Hypothetical Models: A Post-War on Drugs United States of America

I will start this off with a message to any mods that come across this thread, and the people who choose to participate: there are some special rules here for civility, to avoid a certain few, inevitable derails:

• Anyone who uses the term "pig(s)" for the police should be immediately reported and/or thumped for rudeness. Not necessary; take it somewhere else.
• Anyone who includes as part of their proposal "we should execute/imprison all the enforcers of drug law" is off-topic. This is about realistic things that would work in the real life, not your personal crusade and power fantasy.

Alright, so, some background information, first:

1970 to 1979: Mr. Nixon's War on Market Goods

Though the United States had been attempting to deal with drugs since at least 1880, with Chinese opium targeted a trade ban via mutual agreement between the two nations, it was in 1970, with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, that President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs," due to concerns with links between the Vietnam War, protestors against said war, the Soviet Union and Communism, and Third World drug-producing nations.

Some interesting facts about this period include:

• It is the only administration during the War on Drugs period to spend the lion's share of its drug policy budget on treatment, rather than punishment.
• The myth of "drugged-up draftees" is effectively disproved, when only 4.5% of returning servicemen given mandatory testing under the new law come up positive
• The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse advised legalizing the possession of a small amount of marijuana, and the sale of similar amounts; they were ignored.
• In 1974, a 21 scientist panel testified to Congress that marijuana was particularly harmful and deserved its harsh treatment—a dramatic change from previous thinking on the drug, which was no less hostile than that given to tobacco.
• In 1979, illegal use of marijuana peaks, with a survey finding that 25 million people—in a nation which at the time was composed of around 225 million people—had used an illegal substance at least once in the 30 days previous to the survey.

1980-1989: CIA Meddling, Prison Overflows, and Drug Czars

In 1982, Vice President George H.W. Bush began to push for CIA and US Military involvement in other countries in a comprehensive—but ultimately futile—attempt to suppress drug production in those nations. Unfortunately for him and the Reagan Administration, socioeconomics and the politics of the Cold War conspire against them, and their attempts to control the manufacture of illicit substances predominantly in the nations of Latin America fail miserably.

In 1984, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act and Sentencing Reform Act (a subsect of the CCCA) include harsh new penalties for drug usage, possession, and distribution. As a result of this and following policies, US incarceration rates shoot to the moon, putting America ahead of even the most authoritarian countries as first on the list of those imprisoned per capita.

In 1988, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is created to coordinate and standardize internal and external efforts to suppress illicit substances.

The head of this organization is termed the "Drug Czar," a term referring to his centralized power in implementing US substance control policies; this is made a Cabinet-level position by President Clinton in 1993.

1990-1999: Breakup of the Lockstep

The only two particularly notable events relating to the War on Drugs, besides the usual futile interventions in Latin American backwaters and skyrocketing incarceration rates, and fall in drug usage rate to approximately 12 million people, involves the questioning of the policy by those inside the US Government itself. In 1993, the Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, calls for the legalization of drugs to be evaluated as a possible option; this idea causes a significant stir, but ultimately does not come to fruition. Also, in 1998, the National Research Council was called upon to do the first-ever complete study of drug policy, though they would not release their research until 2001.

2001-Present: Acknowledgement of Defeat

• In 2001, the NCR findings are released, and they are quite interesting: they conclude that the US Government has not done nearly enough to self-evaluate its own policies, and that the current crusade against drugs is "unconscionable." In addition, 2001 marks an upswing in drug use, as the rate rises back up to 16 million users.
• In 2008, multiple studies conclude that so-called "drug courts" are effective tools at decreasing drug usage rates and prison recidivism rates. These drug courts focus on community building and rehabilitation, and demonstrate the effectiveness of treatment versus punishment.
• In 2009, the head of the ONDCP, Gil Kerlikowske, announces that the term "the War on Drugs" shall be discontinued. His position had already previously been demoted from a Cabinet-level adviser by President Obama, to reflect changes in attitude towards drug policy.
• In 2010, new resources—to the tune of ~$340 million—are put towards treatment programs, to practically reflect the new administration's stance on drug issues.

