
Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work - prostoalex
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650112-one-war-drugs-ends-another-starting-it-will-be-failure-too-wars-dont-work?fsrc=nlw|hig|30-04-2015|NA
======
ukigumo
It's not often that I have the opportunity to feel proud of the legislators in
my home country, but Portugal has been on the leading edge of drug prevention
and rehabilitation since we moved from a "war on drugs" to a program of health
risk prevention and removed the weight of criminal charges and proceedings
from the equation.

Some interesting articles below:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/portugal-drug-
decri...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/portugal-drug-
decriminalization_n_6606056.html)

[http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-
portugal-...](http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-
setting-record-straight)

~~~
baldfat
This is my fear. The "War on Drug" really is a health issue, but most people I
know that are against the war basically want to smoke more and more pot and/or
Libertarians and the reply to stop the war is not and we can help more people.

~~~
panglott
This is essentially the stereotype of legalization activists, but it's not
really true. I don't smoke pot, but have long been an advocate of
legalization. It's so strange to me when people assume I do smoke because of
this advocacy... I'm also a straight supporter of equal marriage, and a male
supporter of pro-choice policies, &c., &c.

People who want to use drugs are already using drugs.

Marijuana legalization would never have passed the ballot box in the western
states if the reason people supported legalizing it was just to smoke more
instead of on the policy merits.

~~~
notsony
Please define "equal marriage".

Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could
marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their daughter?

Do you support marriage involving polygamous relationships? Can three or four
people can be married?

~~~
intopieces
The parent comment to yours refers to same-sex marriage between two people.
Please don't be disingenuous. There are no major organizations or groups of
people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. You knew full well
before you typed your comment what the person was talking about.

~~~
notsony
> There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the
> other situations you mentioned.

So you want to dismiss the ideas above because they belong to a minority and
are not supported by the majority? Wow, you sound like a bigot.

Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of
people advocating for... same-sex marriage.

~~~
nitid_name
It's not germane to this discussion. The previous poster only brought it up to
draw parallels between a straight person being for allowing gay marriage and a
non-smoker being for legalization.

------
simonh
I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war against drugs (actualy, a
drug) - prohibition. Exactly the same scenario played out then as is,
hopefully, coming to it's inevitable conclusion now in the 'western
hemisphere'. If the same thing is starting up again in the East, it's going to
be a bloody and chaotic few decades to come before the same lesson gets
learned the third time over.

Fortunately we do have a largely successful, bloodless war on a drug to learn
from. Tobacco abuse is less than half what it was back in the early 70s in the
US, and similar declines are seen in many European countries. Advertising
campaigns, usage restrictions in public places and high taxes have been very
effective, and also meant that the medical costs of treating the effects of
tobacco abuse have been more than covered by tax revenues from it's sale in
many countries.

While campaigns against alcohol abuse have not been as successful, mainly
because they have not been as focused on reducing all usage, tax revenues have
been high. Normalisation of low levels of use in appropriate circumstances and
ammounts have also limited the harmful effects on most abusers and those
around them.

~~~
simplexion
I don't understand why the campaigns against alcohol have been so
unsuccessful. It is amazing that so many people have no issue with losing
control mentally under the influence of alcohol and those same people think it
is scary that I would like to try LSD.

~~~
peteretep
Normal alcohol dosage doesn't lead to massive loss of control

~~~
saiya-jin
Alcohol is drug like any other. I guess everybody seen some people get
aggressive even on moderate alcohol high. Tobacco is probably the worst drug
ever consumed by man, considering amount of death and suffering it causes...

None of drugs are a blessing to mankind, but to consider A OK and even promote
it, and destroy people's lives and promote drug cartels for B, where many
times B is not more harmful then A is... stupid. And we as society want to
evolve and get better, right?

~~~
tajen
> I guess everybody seen some people get aggressive on alcohol

I'm French and when I moved to Australia, I was surprised that people were
violent under alcohol. The very broad generalization for me was that for some
reason, anglosaxon people were violent under the effect of alcohol: Was it
because boys were told that alcohol made them violent? According to the linked
study, there is indeed a large difference of alcohol-related patterns per
country. Hence, violence is partly cultural.

