Is the War on Drugs winding down?

[MikeInVA]

why is it more dangerous?

The immediate effects last longer, and the long term use causes cognitive damage.

 

[Rozellelily]

It seems like neither the conservative USA war on drugs approach works, nor the liberal approach of the Netherlands.
The Singapore approach works but at the cost of human life.
It would be good to see a country implement an approach that was very hard on drug dealers, and soft on drug users to see the results.

Honestly, I believe that the way that a lot of the hard drugs come into the country is through the cooperations of police and airport staff.
There is simply no other way to explain how countries keep getting flooded with large quantities of drugs.
It is amazing that even in prisons there are many heroin addicts taking drugs actually while in prison.
So how do all the drugs get in there? Maybe a small amount are smuggled in cleverly, but for there to be that much drugs in jails can really only point to some form of cooperation of the prison guards.

So, how to fix the hard drugs problems when even some police and prison guards are undermining sincere attempts?

 

[sleepysam]

Portugal decriminalized all drug use in 2001. Since then its HIV infection rate has plummeted, and in 2018 it was 1/50th of that in the US. Overdose deaths are the lowest in the EU and have been for years, and drug use has substantially dropped young adults (15-24 year-olds).

Drug addiction is a medical issue and a epidemiological problem. It rarely affects just one person or family. It isn’t and never should have been a criminal issue. Once the US treats it like a cluster of medical and mental health diseases, only then will they be able to address it meaningfully.

 

[otjm]

However, in contrast to your case are all those who’s lives were destroyed by the justice system more than the drugs they used ever did.

No one’s life has “been destroyed by the justice system”. Every one of them knew or should have know that illicit use of drugs and illicitly obtaining drugs was a crime, and each and every one of them made a choice. They chose to disobey the law. We had a phrase among defense lawyers: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

There’s also all the others killed during aggressive police actions

Oh please - ;your knowledge of police actions is not even minimal, Contrary to the outright lies circulating right now, the people who are being killed by police are armed and shooting at police or are going for a weapon. The actual statistics of those not armed but killed by police by recent count were between 9 and 13, depending on the source of the reports, and of those, the majority were threatening the police (as in, attempting to take the officer’s weapon or assaulting the policeman and shot by a third party).

The various no knock raids yielding nominal amounts of drugs if any while destroying property and too often killing people when they raid the wrong house. And let’s not forever those who’ve endured invasive searches during traffic stops on suspicion of hiding drugs “internally”.

That has absolutely nothing to do with removing drug offenses from criminal prosecution, nor does it hae anything to do with getting addicts into treatment.

’m not for a nation of users, but like alcohol it seems clear that most of the issues we see are partially due to its prohibition.

As I said and which you have ignored, how are addicts going to pay for their drugs? Theft. Burglary. Occasionally, robbery. For runaway teenagers, selling their bodies. Please address the comment. And while you are at it, you might want to do some research on the level of addiction in the Netherlands, as they were early on to removing drug use from criminality.

For example, if I had an addiction I would be hesitant to seek help as that implies admission of a crime.

Apparently you have never sought treatment. That is an urban myth.

 

[otjm]

I do wonder what the proper balance is between full legalization and forcing those with problematic levels of drug abuse into rehab

Do you mean what is the level of use of drugs for the sake of the effects of the drugs (as opposed to any possible therapeutic use)? At what level of drug use do you consider someone to be unable to hod a job or attend to family responsibilities? How much fentanyl is too much? How much meth can be taken before there is permanent damage to the individual? How many trips can be take on LSD before there is permanent brain damage? What, if anything, is the proper use of PCP? What is the effect of MDMA and what is its proper use? What is the usage level of heroin before it becomes addictive?

How long does marijuana remain in the system sufficient to impair, for example, the ability to drive (Colorado having legalized its use has reported an increase in traffic accidents); and what is going to be done for the families impacted by someone driving under the influence of it - the families with someone permanently injured, or killed? Just tell the family "Oh well, that is the risk you take when you drive - someone was going to (maim, or kill) your loved ones?

 

[otjm]

So, how to fix the hard drugs problems when even some police and prison guards are undermining sincere attempts?

Exceedingly few are. And the prosecution of those caught is even more rigorous than the dealers.