To begin with, let's dispel a myth about the beginnings of our War on Drugs:

It was not undertaken out of puritanical foolishness.

The prohibitions against drugs began largely out of international concerns: in 1880, the United States and China mutually agreed to stop the opium trade between these two nations, as the effects of the drug on China had become so devastating. Later anti-drug efforts were motivated by two concerns: public safety—China had set such a poor example that few in the US wanted to see the same here—and economics; it is hypothesized that the paper industry actively attempted to sabotage the cannabis industry because they (misguidedly, it appears) believed that hemp could be a cheap substitute for pulp products.

Lastly, the Cold War finally created the militant, expansionist anti-drug motivated US foreign policy towards primarily Latin American countries; the US (thought it) would prop up military dictatorships who promised to crusade against the drug production that so thoroughly infected these nations, and the US hoped to deal with two birds with one stone. Obviously, it didn't work well at all...

Prohibition, as proper noun describing attacks on alcohol and temperance, was based primarily on moral outrage—but even then, it was also a reaction to very tangible and very worrying public health concerns of the time, though it was ultimately proven to be the wrong reaction. Anti-drug laws never bothered with the moral argument, really; it's always been about the public health, and the more modern, "why should we have to pay for drug addicts?" concept, while partially based on moral indignation, is still primarily an economic argument.

So, now we come to the crux of the matter: the War on Drugs is, in most respects, an abject failure, either from the perspective of the ability to peacefully use drugs is a civil right or the goal to stamp drugs out of existence—or at least from the face of the United States. It does a shit job of both—that is to say, it doesn't work at all—and is ultimately a gigantic money-sinking waste of everybody's time.

If you honestly disagree with the above—regardless of whether or not you are pro- or anti-drug—this probably isn't the thread for you.

Anyhow, the objective of this thread is to create a hypothetical model for what a post-War on Drugs United States would be like, and, more importantly, what new policies we could theoretically adopt instead.

There are two ways of looking at this:

• Our ultimate job should be to ensure that the civil right to use illicit substances peacefully is allowed.
• Our ultimate job should be to ensure that the usage of illicit substances goes down.

I personally do not feel that these two are mutually exclusive, but we are free to argue this point.

In any case, there are varying sets of problems to deal with, here:

• The safety of drugs available on the market.
• The regulation and taxation of drugs as a commercial good.
• The international drug trade.
• The healthcare of those addicted to illicit substances.
• The classification of different illicit substances and the response to each.
• The current prison population (approximately ~25% of the total US prison population) incarcerated for drug-related offenses, and what their ultimate fates should be.

So, this thread is to talk about these things, and anything else that I didn't think of, whether it's facts on the War on Drugs, ideas implemented or proposed in other countries, and arguments for and against things like total legalization versus soft decriminalization.

And discuss.

edited 9th Dec '11 5:06:26 PM by USAF713

I think What needs to happen is a mix of the two tactics. Recovery and such are more important, but Military and police action can't just be stopped.

Define "recovery."

Military and police action where, in what context, and for what purpose?

In-depth discussion, my friend. In-depth.

Helping former addicts, I meant. If you get people to stop taking the drugs, that solves the problem itself. As that will never fully work until it becomes culturally bad. If its not "cool", it'll die out eventually. Kinda like smoking lounges in olden-days.

Except the drugs are only "cool" because of society's forceful demonization of them.

In other words, as prohibition creates a black market, it also creates a value of "rebelliousness" to be attached to illicit substances.

We'd be better off making addicts look pitiful via hospital visits than like martyrs by imprisoning them.

You have a point there. Our "Win or win" mentality kinda makes people(by that I mean government) Want to fight it until it's killed.

There's also the fact that sticking a junkie who's otherwise done nothing into the United States prison system will obviously give you a hardened criminal.

And then they complain that the junkie was always a criminal, just waiting for his/her chance.

It would mean a LOT of money getting freed up for the government. Frankly I'm surprised that there hasn't been any serious discussion on the matter (we can talk about gutting the EPA and killing Social Security in capital hill, but no one's talking about decriminalization besides Ron Paul!?).