    
    
        Findings from survey research further suggest that alcohol’s contributing role 
        may be at least partly attributable to the perpetrator’s drinking pattern and 
        expectations about the effects of alcohol.
    

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170096/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170096/)

------
ctolsen
Anyone interested in the topic should read the LSE report on the Economics of
Drug Policy. The facts are staggering, especially on the human and fiscal cost
of internal displacement. I bet not many know that Colombia just a few years
ago was only beat by Sudan in terms of internal refugees, and it's all due to
the drug war.

It also gives some perspective to the Western debate – we talk about
decriminalisation and healthcare. That is a good step, but it won't help the
atrocities committed in the rest of the world. We need to talk about
legalisation.

[http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/Projects/IDPP/The-Expert-Group-
on...](http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/Projects/IDPP/The-Expert-Group-on-the-
Economics-of-Drug-Policy.aspx)

~~~
Nursie
It sorta sickens me that those on the pro-war side of this debate always
ignore what happens in South America and parts of Africa. The rhetoric is
always about preventing addiction at home, stopping a few American (or British
or Australian or whatever) kids from getting hooked and having a tough life.

Never mind the destabilised countries, the thousands slaughtered, that's far
away and not our problem. Jim-bob having a reduced bank-balance, a hole in his
septum or a heart condition from cocaine abuse is far worse, somehow. To the
outside world our countries are schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical -
buying massive quantities of drugs and at the same time sending out military
and quasi-military forces around the world to stop them.

The whole thing is crazy and pushes our demand-side problem out to the poorer
places on the supply side.

~~~
UweSchmidt
Agree 100%: War on Drugs is bad, instead legalize/ decriminalize/ provide
medical care. The War on Drugs puts massive pressure on South-/Central
American countries. End the War on Drugs and this pressure is relieved.

HOWEVER, no one seems to spell out exactly who is hypocritical or
schizophrenic: The actual people who buy drugs that originate from these
countries. People need to actually stop giving their money directly to the
Cartels, right?

~~~
Nursie
>> HOWEVER, no one seems to spell out exactly who is hypocritical or
schizophrenic

To me it's the actions of the country as a whole. On the one hand the citizens
set up this incredibly lucrative market, and on the other the (allegedly)
democratic governments send out the troops/agents/whatever to make life worse
for those in the countries selling/producing.

>> People need to actually stop giving their money directly to the Cartels,
right?

It's both, equally. One side creates the market, the other forces it
underground. Without the buyers the cartels would fold. If the trade was
white-market the cartels would fold. It takes both 'sides', the buyers and the
suppressors, to get where we are now.

------
Osiris
While I do not condone the use of mind altering substances, I believe that the
externalities of the illegal drug trade are far worse than what the drugs do
to the users (e.g., the number of murders is Mexico is currently unknown and
is somewhere between 20k and 250k a year).

A second argument in favor of regulation over an outright ban is personal
liberty. Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other,
not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone
other than the user should be illegal, much like banning second-hand smoke.
Outside of that restriction, we should value personal liberty and freedom to
make choices about ourselves.

~~~
peteretep

        > While I do not condone the use of mind altering
        > substances
    

Why not?

Also, you should try beer, it's AMAZING.

~~~
tyho
There seems to be some sort of taboo on getting high for whatever reason. I
have asked a few people opposed to drugs why they were opposed to drugs and
their answers were mostly health related i.e. Cannabis gives you psychosis so
you shouldn’t smoke it. I then ask if, hypothetically, there was a drug
developed which produces intense happiness for one hour but had no side
effects, caused no long term damage and was totally benign, would it be
morally acceptable for a person to take that substance, the answer is usually
a firm no. We seem to have some vestigial opposition to joy and happiness left
over from Catholicism.

~~~
Nursie
I once had a conversation about cannabis with my mother that went along these
lines. I told her I'd smoked it a few times, she was shocked, I asked what her
concerns were.

Over the next half an hour or so I patiently and factually answered all of
them. She had clearly been sold fully on the propaganda and had thought,
amongst other things, that one puff of weed smoke could potentially kill you
if you were unlucky.