 

[MarysLurker]

The plague of drug addiction, and the associated breakdown of the family and rise of organized crime that goes with it is another facade of the same problem that drives secularism and the sexual revolution: radical individualism. That’s why the addicts say things like

the “my use of drugs is a personal choice and affects only me” argument.

Unfortunately, radical individualism isn’t going away absent a massive societal collapse.

It would be good to see a country implement an approach that was very hard on drug dealers, and soft on drug users to see the results.

That is exactly what the War on Drugs was. It wasn’t a failure, though… we bought our civilization seventy or so years until we reached the point of surrender, which is what legalization is.

The Dutch example cited above shows that the argument that legalization hurts the drug cartels by making them compete with the free market is baloney. Instead, the cartels get more access to the free market to launder even more of their money as they move up to supplying harder, still-illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine. If those drugs are legalized, then the cartels move further up to synthetics and fentanyl. And those can’t ever be legalized since they are so deadly. So you end up in a worse place than before legalization.

Honestly, I believe that the way that a lot of the hard drugs come into the country is through the cooperations of police

Public corruption is a serious problem. It isn’t just the police; often the police are the only good guys fighting against corrupt political machines. This is why you can’t trust the government to do a Singapore style strategy or forcing people into rehab, because then it’s goodbye democracy.

At this point, there isn’t a solution, absent a miraculous revival of morality or a massive population collapse that takes out the socioeconomic strata including both the users and suppliers of drugs. The latter is what has been forecasted by basically everyone.. While they often give different purported causes for the forthcoming collapse, such as climate change and economics, the actual reason will be the one that Our Lady of Fatima and Sister Lucia gave: the collapse of the family, with the rise of drugs being a major contributing factor along with the others mentioned.

This is the part where I plug the Benedict Option again.

 

[farronwolf]

The immediate effects last longer, and the long term use causes cognitive damage.

And alcohol causes cognitive damage, liver damage and often times damage to those around the user in terms of abuse. Alcohol is physically addictive, and you can overdose and die on alcohol.

 

[farronwolf]

They are great ideas! The only problem is that many addicts probably wouldn’t agree to their identifying details to be stored in a database due to stigma concerns.

Really? They will perform sex acts for a hit, but won’t give their name to get it. I find that difficult to imagine.

 

[Pattylt]

Just to clear up a misconception here. The reason that pot is detectable for up to a month is because the chemical ingredient THC is broken down to its metabolites and stored in the liver for much longer than alcohol. As far as I’m aware, the high on pot lasts about 4-6 hours whereas alcohol is 3-4 hours.

Our liver can completely break down alcohol as we have an enzyme that does this. Btw, American Indians and some Japanese lack sufficient amounts of this enzyme which is why they get drunk easier and risk toxic levels sooner. The metabolites of pot have to go through a longer filtration process in the liver since there isn’t a corresponding enzyme targeted to them. It doesn’t mean they stay higher longer…just that they can’t clear it as quickly.

One of the problems law enforcement has is that we have no way right now now to determine how high or how recently someone smoked some pot. We have to measure the metabolites and, since these are stored for various periods of time, don’t give us a level like we have with alcohol. Someone can be completely sober yet test positive because they smoked a joint yesterday. Road side sobriety tests are about the only way to test.

So, the guy that smoked yesterday is just as sober as the guy who had an after dinner drink yesterday and the guy that did neither. It was my biggest objection to legalizing pot here in Colorado. And it’s still a problem.

 

[LilyM]

toabb:

why is it more dangerous?

The immediate effects last longer, and the long term use causes cognitive damage.

So does long term heavy (not to say chronic) use of alcohol.

Reading all the horror stories of addicts refusing rehab or relapsing, my parents and sister (who are all doctors) have told similar stories of people who exhibit all the signs of addiction when it comes to fatty and sugary foods.

Rampant uncontrolled diabetes, heart disease and so on, which can have horrific complications and which could at least be hugely helped if not basically cured by a change of diet. The patient stubbornly refusing, and family sneaking fast food or chocolate or Coke into hospital for them and so on.

