
How to stop the drug wars - arjunb
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193
======
jksmith
The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that
governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that
sincere to their original intent now. Like most other government agencies,
they start out with some presumption of sincerity, but then the old case of
"the means becomes the ends" sets in. Reminds me of what Tom Wolfe meant when
the lawyer character in Bonfire of the Vanities labelled the line of criminals
waiting at the back of the courthouse as "chow."

The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one
thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies
(makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a
legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money
on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to
do with discouraging illicit drug use.

~~~
iamelgringo
_The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption
that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that
sincere to their original intent now._

I don't quite understand your usage of the word "sincere". As an ER nurse
that's worked in the ghetto of Chicago, I have worked alongside many law
enforcement officers. The thinking that hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, crack,
meth) are bad and should be off the streets is a sincere and fairly universal
belief. The majority of the efforts that I've seen first hand in getting these
drugs off the streets are well intentioned and sincere albeit ineffective and
futile.

 _The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for
one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies
(makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a
legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money
on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to
do with discouraging illicit drug use._

Wow, that's a really cynical point of view, and sounds very conspiratorial.

Mind you, I would have little problems with legalization of many drugs that
are strictly controlled now. I've administered cocaine and very strong
morphine derivatives to patients for years. I've also lost track of how many
people's lives I've helped save from heroine OD's. People make choices to kill
themselves with alcohol. They can also choose to kill themselves with cocaine
as far as I'm concerned. If cocaine were as cheap and abundant as alcohol,
there wouldn't be as much crime as far as I'm concerned.

But the idea that Big Pharma is in collusion with the DEA to keep certain
classes of drugs is silly as far as I'm concerned. A much simpler explanation
is that a large percentage of the population thinks that these substances are
evil or too dangerous to be freely available.

You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but
even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people
suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or
stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't
believe that our society is ready to accept that.

~~~
rms
You must understand why people have conspiratorial attitudes here: the CIA has
on more than one occasion been involved with drug trafficking. Iran-Contra at
the very least. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking>

The particular conspiracy of the grandparent post doesn't make much sense
though -- DEA scheduling is not what makes it hard for smaller pharma
companies. Jksmith, could you explain your logic a little more with that?

~~~
iamelgringo
There is no doubt in my mind that the CIA has trafficked in drugs. I grew up
in the country between Nicaragua (The Contras) and Panama (Manuel Noriega)
during the 80's. I'm sure that they still traffic drugs or worse to achieve
whatever objectives they're after.

But, the idea of the entire DEA being in collusion with big Pharma to keep
drugs illegal is a bit silly when there are other much more straight forward
answers that fit the evidence much more readily.

~~~
tlb
If marijuana were readily available from pharmacies, how many people would use
it instead of Vicodin or Oxycontin to treat pain? And it may be an effective
antidepressant for many people. There are tens of billions of threatened
revenue right there. Any other industry with that much at stake would exert
substantial influence on the govt.

However, marijuana growers need it to stay illegal too. Some of them are
influential in CA. It's currently the largest single cash crop in the US, just
because it's illegal. If it were legal, it could probably be grown and sold
for the same price as corn.

~~~
rkowalick
While I know that marijuana relieves pain for certain, very specific
illnesses, to say that it is a general pain relief alternative is quite naive.

As to whether or not it is an adequete antidepressant, you believe what you
want. I don't know of any evidence to support its effectiveness in that
category of drugs.

~~~
gnaritas
Sounds like you haven't smoked much marijuana, I'd say you're wrong on both
counts. I'd go so far as to say marijuana's primary use is as an anti
depressant. It's a freaking _make me happy_ / _content_ drug for Christ sake,
that's why people smoke it.

------
swombat
Just a thought...

You know, I can't help but be reminded of the movie Layer Cake (
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375912/> ), where the main character, a drug
dealer kingpin, points out that drugs will be legal some day, and that people
like him are just ahead of the curve as far as making a business out of giving
people the drugs they want.

