What are the arguments in favor of the war on drugs? Why is it still being waged?

[Imrahil91]

It seems quite apparent to me that the war on drugs has not only failed to combat the drug problem, but that it actually causes many other serious problems. Such as incarceration of people in the US and powerful criminal organizations, both of which are symptoms of the huge amount of money the black market for drugs creates.

So are there any good arguments in favor of the current mainstream policies with regards to drugs, or is it safe to advocate liberalization* of the drug market and decriminalizing most if not all drugs.

*I mean making it legal to sell and produce probably with some special regulation and sin taxes.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Arguments in favor of the war on drugs:

1.) "Drugs are bad, mmkay? You shouldn't do drugs, mmkay?"

2.) "We're the prison lobby and goddamn it if you shut off our primary income source you politicians will not be getting that larger yacht you've had your eye on."

That's pretty much all of them as far as I can tell.

 

[BvBPL]

Drugs and drug addictions destroy lives. Prohibition is a logical means by which access to drugs may be limited for the protection of those that would be harmed by drugs.

 

[Imrahil91]

Drugs and drug addictions destroy lives. Prohibition is a logical means by which access to drugs may be limited for the protection of those that would be harmed by drugs.

Ok, but does prohibition actually limit the access to drugs enough? We can clearly see that many lives still are destroyed by drugs even today.
I guess the main problem is that prohibition gives a lot of power to ruthless criminals in the drug market. They are using violence and are often selling bad quality drugs that are more dangerous than those who would be sold under regulation.

You could also ask whether drug problems are just a symptom of some underlying problems and that those who are drug addicts would find some other way to destroy their lives even without drugs.

 

[Aea]

Drugs destroy lives. That's awful, we think the government should destroy your life instead. - Prohibitionists

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Drugs destroy lives. That's awful, we think the government should destroy your life instead. - Prohibitionists

*...the government and/or black market gangsters, we don't care which,...

Fixed.

 

[Nexlev]

I think at the core of the issue is an American (or is it an anglo?) preoccupation with punishment as a form of justice. Indeed, I would say that to most Americans, when we say justice we actually mean punishment.

The drug war is just a symptom of this preoccupation. Limiting the abuse of drugs in society is a noble cause (a form of justice if you will).

I see the culture changing but gradually and at this time, selectively. More and more Americans are supporting the decriminalization of marijuana. Other drugs don't have a cultural support for decriminalization and more importantly in my opinion, treatment or education as a means to justice is still too often overlooked.

I think many people see this as a partisan divide, but I don't agree. It's part of our culture. Both sides of the American political spectrum are obsessed with punishment.

 

[BvBPL]

Ok, but does prohibition actually limit the access to drugs enough?

Maybe not, but I'm uncertain if there's a more effective means to limit access to drugs.

Clearly, the prosecution of the war on drugs results in social ills. The question is whether those ills are greater or lesser than the ills that would result from liberal access to drugs. The rise in prescription pain killer abuse demonstrates that liberalized access to narcotics does not act as a salve to abuse and suggests that liberalization of presently illegal drugs would not reduce abuse.

Prohibition is a logical means to address harmful drug use. It is also a simplistic means. People have suggested that liberalizing drug law would reduce the ills of the drug war, but that liberalization, but itself, does nothing to address the ills of abuse. Both solutions, by themselves, merely substitute one ill for another, a balancing act between deciding which harm is lesser. Having been a personal witness to both the problems of the drug war and the problems of abuse, I prefer the problems created by the drug war.

The resolution need not be a dichotomous choice between the two. It is conceptually possible that we could end the drug war and combat the problem of drug abuse through other means such as anti-abuse education and treatment. However, that sort of solution would require a sea change in public policy and vast resources being diverted towards those ends. Were that to be an effective means to combat drug abuse then that would be preferable to me, however the public will to effect that change is not present in many nations.

You could also ask whether drug problems are just a symptom of some underlying problems and that those who are drug addicts would find some other way to destroy their lives even without drugs.

Certainly drug use is related to other social concerns. However, to suggest that some people are fated to destroy their lives by any means and would resort to other means absent drugs is a dark view of humanity that I will not entertain.

 

[Borachio]

It's a tricky one.

Recreational drugs do a lot of harm in themselves. And prohibition gives a clear message to potential users that society in general does not endorse their use.

