"The War on Drugs Doesn't Work"

[Genivaria]

No, but 47,055 people died from drug overdoses last year, which is more than the 33,599 that died from gun violence. I think it's hypocritical to condemn the "drug war" as an assault on personal liberty while supporting gun control. If one of them is justifiable, then the other should be justifiable, since drug use is as much a problem as gun violence, if not more.

Those people harmed themselves, not others. It's not hypocritical at all because the two issues are fundamentally different. Regulating drugs regulates what you can do with your own body. Regulating guns is an attempt to regulate what you can do with others.

This is speaking as somebody who's generally anti-drugs and pro-guns. Your argument is faulty and rests on an unfair comparison.

47,000? That's cute.

An estimated 88,0009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

By Ambarii's logic we need to ban alcohol straight away.

[Nulla Bellum]

You have to define "doesn't work." From the government's perspective, the seizure of property for auction after a major drug bust is quite lucrative.

[The Fusoian Empire]

The War on Drugs does work if you execute the dealers, users, makers and the drug mules.

[The Foxes Swamp]

its all perspective drugs are illegal and people died, guns are legal and how many have died?

legalize drugs and the death toll goes down, tighter gun regulations and the death toll goes down.

Have any evidence to backup that theory?

Australia where they changed the gun laws in 1996 and between 1979 and 1996 Australia had 13 mass shootings but since 1996 we have had no mass shootings and all other gun related deaths have gone down to.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Have any evidence to backup that theory?

Australia where they changed the gun laws in 1996 and between 1979 and 1996 Australia had 13 mass shootings but since 1996 we have had no mass shootings and all other gun related deaths have gone down to.

You've had 4 mass shootings since if I'm not mistaken, and several other mass murders done with other tools (arson has become quite popular in Australia since the ban) and your gun crime decreased at pretty much the same level as it was before the laws were changed. The University of Melbourne even found that the National Firearms Agreement made no impact on your gun crime.

Prohibition in general doesn't really work.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I understand the issue with the idea of "X law doesn't work" being used as an undermining tactic. I fully agree that the incidence of compliance with a law, doesn't necessarily reflect on the law's validity. However, it's possible for it to reflect.

Drug laws don't work, but their failure is not necessarily in the difficulty of enforcement, their failure is in public perception. When a majority, or significant minority of a population opposes the law on principle, it becomes an unworkable law. Take for example speeding violations. Most people, when asked, say they support speed limits, and enforcement thereof. Yet speed limits are perhaps the law with the single lowest incidence of compliance. Most people speed, most of the time. But the speed limit, a law that's supposed to create a hard limit, in fact creates a soft limit. The sign might say 55, and most people might go over 55, but few exceed 65, a still reasonably safe speed. So the 55 limit has had the effect of creating a practical limit of 65. We see this in enforcement, most LEOs would ignore a motorist doing 60 in a 55 zone.

On the opposite side we have drug laws, which are enforced as a very hard limit in many jurisdictions. That state trooper who ignored you going 60 MPH, would jail you in a heartbeat for a single gram of cannabis. When this hard enforcement policy meets widespread public opposition, you have a failed law. Many people violate it, even more oppose it's existance, and even more resent the perceived draconian enforcement.

Essentially, this.

[Nazi Konigsberg]

The War on Drugs is just a racist campaign meant to assault liberty and people of colour, while letting capitalism and drugs take over the world, one pill at a time, as children are killed in the streets and women are held hostage, while men bleed upon the shores of death, the War on Drugs must be stopped with utmost haste, and humanitarian aid must be provided to all nations affected, while having mass rehabilations to stop drug abuse, at the same time, legalizing drugs to discourage them, as humans are tempted by ignoring laws, and also helping those affected get back on their feet. Keep in mind, President Nixon's Aide admitted it WAS a racist and politically opressive campaign to keep Republicans in power.

[DARGLED]

In 2005 the US spent more than $7,000,000,000 in an attempt to stop the use of Marijuana and it did little to nothing to stop it. The "war on drugs" costs the US around $51,000,000,000 a year.
The estimated sales of cocaine in the US in 2013 was about $34,000,000,000. That $34 billion is just the estimated cocaine sales of the estimated $100 billion in total sales of all BANNED drugs. Yea, prohibition most certainly stops people from wanting and using BANNED drugs. Spending $51 billion a year on the "war on drugs" most certainly stops people from wanting and using BANNED drugs.
Prohibition does not work as evidenced by the "war on drugs" that has been raging for nearly 50 years.

[The Foxes Swamp]

Australia where they changed the gun laws in 1996 and between 1979 and 1996 Australia had 13 mass shootings but since 1996 we have had no mass shootings and all other gun related deaths have gone down to.

