next topic »

[on:]

Do law enforcement agencies and police really want to end it?

I'm not convinced they do!  For example,  if the police/DEA government simply issued out tv adverts, posters, billboard etc.... saying "deal drugs legally with a license"

Phone number at the bottom, website...

You have until say jan 29th 2014 to submit your application, name, phone number, etc...


How many people who deal would sign up?


(Drug war over, every dealer out there just got caught)

[Reply #1 on:]

Do law enforcement agencies and police really want to end it?

Considering how many of them actually constitute the upper echelons of the trade, I seriously doubt it.

Your suggestion, presumably tongue-in-cheek - implies naïveté with the nature of the situation.

As with many other "wars", this is a situation where all the collateral damage occurs on the ground, and in this case more than others, the damage is pretty much entirely collateral.

Drug users "use" because it provides them comfort they do not experience otherwise.  In order to achieve this, they will resort to cheating, stealing, prostitution and anything else of modest and easy profit, very occasionally to threat of violence.  As a result of such activities and the criminalisation of drug possession, they frequently end up incarcerated where they are brutalised and taught the finer points of the criminal profession.

The progression from "user" to "user/dealer" and up the hierarchy entails successively greater expectations of violent control, above a certain level of which it is impractical to achieve for someone who is drug-dependent.

The only real "war" is waged on the consumer.  Supposed drug "busts" serve to slightly narrow the supply, justifying increases in the going price which means - more profit for fewer goods, a particularly good business mode.  One has to ask - why are or were these drugs proscribed in the first place?  Not for the "safety" of the common person, to be sure as this clearly has no benefit whatsoever, but in order to consolidate the excise stream from the "legal" soporifics, notably alcohol (after prohibition of that turned out to be such an unmitigated and outright social and economic disaster).

The only way to win this "war" would be the Vietnam solution.

{Disclosure: Infrequent alcohol and zero caffeine use; never used illicit drugs.  A significant aspect of my professional work is however in opiate Harm Minimisation program.}

[Reply #2 on:]

Do law enforcement agencies and police really want to end it?

I'm not convinced they do!  For example,  if the police/DEA government simply issued out tv adverts, posters, billboard etc.... saying "deal drugs legally with a license"

Phone number at the bottom, website...

You have until say jan 29th 2014 to submit your application, name, phone number, etc...


How many people who deal would sign up?


(Drug war over, every dealer out there just got caught)

You're thinking about it all wrong. Legalizing drugs would help drug dealers about as much as Wal-mart moving into a town helped local mom-and-pop stores. The drug dealers will get put out of business by big drug companies that have the ability to mass produce drugs, negotiate for lower license fees, ensure product quality, and distribute product globally.

In the end, the consumers win. Drug users get cheaper and better drugs, the government gets more tax money that it can waste on bull****, and the police get a month off while the criminals find the next get-rich quick enterprise now that selling drugs is unprofitable.

[Reply #3 on:]

Do law enforcement agencies and police really want to end it?

I'm not convinced they do!  For example,  if the police/DEA government simply issued out tv adverts, posters, billboard etc.... saying "deal drugs legally with a license"

Phone number at the bottom, website...

You have until say jan 29th 2014 to submit your application, name, phone number, etc...


How many people who deal would sign up?


(Drug war over, every dealer out there just got caught)

You're thinking about it all wrong. Legalizing drugs would help drug dealers about as much as Wal-mart moving into a town helped local mom-and-pop stores. The drug dealers will get put out of business by big drug companies that have the ability to mass produce drugs, negotiate for lower license fees, ensure product quality, and distribute product globally.

In the end, the consumers win. Drug users get cheaper and better drugs, the government gets more tax money that it can waste on bull****, and the police get a month off while the criminals find the next get-rich quick enterprise now that selling drugs is unprofitable.

Who said anything about making it legal?

[Reply #4 on:]

While I agree Paul, I think it could be solved using the method I said... so by tricking every supplier, dealer out there into signing up... come February you  then take every contact signed up and then raid and take out almost every dealer out there...

How effective would this be... I guess it would be a matter of time and just waiting ..... .

I just know it would fail because the amount of money that's made from illegal drugs... unconstitutional,  honey trap, illegal - whatever you call it, entrapment even telling people to sign up for a license to deal...

1-2 months later the police target the list, even if 80 percent are caught it would have a huge impact on crime.

[Reply #5 on:]

Get rid of the dealers and they will quickly be replaced by other dealers. You need to get rid of the users and make the taking of drugs a possible life ending experience by spiking supplies with some accumulative poison.

[Reply #6 on:]

While I agree Paul, I think it could be solved using the method I said... so by tricking every supplier, dealer out there into signing up... come February you  then take every contact signed up and then raid and take out almost every dealer out there...