Isn't there something problematic about people taking toxic substances in order to enjoy themselves? Isn't it symptomatic of something lacking in their world that they seek an artificial stimulation?

Legalizing all recreational drugs is a one-way street. Once it's done, there's no going back again.

(Now, I realize there are counter arguments to the above points. But I think those are the arguments in favour of the war on drugs.)

 

[Aea]

Legalizing all recreational drugs is a one-way street. Once it's done, there's no going back again.

I would like to point out that drug prohibition is a fairly new idea in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure why you think it's a one-way street if we've gone from legal acceptance to legal prohibition on pretty much all recreational drugs within the last century alone.

 

[Archbob]

What if we just replace all these punishments and concentrate on drug dealers, especially those dealing in excess of $3 million a year in illegal drugs.

Lets say if any of these are found and caught, they shall be immediately tied up and fed to crocodiles for the crime of "treason against humanity".

 

[Borachio]

@Aea

Well, there's something in that.

And given the propensity of Chinese chemists to tweak designer drugs to keep one step ahead of the law, the horse has probably already bolted anyway.

 

[BvBPL]

I would like to point out that drug prohibition is a fairly new idea in the grand scheme of things.

Not really, unless you are thinking really grandly.

O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, Al-Ansab , and Al-Azlam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaitan's (Satan) handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination) in order that you may be successful.

 

[Aea]

I was referring to the realm of civil and legal law, not religious prescriptions. And more so within the context of the US.

As a aside, Ottomans for instance had a period where Cannabis and Opium were acceptable, but you could lose your head over a cup of joe.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Isn't there something problematic about people taking toxic substances in order to enjoy themselves?

Is there? It seems many people just assume the answer is yes, but is that a fair assumption? It seems to me that it's the other way around, that the problematic behavior is the government telling adults what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. I am anti drug, personally. I've never even smoked marijuana, not even once, much less taken any harder illegal drugs, nor do I have any interest in ever doing so. But does that give me the moral right to tell other people that they can't do it?

I'll happily talk about the economic reasons for ending the war on drugs anytime, I think it's pretty clear that this "war" is a bad investment for everyone except the owners of the privatized prison system. But even if it wasn't, even if it could be concretely proven that the war on drugs saves more money than it costs, I would still be in favor of full legalization of drugs (and prostitution, a different topic, but my opinion on both is the same) on moral grounds. It is immoral to punish adults for behavior that is damaging to themselves. Punish them for behavior that is damaging to others, like driving while under the influence, absolutely. But if they are only harming themselves and they are adults then it should be their sole right to do so.

And to preempt the most common comeback I get on this, no, the emotional anguish that someone's family members feel watching it happen does not count as punishable harm in my book, punishable harm would have to be based on quantifiable risk factors, not feelings, or else the same logic could be used to ban all kinds of things (junk food, video games, pornography, extreme sports, the internet itself just to name a few that come to mind right away).

 

[BvBPL]

The major problem with taking toxic substances is that the substances are toxic. A government has a duty to prevent harm to its citizens. That includes self-harm, although not perhaps to the same extent as external threats of harm. Punishment isn't the goal, it is merely the easiest means by which a government has to prohibit harmful acts.

 

[Aea]

The major problem with taking toxic substances is that the substances are toxic. A government has a duty to prevent harm to its citizens. That includes self-harm, although not perhaps to the same extent as external threats of harm. Punishment isn't the goal, it is merely the easiest means by which a government has to prohibit harmful acts.

Bottles of bleach get a warning label. Bottles of LSD get you a 50 year jail sentence.

 

[Nexlev]

The major problem with taking toxic substances is that the substances are toxic. A government has a duty to prevent harm to its citizens. That includes self-harm, although not perhaps to the same extent as external threats of harm. Punishment isn't the goal, it is merely the easiest means by which a government has to prohibit harmful acts.

It's not working. The government has a duty to prevent harm to it's citizens, they're failing, and wasting a ton of money in the process.

 

[BvBPL]

As I mentioned above, absolute safety would not be achieved either through prohibition nor through liberalization. It is a choice between two harms.

I discussed above means by which the harms that would result from drug liberalization could be reduced. Equally, there are means by which prohibition could be maintained while also reducing the resulting harms from that policy. The problem in either case is the lack of political will to implement those means.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

As I mentioned above, absolute safety would not be achieved either through prohibition nor through liberalization. It is a choice between two harms.

And that being the case we should go with the harm that also takes away people's agency?