Anyway, at the end of this I said "so what do you think about the law now,
seems pretty stupid huh?" and she said that no, she still thought it should be
illegal because it was just bad, regardless. Facts just don't work on some
people.

~~~
tdkl
Facts don't work on some people because their ego doesn't let them to admit
they were wrong.

It shakes your belief systems, specially if you built your character around
some facts like these and they stuck with you for the better part of your
life. You have to consider that core beliefs like this influenced many
decisions in life.

People actually thinking about that they were perhaps wrong is more painful
that blindly refusing to accept the fact.

*disclaimer : I'm not a professional, but am interested in human psychology from a self growth perspective.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Facts don't work on some people because their ego doesn't let them to admit
they were wrong.

It's not about ego. It's about emotions. In this case, she is fearful of
something that she doesn't understand, and has made a decision ("marijuana is
bad!") based on that fear. Logic is not going to overcome that fear. She has
to start associating marijuana with positive feelings first before she opens
up to changing her mind.

This isn't gender-specific either. Most people, whether they are men or women,
operate like this: they feel an emotion, associate it with the thing/person
that caused that emotion, and then make decisions based on that emotion. They
use logic only for post-hoc justification.

~~~
tdkl
> It's not about ego. It's about emotions.

Correct, used a wrong term but actually thought about emotions.

How a human learns to deal with his emotions sets a blueprint for life.

------
ThomPete
In 100 years from now the war on drugs is going to be seen as one of the most
absurd, inhuman, draconian and misguided ways to deal with the problem.

~~~
crusso
We look at the Prohibition of alcohol as a huge mistake yet societally we
continue to repeat the basic pattern.

------
edward
UK political party, Cannabis is safer than alcohol (CISTA) is fielding
candidates in the UK general election next month.

[http://cista.org/](http://cista.org/)

Funded by one of the co-founders of Bebo, a social network.

------
RegW
There was an interesting talk on Radio 4's Fourthought recently by an ex-cop.

"Peter Bleksley, a former undercover policeman fighting drugs crime and an ex-
drug addict, argues that the only answer in the so-called "war on drugs" is to
legalise and license them."

However, he was against simply putting the supply into the hands of
pharmaceutical companies instead of criminals. He was calling for an
affordable, state controlled supply to remove the incentive to build a
business based on pushing the crap.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3zby](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3zby)
[http://www.amazon.com/Gangbuster-Peter-
Bleksley/dp/190340291...](http://www.amazon.com/Gangbuster-Peter-
Bleksley/dp/1903402913)

~~~
Nursie
He's probably right.

I'm very pro-legalisation myself. I also think it would be amazing if we could
point our pharmaceutical research facilities at recreational drugs and say
"Hey! Go find drugs people like that are less addictive and less harmful!".

But given the nature of markets we'd end up optimising for the most addictive
substance, because you want repeat customers, right?

And the last thing I want to see is aspirational drug advertising of the sort
we've had forever with tobacco and alcohol.

"I don't often take cocaine, but when I do it's Old-style ultra-crack, because
I'm a young go-getting executive type with lots of cash and a hot
girlfriend..."

(Please snort responsibly. This message brought to you by the cocaine
producers alliance)

~~~
nidieunimaitre
Makes me wonder if the US (or Uruguay?) will start seeing TV commercials or
magazine ads for marijuana brands soon.

------
tilsammans
I just finished Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on
Drugs by Johann Hari. I highly recommend reading it if you're interested to
know more about this topic.

~~~
Synaesthesia
It is a brilliant, sometimes harrowing first hand account of the effects of
the drug war.

------
simnim
For the sake of sanity let's remember that sugar is at least as addictive as
cocaine and heroin.
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-
shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/) It's probably even
more addictive if 94% of lab rats prefer sugar over cocaine.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074)

The majority of drug addicts are victims of abuse.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051362](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051362)
They need medical / mental health benefits. Drug addiction is clearly a
medical issue. Let's treat it as such.