Because people don't make connections.

It's common knowledge—nay, common sense—that Prohibition was a sinking ship the moment she launched from port. It's common sense that Prohibition created the mafia and gave them a black market to corner and exploit. It's common sense that alcohol, for all the problems it creates, was never a good thing to address with the approach Prohibition tried.

And yet, Prohibition only lasted about two decades. This is the fourth decade of the War on Drugs, and just now we're beginning to question it—beginning to realize how much of a mistake it really was.

~sigh~

Federal gov stopping War on Drugs doesn't mean some States or County will stop criminalizing it. there still is some dry county and wet county on alcohol. likely result will be there is dozen of different regimes of drug handling in America. some place will continue War on Drugs, other will decriminalize possession but continue attack against trade, some will decriminalize marijuana only, some will allow as medication and must be buy on pharmacist, etc. handling of various related issues will also very varied from state to state.

I personally wouldn't mind making all substance control policies national, uniformly and unilaterally.

It's stupid to do such things on a state-by-state basis.

Don't forget how if you get rid of illegal drugs, you get rid of black market banking, money laundering, etc. That takes out a huge chunk of money laundering and fraud, getting rid of a huge chunk makes the rest more likely to get caught. All sorts of crime goes away.

Let's not forget that if the drug cartels loss power, a lot of the problems in central and south america go away.

Well, personally, what I would do is take the ATF and DEA and basically stuff them into the IRS. They would no longer really be enforcing criminal law, so much as they'd go after people for tax evasion (say, for example, home-growing of drugs to get around excise taxes).

And then we'd have some kind of military force—or perhaps just the military itself—to totally and completely seal the Mexican border, for two reasons.

• 1) We shut that border down, and Mexico's oligarchy is going down. They know it, and we would know it if we weren't so blind. Illegal immigration is ultimately a public relations tool they use to placate their people, by making the US the bad guys instead of themselves.
• 2) We can simply starve the cartels that way, by preventing foreign drugs from entering and allowing domestic production to take over. It doubles as good economics for the US, too, so hey, I won't complain.

^ What I've been consistently told is that we can't police the border—that it's just too long for us to handle.

We can't do it with the current border guard. The US Military wouldn't bat an eyelash at the prospect, however.

It is my belief that illicit substances should be ripped from this very earth, mostly for public safety and health issues.

This is not derived from puritanical beliefs. Far from it. I am from a rich family and I know I am a Jerkass on occasion (okay, a bit more than that), but do NOT group me with the fucking Tea Party and its goons.

In my belief, we should repair our economy enough to build up a good police presence and then make sure there are night patrols nearby areas such as fields and areas commonly used as gang meet up places.

If we act in the right ways, we can destroy illegal drugs.

edited 9th Dec '11 7:52:36 PM by NickTheSwing

Well, the Tea Party isn't really who you're looking for, though I don't expect progressive views from them on the matter (even if the heroes of the libertarian Right - Rand, Friedman, etc. - advocated legalized illicit substances). Puritanical people would be evangelicals, and I do believe they spend more of their time antagonizing gays and picketing abortion clinics than fighting drug legalization (not that I imagine they support it).

And that's all well and good, but how would you do it, exactly?

If "increased police presence" was all it took to fix the problem, we'd have been done and over with the War on Drugs for a long time.

For starters, you can't stop the international drug trade with that, so there will always be drugs that way. Secondly, they'll just find other places to meet. Fighting criminals is like playing Wack-a-Mole, and your proposal is basically to try and hit each mole as it shows up but really hard and hope it doesn't come back up...

edited 9th Dec '11 7:57:56 PM by USAF713

Why are illicit drugs bad? All of them? LSD? THC? Cocaine? Heroin? Alcohol? Tobbaco? Sucrose? Some will kill you, some will make you sick/fat and some will just get you high. It's worth having 2% of the population in prison, militarized police (who then can do so many more fun things at protests), and the cartels causing problems and murdering people wholesale south of the Rio Grande.

The cost of the drug war is way too high.

An approach to drugs similar to how alchohol and tobacco are regulated. Some regulations but they can be freely consumed in specific establishments or in the privacy of your home.

