provided stiff mandatory sentences for offenses involving a variety of drugs, including marijuana.

Also, what part did Congress play...in the "Nixon" times? Did Nixon write the laws and they just rubber stamp them? Or did Congress propose, write, pass and send bills to Nixon...as was usually done back then? Nixon DID have a special hatred for the counter culture that was growing at the time, but so did a lot of others...including Congressmen.

Anyway, I agree with legalizing weed. I see it as little different than alcohol. But when talking about other drugs, you and I part ways. There is a BIG difference between crack cocaine and pot. I don't think there should be ANY legal commercial market for crack, cocaine, opium, the various prescription drugs (uppers, downers, pain killers)...etc...that makes them available as recreational drugs.
 
Drugs...

Thoughts?

Hi N0s4a2,

For a long time The Netherlands was considered one of the more progressive countries when it came to drugs. And though marihuana has never been legalized, contrary to common believe, it was indeed easily available. Before as well as today it can be bought in ships called 'Coffee Shops'.

I kind of like the concept of it being illegal for only one reason. If someone causes trouble, you can take them in. Myself I smoke quite regularly and have done so for many years, please keep that in mind. I have often said to people that they should do the same thing with alcohol. Make it illegal, but let people drink all they want. When it causes trouble you can take them in. I think you are getting my drift.

Having said that, there is probably more elegant ways of dealing with its legality, other than making/keeping it illegal while at the same time letting people use it.

In Holland there has always been a lot of public information regarding the risks of drugs available to all people. This has resulted in a much reduced problem with the users of drugs. And one thing I clearly remember is that in the Netherlands the problem for many years has always been the less informed foreigners that came to Holland and not so much the Dutch People themselves. This is in part because of the public information campaigns in Holland.

So keeping the above in mind, I'd say; Yes, legalize it. But be smart about it. And make sure that you still have the legal resources to deal with any problems that may arise out of the legalization. I am pretty sure this can be done.

And much like you said, you can't stop them from doing it anyways, so better make sure you are involved in the scene instead of pushing it in the criminal atmosphere. Imagine the drug lords in Mexico if from one day to an other all of a sudden there is no income anymore... That would effectively be the end of the drugs cartels as we know it. Or cartels from any other country for that matter.

One of the benefits I am missing in your list though is the huge financial benefits for the state once they can claim taxes on these drugs.

Joey
 
My first thought, reading your post was this: Was the drug war Nixon's idea?

Hi Mycroft,

I don't think it was Nixon's idea.

The prohibition was there before. And failed miserably. Many people fail to recognize that Alcohol is a drug just like any other drug we know. Aa a matter of fact Alcohol does way more harm than Marihuana. And the side effects are different as well. I have never seen a stoned guy start a fight. I have seen many drunk people starting fights. Bottom line is, I do not think it was Nixon's idea. He was not the first one. And if he had looked back in time, he would have know that his plan would fail miserably.

And I repeat, yes, I like to smoke a joint. But I also like to drink. So in pointing out the difference I am not biased too much I think.

But It was Nixon not about the drugs. It was about socialism. Hippies were seen as a danger to society. And socialism was (and still is) considered to be communism by many. This is what drove Nixon to a total ban on drugs. Except alcohol of course...

Joey
 
Oregon will be a good petri dish for seeing what happens now that hard drugs are decriminalized.

The war on drugs has done more damage to civil rights than the drug trade, and it is past time to phase it out and let police do police work not nanny state parenting.
 
My first thought, reading your post was this: Was the drug war Nixon's idea? I'm not so sure about that. Seems to me I remember reading about anti marijuana laws and drug laws going back into the 40's, at least. Oh...wait...it was MUCH earlier than the 40's.
According to: https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs it should be.

I don't think there should be ANY legal commercial market for crack, cocaine, opium, the various prescription drugs (uppers, downers, pain killers)...etc...that makes them available as recreational drugs.
It would not be advertised, of course.
But recreational drugs won't EVER go away.
Proof?
The whole time that the war was running, drugs been aplenty.
Am I wrong?
So... why not just stop the war... and do the opposite: go with it.
This seems the most logical approach?