Thinking of it from this angle, if drugs were to indeed be legalised (as in,
like cigarettes - not just decriminalised), the possibilities for innovation,
product development, etc, would be pretty enormous. You want to build a
product that people just keep coming back to? Here it is.

Sure, eventually, this market would become like food or, at best, cigarettes -
with smaller margins, and not much innovation. But it would take a while, I
imagine, and in the meantime, there would be a lot of potential innovations,
experimentations, etc.

Just a thought...

~~~
yan
That's an interesting issue.

If you take cigarettes into account, notice how much processing and additives
companies add to a standard cigarette and how much engineering goes into
growing the actual tobacco plant. If drugs were legalized, all that would be
rolled into the `drug market'.

I don't do anything, but I still think the current drug policy is extremely
sub-optimal. What worries me though, is when corporations get the green card
to manufacture drugs like pot, all that untested engineering, preservatives
and additives that are intended to make it more effective make their way into
what people consume. If you think about it, mostly all current drug production
is as 'organic' as it gets (as far as I know at least).

~~~
Retric
Some fraction of pot all sold includes other drugs to alter it's effect.
Still, making pot illegal when over 50% of the US population has tried it to
little effect has caused many people to distrust just how dangerous other
drugs are. IMO, when people distrust established "drug facts" people fall back
on antidotes. If your friend has tried "X" 3 or 4 times at party's and seems
fine, then it must not really be that bad...

Personally, I think pot should be legal and Cocaine / Heroin / PCP dealers
should be shot. But, people tend to dump all "drugs" into the same bin and
have zero understanding about how bad some of that stuff really is.

~~~
mcslee
Your argument seems a bit inconsistent. While I generally understand the
spirit of what you're saying, claiming that "over 50% of the US population has
tried it to little effect" doesn't seem any less anecdotal than your example
of the friend trying "X" 3 or 4 times.

All these substances should be assessed scientifically for medical risk, and
empirically for societal risk.

Asking for dealers to be shot on a drug-by-drug basis is a bit sensationalist.
Drug dealers simply respond to demand in the market. They sell whatever people
are buying -- they don't have personal agendas about which drugs to sell.
Demand for drugs is notoriously inelastic.

I'd modify your last statement to say that people tend to dump all _illegal_
drugs into one bin, and _legal_ drugs into another. Most everyone seems to
think legal drugs are safe, but people tend to be split on illegal drugs (some
think they're all the worst things ever, others seem to falsely presume they
are all reasonably safe).

Personally, I think there needs to be more and better education across the
board. The legal/illegal distinction is rarely meaningful and detracts
attention from a proper comparative analysis of drugs and their risks. For
example, fentanyl is more powerful than both heroin and morphine, yet is a
legally prescribed painkiller. Similarly, Adderall has a family-friendly
reputation for helping kids study, yet along with its use come many of the
same risks associated with speed. This is not surprising, because they are in
fact the same thing -- amphetamines.

~~~
Retric
It is anecdotal.

To clarify, well over 50% of the US population has taken pot at least once.
Like alcohol many people don't appear to be negatively impacted by it. But, we
don't hear "Please smoke pot responsibly" instead pot and people with an
_alcohol problem_ are demonized. People see anecdotal evidence and such as the
large number of entertainers that admit smoking pot and assume it's safe. They
then extrapolate to the sample size of their friends when evaluating other
drugs. Ecstasy does horrible things to the human brain over time, but people
don't evaluate the long term medical effects they just assume they are
invincible and "the man" is full of crap.

I am further suggesting that for drugs that need a large scale distribution
chain, and are extremely addictive and dangerous a more effective deterrent
than prison should be employed.

~~~
mcslee
Sort of a tangent, but are you sure your opinion of Ecstasy isn't just a
result of propaganda from "the man?"

I'm not saying it's safe, and the subject certainly warrants more scientific
study. However, UK scientists did a risk-based analysis of common drugs of
abuse, which resulted in MDMA being placed below alcohol, tobacco, and
cannabis.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6474053.stm>

To my earlier point, I think the real solution here is education and greater
availability of scientifically valid information.

------
noonespecial
My advice would be to stop referring to it with the loaded term "war" and
start thinking about dealing with it in the fine grained way a problem with
this many aspects requires. Using "war" for drugs both dilutes the term when
applied to real horrible armed conflict and turns what should be a measured
response to a sociological problem into a comic book farce with swat teams
armed like soldiers busting in on teenagers at parties.

Most of the problems come from the comical binary approach currently applied
that treats pot the same as PCP.