For those who want to quit or are being asked to quit (similar to how some alchoholics are sent to rehab by court mandate.) Rehabilitation programs and similar efforts.

For criminals in jail that would need to be examined on a case by case basis. Non-violent offenders of any stripe can be set free after say some community service. We keep an eye on them to ensure they do not lapse into publicly destructive criminal behaviours like driving under the influence and other similar offenses.

Any overt or covert military actions in the war on drugs should be halted and the funds diverted into other options.

We maintain and regulate the variety of drugs and do our best to ensure quality and safe products. Emphasis on safe quality products at low cost to encourage users to buy from legal sources helping starve the black market.

We of course decriminalize common use and license the various sellers. Allow people limited capacity to grow/manufacture their own drugs as long as they ensure the manufacture is not dangerous like with meth labs.

Find uses for these drugs other then purely recreational use such as various forms of therapy, scientific studies, and medical uses. For example the use of Marijana in dealing with various forms of PTSD and other severe stress related issues.

edited 10th Dec '11 5:29:57 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Savage has provided me with a rather ingenious way of taxing, in essence, all marijuana production, even if they manage to avoid the licensing and stuff:

Tax the raw materials (seeds, fertilizers, etc.).

As I've never grown this stuff, it never occurred to me that it might need such things in a special form which you could specifically target with relative ease compared to the actual plant. It's surprisingly elegant in its simplicity.

I'm with Tuefel on this. Or rather, his views are similar to my own.

One thing I see in that kind of society that has always made me wary of legalization is that once it is legalized, major corporations will get their hands on it. The thought of commercials trying to market weed to my kids as some sort of food (like how beer companies market alcohol as a 'drink') instead of a drug always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Whatever the case, I would like to open up discussion on the commercialization aspect of this future.

Side-question: One thing that's kept me off the stuff over the years is the fact that my only source of getting the drug funds cartels and violent criminals. Granted, that's because of its criminilization, but how can people justify buying it at the moment?

Well, I think there are a lot of lessons one can learn from dealing with tobacco companies. The province of Ontario has (if not the lowest) one of the lowest smoking rates in the world. It didn't do anything through a ban on the goods itself, it was a combo of tactics

• No advertising allowed
• No sponsoring of any public events allowed by tobacco companies
• Tobacco products are covered up in convenience stores so they are "out of sight"
• Strict enforcement of age-related laws with respect to tobacco sale
• Public education of the health side effects of tobacco

This last one is the only questionable one for Americans (as they like freedom of speech a lot)

• Policing of media and cultural items to decrease the depiction of tobacco use as "cool"

So in general, I think hard drugs by themselves are already not cool, I don't think anybody takes them for that reason. It is a hypothesis of mine that they take those drugs to escape the realities and hardships of life, and while some of those hardships may seem trivial or bearable to many of us, not all people have a similar mental condition.

Once we legalise, we immediately place those controls so that corporations never gain a foothold.

If we merely decriminalize, we still obtain most of the benefits of dropping the war on drugs. It's important to treat addicts to prevent them from becoming criminals and regain productive citizens.

My two cents: Drug addiction is a public health concern, not a criminal issue. The crime currently inherent in drug use is a direct result of the efforts to make it illegal...Here I'll just point to the oft-made argument regarding Prohibition.

America made alcohol illegal. People still drank. A bunch of petty thugs got rich off their desire to drink (rather than the government). Petty thugs shot each other over market share (because hey, if you're already outside the law who gives a shit). The result; crime, social disorder and no real reduction in the number of people drinking. Small wonder Prohibition was repealed.

My answer: legalize, regulate, tax. How attainable a substance is should be based on its health risk; sure, I see no problem with joints being sold alongside whiskey, but let's keep morphine derivatives in the hands of doctors shall we?

And if someone is addicted, let us treat their problem, not toss them in a box and pretend they don't exist. A responsible society takes care of the individuals who populate it.

I don't really have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that that policing of media is not going to fly at all. The closest they've gotten is depicting smoking as a drug use thingy for the rating agencies.