Maybe we should ban, or at least severely restrict, the consumption of fat and sugar on the basis of their extremely bad health effects and addictive nature? Make it illegal to drive while under the influence of Twinkies?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Do you mean what is the level of use of drugs for the sake of the effects of the drugs (as opposed to any possible therapeutic use)? At what level of drug use do you consider someone to be unable to hod a job or attend to family responsibilities? How much fentanyl is too much?

Yes. Just as it applies to other things. A large number of people drink enough alcohol to get drunk at times, but they maintain their jobs, family life, etc. Likewise, is it not possible for similar models of use of some drugs?
Yes, the timing would be different and the long term health consequences too for different substances, but I find it hard to believe it’s a binary all or none situation.

 

[otjm]

Someone can be completely sober yet test positive because they smoked a joint yesterday. Road side sobriety tests are about the only way to test.

I understand the issue - however, Colorado has recorded a significant increase of accidents since pot was legalized. Meaning, one would presume, lacking any other indicator for a significant increase, that it is due to people driving while high. I am aware that pot does not break down in a way similar to alcohol. Presumably at least ome of this is due to people who prior to the change in the law were not users.

 

[otjm]

people who exhibit all the signs of addiction when it comes to fatty and sugary foods.

How many of them are going out and committing thefts, or burglaries, or robberies to sustain their "addiction?

 

[Pattylt]

I understand the issue - however, Colorado has recorded a significant increase of accidents since pot was legalized. Meaning, one would presume, lacking any other indicator for a significant increase, that it is due to people driving while high. I am aware that pot does not break down in a way similar to alcohol. Presumably at least ome of this is due to people who prior to the change in the law were not users.

Hmmm, I kind of doubt that road accident increases are due to large numbers of people getting high and suddenly deciding to drive. I don’t doubt that there may have been a slight increase that could be blamed on legalizing pot but most of the state was already getting high.

Do you have a link to that information? I’d like to see what counties show an increase. Aspen and Boulder were already known as stoner towns.. Plus, in Colorado, you always have to take weather into consideration. Years with more or deeper snows effect statistics here, too…particularly when they move in fast leaving an ice layer underneath. Many times the pot smokers are pulled over for driving too slow! I’m not sure pot makes someone a bad driver as much as a paranoid one unlike alcohol which really impairs ability.

 

[MarysLurker]

LilyM:

sugary foods.

How many of them are going out and committing thefts, or burglaries, or robberies to sustain their "addiction?

The damage done by excessive simple carbohydrate consumption is primarily to the consumer. Unless you have an endocrine disorder, driving under the influence of Twinkies is not dangerous, and many government-run highway rest stops are stocked with carbs because they actually promote alertness. You cannot sue the DMV for making you fat as a result because the decision to exceed moderation is yours and not the state’s.

Also, carbs are not tied to crime. For example, I’m not aware of any international Captain Crunch trafficking organizations. But I did hear that someone stole some Lucky Charms.

 

[toabb]

Need to better than that… Alcohol is much more destructive and damaging than marijuana. Both physically and mentally (as others have pointed out). On top of that, alcohol can make people extremely aggressive and violent.

 

[otjm]

But I did hear that someone stole some Lucky Charms.

The perpetrator was likely some pot smoker who got the munchies.

 

[otjm]

Do you have a link to that information?

No; it was some time ago in an article questioning the wisdom of legalizing pot. As Oregon had already done so also, it caught my attention. While the article did not state the level of the increase, the indication was that it was not a minor blip.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

How was the previous method better? Seemed to destroy ppl more than the drugs.

Well… I am a ex drug addict. 12 years clean. I spend about 5 years in the system in one way or another due to my choices while active in my addiction. There was plenty of options for help for the last several decades as it is. There is the pc1000 program for first time offense, Prop 36 for a second offence and if you have no violent crimes there is Drug court. All about help. But if you mess up, yes, you can do some real time in jail or prison depending on what the charges were.

The thing about drug addicts in these court ordered programs that I mention (I have been through them all) is that yes some take advantage and stop. Lots more do not. They play the system and keep on using. Taking away the threat of serious jail time/prison time will not deter drug use in my opinion. Unfortunately some drug addicts absolutely need to be behind bars for awhile to get clean. If it was not for the threat of being a felon for the rest of my life (I got my record expunged) and being fined thousands of dollars while the threat of going to prison, I probably would not have stopped. That helped way more then any “help” the system tried to give me.