Hi N0s4a2,

For a long time ...
Fully agree.
I made it simplistic, but I point all this out: Instead of warring an impossible war, USE that, and stay in control...
Keep the war going will result in... well, richer criminals and a MUCH poorer state...?

Oregon will be a good petri dish for seeing what happens now that hard drugs are decriminalized.

The war on drugs has done more damage to civil rights than the drug trade, and it is past time to phase it out and let police do police work not nanny state parenting.
Absolutely.
And not just civil rights, but the whole country, the whole world almost...
To absolutely no avail...
 
There is a BIG difference between crack cocaine and pot. I don't think there should be ANY legal commercial market for crack, cocaine, opium, the various prescription drugs (uppers, downers, pain killers)...etc...that makes them available as recreational drugs.

Hi Mycroft,

Like I said in my earlier post, this has actually always my dilemma as well. So I kinda agree with you and I have struggled with this for a long time myself. But I do believe it is better to accept it and deal with rather than sticking your head in the sand (is that an English expression as well by any chance?). All these hard drugs as we refer to them in Holland is indeed a different ball game. But I think it is more beneficial in the long run to simply accept it. Treat the addicts as patients instead of criminals. Advise and educate. Take it out of the underground criminal world. In Holland there often is testing centers outside rave parties. You can take your pills there and get them tested before you swallow. They are not trying to discourage you, but if it is a dangerous mix they know quickly. Yes this is passed on to the police as well. But not to take the party animals in and bring them to the police station. Just to get a clearer picture of what is going around. And the people are not worried to get it tested because they know they will not get arrested. They just wanna have a blast for one night and are aware that there is dangerous stuff out there as well. It sure reduces the lines at the emergency rooms.

So like I said, I kinda agree with you, but give the other side of the coin a second though. I really think it may just not be that bad of an approach.

Joey
 
Treat the addicts as patients instead of criminals.
They are neither.
An addict is not sick, he's addicted which a self-conflicted state.

But yes: one cannot defeat drug (ab)use.
If one cannot defeat it, one needs to go along.

Simple intellect demands it.
 
They are neither.
An addict is not sick, he's addicted which a self-conflicted state.

But yes: one cannot defeat drug (ab)use.
If one cannot defeat it, one needs to go along.

Simple intellect demands it.

Hi N0s4a2,

We only differ on details. ;)

Joey
 
They are neither.
An addict is not sick, he's addicted which a self-conflicted state.

But yes: one cannot defeat drug (ab)use.
If one cannot defeat it, one needs to go along.

Simple intellect demands it.
Actually, an 'addict' does have a medical issue that should be non-judicial; the addict is usually an addict in all parts of their lives, in one form or another.
Ironically, many of the drugs that have been outlawed (mainly the entheogens) are the very drugs known to defeat drug addiction!
 
Ironically, many of the drugs that have been outlawed (mainly the entheogens) are the very drugs known to defeat drug addiction!
Only a ninja can kill a ninja... rofl

Ah, sweet sweet irony...
One might think, that it is a sign. lmao.

It's a bizarre world, we live in, and many cannot cope, or need 'time off'.
It is understandable, sadly...

Right or not, that I will not go into, each one has to decide that for himself, ainnit...
Not up to me to say anything bout this.
 
Let's clear one thing up. The so-called "War on Drugs" was Nixon's idea. However, there were any number of drugs made illegal before hand. The prohibitions simply were not called part of a "War on Drugs" until Nixon coined the term.

Extra credit: as Erlichman admitted, the real reason for Nixon's "War on Drugs" was to target black people and hippies.




"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."


 
Comments on the video? (it requires a sign in, so I haven't seen it)
The greatest Drug War documentary ever recorded I highly recommend Kevin Booth in these matters
 
Back
Top Bottom