You've had 4 mass shootings since if I'm not mistaken, and several other mass murders done with other tools (arson has become quite popular in Australia since the ban) and your gun crime decreased at pretty much the same level as it was before the laws were changed. The University of Melbourne even found that the National Firearms Agreement made no impact on your gun crime.

Prohibition in general doesn't really work.

5 or more deaths is what they count as a mass shooting.

i live in Australia and i cant think of any 5 or mores so you could be mistaken.

[BooBooBus]

I'm an EMT

In my area, they are now arresting the heroin dealers and charging them with the deaths of their customers.

Everytime someone dies, they trace back to the dealer who sold.

They're charged and if found guilty is a huge jail term similiar to murder.

Drug delivery resulting in death.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/l ... a6eee.html

http://lancasteronline.com/news/pennsyl ... a0422.html

[Galloism]

You have to define "doesn't work." From the government's perspective, the seizure of property for auction after a major drug bust is quite lucrative.

Also, seizing property for auction without a drug bust by pretending it's for drugs.

[Tyrassueb]

You have to define "doesn't work." From the government's perspective, the seizure of property for auction after a major drug bust is quite lucrative.

Also, seizing property for auction without a drug bust by pretending it's for drugs.

Ah, civil forfeiture! A blight upon the USA...

For those abroad who do not know what civil asset forfeiture is, it basically is a go-ahead law that says if the police suspect money or goods are being used for drugs in any fashion (purchase, transport, sale, creation, etc) they can seize it. It then falls upon the person who owns said property/money to prove to the courts that that is not what said property/money is being used for. In effect the USA turned the law literally upside down. In the US Constitution it states that a person is innocent until proven guilty as well as, per the fifth amendment to the US Constitution "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Effectively, civil asset forfeiture says that you must prove your innocence to the courts all while the courts may be holding your property. In 2010 the states and federal governments seized an estimated $2.5 billion, up from 2008 where they seized $1.6 billion.

[Ambarii]

Those people harmed themselves, not others. It's not hypocritical at all because the two issues are fundamentally different. Regulating drugs regulates what you can do with your own body. Regulating guns is an attempt to regulate what you can do with others.

This is speaking as somebody who's generally anti-drugs and pro-guns. Your argument is faulty and rests on an unfair comparison.

47,000? That's cute.

An estimated 88,0009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

By Ambarii's logic we need to ban alcohol straight away.

Nope! Someone was suggesting that the war on drugs was "a war on personal liberty", yet they were a strong advicate of gun control. My argument was that they were being a hypocrite for wanting to take actions against gun violence but not drug deaths, when drugs are clearly a bigger threat.

[The Foxes Swamp]

47,000? That's cute.

By Ambarii's logic we need to ban alcohol straight away.

Nope! Someone was suggesting that the war on drugs was "a war on personal liberty", yet they were a strong advicate of gun control. My argument was that they were being a hypocrite for wanting to take actions against gun violence but not drug deaths, when drugs are clearly a bigger threat.

what a load of bullshit. when you answer a question you usually get an answer not an argument and if you think i am strong advocate for gun control because of the answer i gave you well thats just hilarious.

[Ambarii]

Nope! Someone was suggesting that the war on drugs was "a war on personal liberty", yet they were a strong advicate of gun control. My argument was that they were being a hypocrite for wanting to take actions against gun violence but not drug deaths, when drugs are clearly a bigger threat.

what a load of bullshit. when you answer a question you usually get an answer not an argument and if you think i am strong advocate for gun control because of the answer i gave you well thats just hilarious.

I wasn't answering a question. I was explaining why you are a hypocrite.

[Chestaan]

47,000? That's cute.

By Ambarii's logic we need to ban alcohol straight away.

Nope! Someone was suggesting that the war on drugs was "a war on personal liberty", yet they were a strong advicate of gun control. My argument was that they were being a hypocrite for wanting to take actions against gun violence but not drug deaths, when drugs are clearly a bigger threat.

Again, the big difference between deaths by drug use and deaths by guns is that the death by drug use is due to the actions of the person themselves whereas deaths from guns is not related to the choices of the person dying.

[The Foxes Swamp]

what a load of bullshit. when you answer a question you usually get an answer not an argument and if you think i am strong advocate for gun control because of the answer i gave you well thats just hilarious.

