Does the War on Drugs work?

Question

Yes or no... and why. Please cite statistics over preconceptions.

Answer 1

That depends on what you think is the purpose of the drug laws. If the purpose is to stop drug abuse, it's a horrible failure. When the first federal drug law was passed in 1906, 1.3% of Americans were addicted. While it has changed slightly over the last century, it hasn't been notable.

If the purpose is to turn our streets into mini-war zones and discriminate against those of color and little financial means, it is a raging success.

Harry Anslinger made his purpose very clear, it was not about drug abuse. It was about people of color using drugs to sully white women. This was the basis for the very first drug law. In 1876, San Francisco made it illegal to smoke opium in dens. The only individuals who did this were Chinese. It was still perfectly legal for everyone including the Chinese to smoke opium as long as it occurred outside of a den. The majority claimed Chinese men were using opium to seduce and violate white women.

Prohibition of any kind will never work because it creates more problems than it can ever hope to solve. This lesson was supposed to be learned when the 18th Amendment was repealed, but instead Congress shrewdly used the Interstate Commerce Clause to create the CSA. Congress was fully aware of the fact that they couldn't make one more drug illegal using a constitutional amendment. Now there is absolutely no oversight over which drugs are deemed demons and which are angels. Health and Human Services has the oversight role, but chooses not to exercise it. The DEA may not listen to it's Administrative Law Judges but if the secretary of HHS told the DEA to reschedule cannabis or any other drug, they would have no choice but to comply.

Answer 2

No it doesn't.

Alcohol abuse and deaths are on the rise with an average of 300 deaths a day 24/7 in the US, these figures and more are available from National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

The damage from alcohol exceeds $114 billion

Tobacco exceeds 440,000 deaths a year, and all we can think about is suing the tobacco companies, that is a bit like, closing the gate after the bull escaped.

Approximately for the last 38 years the war on illicit drugs went from $150,000,000 to $40 billion.

One is hunted down and a greater cost is expended for 2% of illicit drug users, as against the total amount involved in alcohol abuse deaths.

As relatively intelligent man, I don't understand the delusions of one man who started the drug war (Anslinger) to the more prevalent blind face of the abuses caused by alcohol, from the perpetrators to the innocent victims.

I've spent the better part of 30 years researching aspects of Government involvement, (Australia) experimenting, using substance abuse as a way of controlling, rather than educating against abuses. The same is very much the same everywhere in our Western alliances

I am reticent to believe, far easier to lead a country of idiots, than to lead a country of intelligent thinking beings.

Which ever way you look at it, the war on drugs, is like any war, no one wins, certainly not community.

Not when it is based on a lie.

Answer 3

Oh, please. People will want to alter their consciousness whether or not a substance is legal. Did Prohibition work? No.

And if you wanna talk drug pushers, what about Big Pharma? It's not a war on drugs, it's as war on SOME drugs, the ones that took millions of dollars of research and have multimillion dollar ad campaigns so even kids can hear about priapism because those Cialis ads run all the damn time. Or some medications with truly frightening side effects. Or made-up conditions like RLS.

Answer 4

Nope it never has and probably never will.
If the Soviet Union couldn't stop it then how can anybody.
Think on this the commies didn't have to deal with civil rights and Miranda and drunkenness and drug abuse were rampant.
Putting prohibitions on the simple vices or legislating morality has only served to make it more attractive and create an underclass in society.
It didn't work with booze and it didn't work with drugs.

Education is the key to most social problems.
As for the criminal element involved in this only really serious punishment would work.
Something on the level of Devil's Island where once you are sent there you don't leave, EVER.

Answer 5

It's been over 40 years, we are spending more than ever. According to a news story, we have more people in prison than any other nation (I'm sure China is reporting their true numbers), mostly drug related. We have created some of the most powerful crime/drug organizations in the world by making drugs expensive thus very profitable. And people complain about Exxon and Haliburton. By using Iraq as a gauge, I would say we lost this war about 1982.