~~~
chris11
That's why I had such a big problem with the "war on terror". It came across
as political spin. And implied that America was the superhero saving the world
from the evil terrorists, instead of just reacting to a perceived threat.

------
critic
Interesting article. I'll probably get downmodded for saying this, but I do
believe that this being #1 brings HN one step closer to reddit.

~~~
jrockway
This article is very well-written, well-thought-out, and interesting to
hackers. (Do any hackers really want to live somewhere where the government
tells you what you can and can't eat?)

So while it might appeal to Reddit for the "legalize weed" angle, it appeals
to us for the points it brings up, and its explanation thereof.

~~~
davidw
I agree completely with the article, and like a lot of stuff from that
'newspaper', it is well written. However, I still think it's basically about
politics, and would prefer not to see it here. Politics is a poisonous topic.

Few governments would tell you what you can and can't eat, but they sure do
limit what you can sell to other people to eat, and most people are ok with
that (minus a few libertarians who enjoy thinking up creative systems that
more or less achieve the same results, minus the government).

------
jfornear
The thing that irks me most about discussions on the internet like this
regarding the illegal drug trade, is that this is just "intellectual"
conversation to most. People are dying and families are being destroyed. Blame
the system, argue that it's broken, or whatever, but don't even consider
taking individual responsibility, which would start with saying no.

------
amohr
I have spent a decent amount of time in and around the drug community and one
thing I've noticed is that many drug dealers are actually very bright and
talented individuals. Were it a legal product, they would be entrepreneurs.
There are many aspects of accounting, logistics, and supply chain management
that go into being a continually successful purveyor of recreational drugs.
It's a fickle industry - made significantly worse by the fear of legal
repercussion. Unfortunately, things being how they are, some are forced to
continue this risky lifestyle because legitimate jobs are getting harder and
harder to come by and "weed dealer" doesn't really look that good on paper.
Now I'm not saying dealers are these savants backed into a corner by an
oppressive government, but the organization of drug trade is actually deeply
interesting, if only because it is illegal.

Just my .02

------
critic
As long as as an employer, I could test my employees for drug use, and as long
as as a patient, I can be assured that my doctor is not a crack addict, and as
long as as a driver and a pedestrian, I can be somehow assured that no one is
driving or crossing the street while intoxicated, I'm for the legalization.

~~~
moe
Makes no sense. You don't have all these insurances today, why should you get
them when drugs can be legally bought?

~~~
critic
Not exactly. If your doctor treated you while on crack, you probably have
grounds for a malpractice lawsuit. Overall, I'd expect drug use to increase,
once drugs are both legal and cheaper.

~~~
swillden
If your doctor treated you while drunk you'd also have grounds for a
malpractice suit.

Making more drugs legal doesn't change the dynamics of irresponsibility.

~~~
critic
good point, but still drug use would likely go up

~~~
jfarmer
Is it drug use per se we care about, or the negative consequences of drug use?
What if more people used drugs but there were fewer drug-related crimes and
accidents?