We didn't learn our lesson with Alcohol, so we repeated history with the war
on drugs. Now we are failing to learn our lesson yet again.

Logic, reason, and education are not the driving factors for making drugs
illegal. Fear, lack of education, politics, and deep misunderstanding are the
true drivers of this insane ideology.

------
_yosefk
"...the impossibility of winning the “war” against theft, burglary, robbery,
and fraud has never been used as an argument that these categories of crime
should be abandoned."

(From Don't Legalize Drugs, [http://www.city-
journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html](http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html))

~~~
oska
It has often been pointed out that taking prohibited drugs is a victimless
crime. Your examples of theft, burglary, robbery and fraud are not.

~~~
_yosefk
Speeding is also a victimless crime until an accident happens.

I don't have a strong opinion about this, I'm just saying it's more
complicated than victimless crime, war that cannot be won, etc. For each such
talking point there's a counter-point. What will actually happen once you
legalize a given substance I don't know.

The article I linked to has a lot of arguments against legalization, which,
judging by the comments, the commenters didn't bother to skim through.

~~~
Nursie
>>The article I linked to has a lot of arguments against legalization, which,
judging by the comments, the commenters didn't bother to skim through.

It's a long article, and it contains ungrounded assertions like this -

 _" Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot
affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors,
or employers."_

This is ... well it's just wrong. Many people regularly use alcohol in
moderation, there's no reason to think that regular, moderate use of cannabis
and various other currently illegal drugs would be any worse when alcohol has
one of the worst harm and addiction profiles of any drug.

So I'm not convinced I want to take the time to answer it, as it's not really
honest.

\--edit-- I've read more of it now, it's full of preconceptions and assertions
like this one, no grounding in facts. It's not a good set of objections.

~~~
Amezarak
> Many people regularly use alcohol in moderation, there's no reason to think
> that regular, moderate use of cannabis and various other currently illegal
> drugs would be any worse when alcohol has one of the worst harm and
> addiction profiles of any drug.

This argument always seems a bit silly to me.

Perhaps these people oppose legalization in part because they don't want more
drugs to be as common and socially acceptable as alcohol and all the evils
that come with it, and simply regard alcohol and tobacco use as a largely lost
cause. This argument is common and it always frames the issue as if the person
is 100% pro-alcohol.

~~~
Nursie
Then perhaps that worry should be stated more often, and we could argue about
that worry, rather than have bland, baseless assertions that any use of any
currently illegal substance will necessarily lose you your job, family etc.

Fact 1 - lots of people, maybe even most people in the western world, use
alcohol to varying degrees and have jobs and families that are not falling
apart due to their drug use.

Fact 2 - many currently illegal drugs are less severe in their acute effects
than alcohol, are less severe in their chronic effects than alcohol and are
less addictive than alcohol.

Combined, these torpedo the point stated in the article, but not your point.
The only way to address your concerns there is with studies of what happens in
places like Amsterdam and Colorado.

Personally I would argue that even if legalising drugs makes some things worse
(more users, more addicts), applying the cost of the drug war to mitigating
the harms instead of amplifying them is a win regardless.

------
cpursley
Looks like Rand Paul, a Republican surprisingly, is the only candidate running
from either side is taking the correct stance on the "War on Drugs".

[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm)

~~~
bonesmoses
Tell that to Bernie Sanders:

[http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm)

------
transfire
They are working just fine for the people that profit from them, drug cartels
and the law-prison complex. Thanks!

------
gadders
I hope they apply this to PEDs as well. They actually have health benefits (as
well as drawbacks), rather than just altering your mental state.

------
btbuildem
Well, if you consider it from the point of view of law enforcement, private
prisons and weapon manufacturers, the wars are working splendidly - lots of
jobs for everyone, and tons of profits to be made.

------
zouhair
Of course it works. It all depend on what the goals are. If the goal is to
stop people from using drugs, that'll never work. But if it is to make a lot
of money for some, it sure works.

------
discardorama
"Doesn't work" ?!?! For whom?? It works swimmingly well for the people in
power, and the people who love to have control over their citizens!