I wasn't answering a question. I was explaining why you are a hypocrite.

do you even know what you are talking about?

you asked me about my stance on gun control and then you called me a hypocrite because how dare i think some gun control in america might be a good thing especially when i am anti the drug war that' you think is all about fighting drug abuse. (but only against the drugs that the government decide arent acceptable for our legal consumption)

making drugs a health issue and not a criminal one will save lives.

making you all a bit more accountable on guns is likely to help as well and i say this because in my country we have changed our laws and so far so good.

[MERIZoC]

The drug war started as an attempt by Nixon to criminalize his political opposition - namely hippies and black people, and has now morphed into the primary component of a prison industrial complex that serves as the newest form of Jim Crow. It is not about making anyone safer, and it never has been. The war on drugs has always been solely about keeping a societal underclass oppressed, both legally and culturally.

[Greed and Death]

What are you talking about ? It keeps people I do not want voting from voting.

[Sanctissima]

The drug war started as an attempt by Nixon to criminalize his political opposition - namely hippies and black people, and has now morphed into the primary component of a prison industrial complex that serves as the newest form of Jim Crow. It is not about making anyone safer, and it never has been. The war on drugs has always been solely about keeping a societal underclass oppressed, both legally and culturally.

Yeah... I highly doubt that.

Do keep in mind that while Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs", efforts to combat drug abuse during his presidency weren't particularly remarkable, and the incarceration rate only marginally increased. And, furthermore, what little legislation he did pass in terms of tackling America's growing narcotics problem largely focused on rehabilitation, as was enshrined in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

But by all means, accuse the man who was the first president to introduce a federal affirmative action policy as being an evil racist. Whatever fits your shitty ideological narrative.

[Gallia-]

Also, seizing property for auction without a drug bust by pretending it's for drugs.

Ah, civil forfeiture! A blight upon the USA...

For those abroad who do not know what civil asset forfeiture is, it basically is a go-ahead law that says if the police suspect money or goods are being used for drugs in any fashion (purchase, transport, sale, creation, etc) they can seize it. It then falls upon the person who owns said property/money to prove to the courts that that is not what said property/money is being used for. In effect the USA turned the law literally upside down. In the US Constitution it states that a person is innocent until proven guilty as well as, per the fifth amendment to the US Constitution "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Effectively, civil asset forfeiture says that you must prove your innocence to the courts all while the courts may be holding your property. In 2010 the states and federal governments seized an estimated $2.5 billion, up from 2008 where they seized $1.6 billion.

Civil forfeiture has nothing to do with you: Your property has to prove its innocence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

However I am a libertarian and I agree. I too would prefer if Bernie Madoff had never been allowed to provide restitution to his victims. The concept of laws designed to attack money laundering is just a veiled suppression of individual property rights. Minimal state!

[MERIZoC]

The drug war started as an attempt by Nixon to criminalize his political opposition - namely hippies and black people, and has now morphed into the primary component of a prison industrial complex that serves as the newest form of Jim Crow. It is not about making anyone safer, and it never has been. The war on drugs has always been solely about keeping a societal underclass oppressed, both legally and culturally.

Yeah... I highly doubt that.

Do keep in mind that while Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs", efforts to combat drug abuse during his presidency weren't particularly remarkable, and the incarceration rate only marginally increased. And, furthermore, what little legislation he did pass in terms of tackling America's growing narcotics problem largely focused on rehabilitation, as was enshrined in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

But by all means, accuse the man who was the first president to introduce a federal affirmative action policy as being an evil racist. Whatever fits your shitty ideological narrative.

This isn't an ideological narrative, it's common knowledge.

Here's a quote from one of nixons top aides

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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"

[Sanctissima]

Yeah... I highly doubt that.

Do keep in mind that while Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs", efforts to combat drug abuse during his presidency weren't particularly remarkable, and the incarceration rate only marginally increased. And, furthermore, what little legislation he did pass in terms of tackling America's growing narcotics problem largely focused on rehabilitation, as was enshrined in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

But by all means, accuse the man who was the first president to introduce a federal affirmative action policy as being an evil racist. Whatever fits your shitty ideological narrative.

This isn't an ideological narrative, it's common knowledge.

Here's a quote from one of nixons top aides

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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"

Yes, I'm aware of the Erlichman quote.

I'm also aware that it was relayed by a journalist almost two decades after his death, and that many surviving Nixon aides claimed it did not sound like something Erlichman would have said, at all.

That quote isn't nearly as damning or cut-and-dry as you might think it is, particularly when considering the nature of the policies instituted during the Nixon administration.

[MERIZoC]

Gosh, I can't imagine why political careerists would lie to make themselves look better

[Gallia-]

Gosh, I can't imagine why political careerists would lie to make themselves look better

Lying implies deliberate deception.

Most politicos believe what they say, though.