~~~
critic
What if more people used drugs and the related crime and accidents went up?

~~~
lliiffee
It is probable that there would be more drug use if drugs were legalized.
(This is acknowledged in the article.) However, its not clear at all if
related crime and accidents would go up. Looking to the example of alcohol
prohibition, crime went sharply down when it was re-legalized. Many people die
as a result of alcohol use while driving every year, so it seems possible that
accidents from driving on drugs would increase with legalization. (This could
be mitigated to some degree by harsh penalties for driving under the
influence.) In general, I am puzzled as to why alcohol should be treated
differently than other drugs.

------
Skizz
The article doesn't go far enough! Governments should take the confiscated
drugs they seize and give the stuff to addicts for free, with counselling to
try and kick the habit. Think about it - devalue the product to the point the
illegal importers can't make a profit at worst and not able to pay their
suppliers at best and the illegal trade will fade away. Also, if addicts can
get it for free, then there is less incentive to commit other crimes to fund
the habit.

Skizz

------
nav
Legalization though probably not the ideal solution, makes sense. There are
some decent examples out there today: ala. Amsterdam. Steven Levitt's book
Freakonomics, does a great job of illustrating the elemental business like
structures behind the crack-cocain outfits in Chicago; sprinkle in a bit of
legitimate legal leeway and you have the potential of creating a regulated
industry that pays taxes. The economy is in the gutter; every bit helps?

------
baddox
Spoiler: Legalize drugs.

------
c00p3r
This is an academic view of the problems. The reality is different in each
region, even in each block.

After Soviet Union was collapsing, we've got this so-called free market (free
from a regulation of the goverment). First, we got unlimited supply of the
low-quality alcohol, after some failed attempts of the soviet goverment to
combat drunkness.

The result? Almost 1/5 of population were died in 10 years with direct or
indirect involvement of alcohol consumption. The cases of the mental
degradation and illness were never counted. But the next generations afrer
looking at their animal-like fathers and mothers, at least trying to avoid the
booze.

The heroine problem is almost the same, but more brutal and fast-going. After
you saw several tens of the lethal cases you will try to stop, and even with
some success.

I think (as a person who actually did it) that the most effective solution is
the natural one - when you saw the results, you, sooner or later, will try to
figure out the cause.

And what people or goverment can do is to show the results to the youths, to
educate them, because they just trying to imitate an adults - in our case -
tired and hopeless creatures, who become happy (actually just relaxed) for
very short periods of time with booze and sigarettes.

And be sure, there never was a problem to get any stuff among a low-income and
uneducated. And never will.

------
newt0311
Here is another way: line up all the drug dealers and shoot them.

Then line up all the drug users and shoot them.

Problem solved.

(I am being serious.)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
There are indeed places where drug dealing or use is punishable with death.

These places still have pervasive drug use -- in fact, greater use than places
without such penalties.

How much more severe can you be? Seems like immediate death doesn't deter drug
use. Does that idea still make sense to you? Or perhaps in all of those places
it just hasn't been done correctly yet?

Prohibition (which took a constitutional amendment, btw) had zero effect on
alcohol use -- it actually probably encouraged it and the organized crime that
came with it. We're still cleaning that mess up.

Anything you put into your body changes the way your body and brain operate --
including tap water. So everything is a drug. It's just a matter of degree. I
remember hearing about kids in the 60s who smoked pot laughing about their
parents who were way more hooked on valium. In fact, misuse of _legal_ drugs
is much more pervasive than illegal drug use. We live in a society where you
pop a pill for everything.

Nope -- shooting folks doesn't make much sense: unless you just don't like
people and want to get rid of a few. I'm a libertarian and opposed to
constraints on what government tells me I can do with my own body, but I
wouldn't want crack being sold out of vending machines either. It's a tough
subject, and part of the problem is that people need to acknowledge that it's
tough. Only through socialization and education can we have an intelligent
discussion about where the limits are -- just like we did with alcohol. Quick
fixes aren't going to work.

~~~
mcslee
Jimmy Carter made an excellent quote about the penalties for drug use.

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an
individual that the use of the drug itself."

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter>

~~~
jibiki
The counter argument is that this might be true in expectation. If we caught
and executed 1 out of every 50 drug users, maybe the rest would stop using. If
being on drugs is half as bad as being dead, then on net you've saved 23.5
lives for every 50 users.

This is, of course, a very flimsy argument, which I would not stand by under
any circumstances. But I think a better take on the subject would be
"penalties against drug possession should be a net win for society", rather
than what Carter said.