Answer 6

additionally, the conflict on maximum cancers, all started below President Nixon and maximum cancers fees are as extreme or greater than ever. the situation is that we are utilising the incorrect metaphor- specifically "conflict". In government language, this suggests that we are going to spend billions of our tax funds utilising the comparable failed attitude as previously. No great techniques or suggestions have ever pop out of those "conflict" classes. somewhat, we've great bureaucracies and government contractors feeding off tax funds devoid of any outcomes. In turn, those government contractors shop contributing to politicians' campaigns to maintain the money coming. they are rightly apprehensive that if the situation replaced into certainly solved, they'd not get to any extent further funds, so it somewhat is definitely against their pastimes to remedy the situation. The extra they'd create a disaster approach between the inhabitants, the extra funds they'd get because of the fact people think of that spending extra funds on the situation will remedy it. In coping with government, you get rewarded for failure, not for success. If there's a situation interior the faculties, the respond is extra funds for the faculties, not much less funds as there may well be interior the indoors maximum sector. the two dems and repubs work together in this "conflict" mentality. it somewhat is a factor of our gadget. So, we waste billions of dollars and accomplish not something and can't even detect a fashion out of this occasion. the militia-business complicated that President Eisenhower warned us approximately has taken over our government interior the type of countless "wars" on drugs, poverty, terrorism, maximum cancers, and so on. Too many all of us is making too plenty funds not fixing those issues and feeding on our tax funds. we are only too naive to be certain it. thank you for affirming this situation.

Answer 7

No, because it increases values of illicit substances due higher demand and shortened supply and only directs more funding towards crimes and gangs. It increases unemployment due to the fact that drug tests are being done unnessicarily in work places that drugs dont cause significant danger. (I can understand testing a construction worker or airline pilot, but whats the point of testing store clerks or cachiers? The worst that could happen is they short change a customer) Also hospitalization for drug overdoses require self-incrimination. Therefore it amplifies the health risks posed by the drugs and users therefore are often neglected emergancy medical service in fear of going to jail. Also users that are trying to quit cant afford privatly funded rehabilitation, therefore they hesitate to seek help from publicly funded rehab programs in fear of self-incrimination. Therefore it increases the impact of drug addiction.

Answer 8

No, it doesn't. Look at the facts that drug abuse is on the rise. 90% of Meth comes directly from Mexico. Even in Montana, in the middle of NO WHERE there are people shooting up. I don't have the specific stats, but I have a sister whose a nurse in Montana and it isn't a pretty site.

Besides "the war on drugs" is just a front to take away from the real issues that politics tout about.

Answer 9

No matter what is the questions or the answers and no matter what we think we are or what we thinks about who we are ,meaning either prisoner or the warden , rich or poor, you eat meat or beans you love or you hate you except or reject ,leftist or rightist , black or white ,religious or atheist, and all other species living with us on planet earth and beyond which we all share a common bond that's we are really one ,but there is a down side to our existence a hidden secret which kept from us and they continue to suppress the truth and to protect their system of deception from crumbling , and humanity will be free ,but are you really wants to know ,are you ready , I hope so ,and I hope SO called man in authority read it and TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE GAME IS AGAINST ALL OF US , HERE COMES THE TRUTH MY FRIENDS THAT WE ALL LIVING ON THIS PLANET AS A GUINEA PIGS , LIKE REALLY ANIMAL FARM FOR EXPERIMENTS. PURE AND SIMPLE LABORATORY

Answer 10

No, but it has slowed the use of them and raised the consciousness of the public that there is a problem. This has actually lead to a division of the population, between those who will use occassionally or more often and those who do not. This divides our society and colors a whole bunch of issues and policies. It would be better if we did not try to stop the use, but find a way to make it legal to use if one wants and tax their choice. We have done this with nicotine in tabacco and alcohol. These sin taxes have paid for much of our progress as a society.