I think that would fail spectacularly due to the suggestion in my first sentence. 

You would take out all the "patsies" that the big guys desired to clear out, supply would be as good as ever and the prices up again.   

[Reply #7 on:]

Get rid of the dealers and they will quickly be replaced by other dealers. You need to get rid of the users and make the taking of drugs a possible life ending experience by spiking supplies with some accumulative poison.

How would you get it into the supply though ?
Cant see the distribution chain cooperating much.

Even if you caught all the dealers at one go , what would you do with them.

[Reply #8 on:]

I cannot find a reference but there is one country which may have been switzerland, who identified the addicts and gave them free drugs.
Crime dropped in the city centres as there was no money to be made.

[Reply #9 on:]

I cannot find a reference but there is one country which may have been switzerland, who identified the addicts and gave them free drugs.
Crime dropped in the city centres as there was no money to be made.

I seemed to recall a 60 minutes TV show many years ago reporting on this Swiss experiment. The show painted a pretty grim picture of the results of the program up to that time. Have no idea if they changed it or repealed it. I always take such glowing reports of success with a grain of salt as many reporters and producers bring a hidden or not so hidden agenda to the subject.

 However I do feel the War of drugs has probably caused as many if not more problems then the basic problem to begin with. Drug addiction can be very destructive. both to the individual addict as well as to close friends and family members. While I'm a libertarian at heart I do think that government/society at large must have some role in trying to prevent/treat drug addition.
I was subjected to random drug testing at work for several decades as working in oil refinery plants is considered a 'safety sensitive' position. Even after decades they would still pop a couple employees every year. First offence brought mandatory drug treatment program (paid sick time) followed by weekly drug testing for a year or so I think, second offence caused termination. It seemed to have been a successful program as few wished to risk a well paying job with good benefits.

 

[Reply #10 on:]

Do law enforcement agencies and police really want to end it?

I'm not convinced they do!  For example,  if the police/DEA government simply issued out tv adverts, posters, billboard etc.... saying "deal drugs legally with a license"

Phone number at the bottom, website...

You have until say jan 29th 2014 to submit your application, name, phone number, etc...


How many people who deal would sign up?


(Drug war over, every dealer out there just got caught)

Sorry but signing up for a dealers license would not break any existing federal or state law. Now bringing samples in with your applications might be another matter.   

[Reply #11 on:]

Haha...

[Please include sample here]

[Reply #12 on:]

Earlier reply applies.
If caught what would you do with them?

I think California with 3 strikes laws has to release due to lack of space.
Im in uk , we would have to find another Australia.
Or convert the isle of wight to a prison colony , james bond style.

[Reply #13 on:]

In the end, the consumers win. Drug users get cheaper and better drugs

One of the things that bothers me, is that I don't see anyone claiming that drugs will actually get cheaper.  There's a lot of chortling by municipalities about all the money that will collected in taxes instead of going to the criminal infrastructure, but if the end user price doesn't go down, you're still looking at a bunch of people with increasingly expensive habits to feed, and increasing inability to hold down a steady job.  Maybe.  On the plus side, it can't be much worse that alcohol or tobacco.   On the minus side, alcohol and tobacco are really pretty bad.  I mean, I can find websites that estimate that we could save about 8billion in "enforcement costs", and make 7billion in tax revenue by legalizing pot.  That sounds really good till you also find the websites that estimate the societal cost of alcohol abuse at upwards of $100billion/year.  (similar estimates for smoking, except "smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.")

[Reply #14 on:]

In the end, the consumers win. Drug users get cheaper and better drugs

One of the things that bothers me, is that I don't see anyone claiming that drugs will actually get cheaper.  There's a lot of chortling by municipalities about all the money that will collected in taxes instead of going to the criminal infrastructure, but if the end user price doesn't go down, you're still looking at a bunch of people with increasingly expensive habits to feed, and increasing inability to hold down a steady job.  Maybe.  On the plus side, it can't be much worse that alcohol or tobacco.   On the minus side, alcohol and tobacco are really pretty bad.  I mean, I can find websites that estimate that we could save about 8billion in "enforcement costs", and make 7billion in tax revenue by legalizing pot.  That sounds really good till you also find the websites that estimate the societal cost of alcohol abuse at upwards of $100billion/year.  (similar estimates for smoking, except "smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.")

I can see that. I assumed that drugs would get cheaper due to manufacturing improvements lowering the cost to produce them. Drug companies may just decide to increase the price, or government red tape may force the price up. However, if the taxes force the price of the legal product high enough, people will turn back to the illegal drug dealers and tax revenues will plummet.

Personally, if we're going to have a "war on drugs", i'd like to see it adhere to the articles of war. See a drug dealer on the street? That's an enemy combatant, shoot on sight.  This half-*** attempt at a war is just wasting money with little to no return.