Why the war on drugs is unwinnable


#1

[Read the post]


What if all drugs were totally legal?
#2

I am amused that the tardis makes a guest appearance.

Part of the problem with the war on drugs is the fact that it’s viewed as a problem in the minority population. The U.S. has this thing where poor people always deserve whatever happens to them and so all these issues that are valid in the video are shrugged off… because you know it’s a poor issue.


#3

All these facts have been known and documented for decades, and make zero difference. It’s just too easy to reply, “why do you want our children addicted to heroin?” Conversation over.

Also, +1 for Breaking Bad references.


#4

I’m pretty sure that if we only put a little more money towards solving the problem we’ll nip this right in the bud and win this whole thing!


#5

I personally feel if the ‘war’ on drugs had started under carter instead of nixon we would have less ‘PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH’ and something more ‘these people take drugs which are illegal. Why are they doing this and how do we get them to not do that?’


#6

Ah the classic and insidious “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!” defense.

Honest question: is this just an American thing or do other countries manage to politically deadlock on anything even slightly controversial using this argument?


#7

Maybe we should criminalize diabetes. In fact, let’s start skimming off all public health issues!


#8

That, or maybe: Why are they illegal in the first place?


#9

Maybe, but it would have ended up the same, because police are in charge of it.


#10

If the War on Drugs started today, or even a couple of decades ago, I might chalk it up to “people who are largely ignorant about America’s failed experiment with alcohol prohibition.” But Richard Nixon was a LEGAL ADULT by the time the 21st Amendment was signed into law. Gangsters like Al Capone were all over the news when he was a young man, so there’s no way he couldn’t have seen any of these consequences coming.


#11

Because various minorities are known to use them and they lure pure white women into their clutches in a drug filled haze.

At least that is how it was justified up until 1971. Plus young, Nixon hating people, tended to smoke pot and it was a great way to shut them up.


#12

“It’ll be different this time, since that was an ‘acceptable’ drug, and ‘unacceptable’ drugs work completely differently, right?”


#13

I understand why the Time Cops keep people from going back and killing Hitler, but I don’t understand why they let Nixon stand. Oh right, cause his policies enabled them to reach the apex of the prison industrial pyramid scheme. Thanks, Dick.


#14

To the Cambodians, Nixon is practically like Hitler to them. We wouldn’t have Pol Pot if not for the bombing and invasion of Cambodia in the early 70’s. So I guess the Time Cops are not as Euro/Amero centric as we thought.


#15

Well… which countries don’t have public healthcare? They might the ones you’re looking for?


#16

The war on drugs is corrupting, destructive, wasteful and counter productive. We must twist the arms of congress to decriminalize drugs and redirect money going to the “war on drugs” to hospitals so people can get FREE treatment.


#17

That depends on what your win condition is. If your win condition is to sell lots of police equipment, the war on drugs is winning. If your trying to find new, easier ways to get “undesirables” behind bars, the war on drugs is winning. If you want to prop up illegal drug prices to support cartels and warlords that fight your ideological foe, the war on drugs is wining.

If you want to actually lower the incidence of drug use and the negative effects thereof, the war on drugs is lost.


#18

Unintended consequences? When a policy choice is made to criminalize a behavior, you have to think that just maybe violence against a certain group of people is the INTENDED result.


#19

And because middle-class white folks are disproportionately insulated from any direct exposure to the vast unintended consequences of the catastrophic war on drugs, they have little incentive to demand change in policies. Yes, harm reduction and regulation instead of hard line prohibition would lead to safer cheaper supplies. One only need look at the effect of marijuana legalization to see how swiftly market conditions would improve for consumers. But it would also dilute the rebel factor.

I genuinely suspect that a big reason marijuana is finally becoming legal in the States has less to do with the very real fact that it’s healthier than cigarettes or alcohol - because that was true for the past half century - and more to do with the fact that a lot of pot smokers grew out of their rebellious years and realized they’d rather have a safe, high quality supply chain than a sense of nonconformity. Which has made pot less interesting to younger generations that now turn to “harder” drugs that still feel iconoclastic.


#20

The art design of that video is made of Godzilla balls and cherub kisses.