------
joesmo
The drug war is a civil war. It divides and breaks up society for horrific
purposes. In the US, it's always been racism, a way for the government to put
down people of races they could no longer legally murder or enslave. Some
'friendly casualties' in such a war will always be overlooked by any
government. It's certainly no coincidence that the ramping up of the drug war
by Nixon came only a few years after the passing of civil rights legislation.
I'm not as familiar with the histories of countries like China or Russia, but
I am curious as to what nefarious purposes their drug war serves. With such
scummy, tyrannical regimes, it's easy to imagine a million reasons for the
persecution they are and will cause their people.

While some people say not to ascribe to evil what can be ascribed to
stupidity, I disagree strongly. Evil is just as pervasive and I just cannot
believe that this drug war in Asia comes simply from stupidity, especially
given the tyrannical governments now perpetuating it. Well, at least the US is
now in the proper company with other tyrants--just as our laws are changing.
It's hard to estimate the power and money that governments can make when
persecuting and oppressing any group of people deemed to be enemies, whether
they're deemed so because of drug use, race, religion, etc.

~~~
Shivetya
It is definitely not a tool to continue a race war, racial program, etc, etc.

It is a tool of politicians much like the issues with pornography. It relies
on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, with a big dose of apathy thrown in. The last
is because the majority really doesn't care what happens to users because they
do not themselves use these drugs. Images on TV, internet, and newspaper,
reinforce the image of those who do as low lifes, malcontents, people you
cross the street because of, and such.

Politicians love power with which comes money. Police love the job security
and money. Prison systems love the job security and money. So any solution is
going to involve taking the monetary rewards out of it to those who enforce
it.

One example, instead of paying prisons by the number of people you penalize
the system for repeat offenders. This would drive the implementation of more
programs designed to get people off the drugs and also get them jobs training
so that the job is more valuable than the drugs. Should it end up costing too
much then the system needs to adjust what it jails people for which eventually
would lead to the decriminalization of drugs.

Make it too expensive for those who currently profit off the situation as is
and it will lead to a road where it can be fixed

~~~
joesmo
It's not _a_ tool to continue the race war, it's _the main_ tool to continue
the race war. The rest of your points are quite valid but are not an argument
against the numbers that prove that race is not only a major factor, it's the
driving factor behind the war. Otherwise, you'd have to explain the racial
disparity in deaths, arrests, incarceration, and poverty directly related to
drugs.

------
paulhauggis
I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the
laws:

-Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distinguish. -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. Many of the advocates not only want legalization (because it's their choice, their body) but none of the consequences that come along with it (medical bills due to addiction). It's unfair for me, as an individual that chooses not to put those drugs into my body to also have rising medical costs that pay for the people that willingly ingest drugs. -Tort reform. We all know heroin is addictive and will cause many deaths and ruin many lives. If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government.

We still have cigarette lawsuits..and it's been known to cause cancer for 50+
years (it's even written on the box).

I think my overall issue is that advocates want all of the benefits (ability
to use illegal drugs legally) yet also want society to pay for any of the
negative effects that come along with it (death, addiction). You should have
the choice to legally put anything in your body....but be responsible for
anything negative that comes along with it. If you don't have the resources to
deal with the consequences, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first
place.

~~~
Nursie
>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of
any mind-altering substance.

Pretty sure they already can, you do _not_ come into work drunk, for example.

>> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses,
etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ...

You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war
enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be
minimal compared to this.

Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation
(reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man).

Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or
do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that
keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of
society?

~~~
paulhauggis
"Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example."

We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing.

"You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war
enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be
minimal compared to this."

The costs can't really be calculated at this point. We don't really know how
many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many
drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we
estimate now.

"Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation
(reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man)."

That's not how taxes work. Yes, we will have have more taxes, but they will be
spent on something..and we will always need more. The benefit is that our
fellow man gets the option now of recreational drug use without going to jail.

"Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict
or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that
keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of
society?"

I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal
from not robbing me. It's answers like this that make me glad I have multiple
guns at my disposal to protect my home and my family.

If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to
rob me), why again should it be legalized?

You aren't really making a good case, sorry.

~~~
Nursie
>> We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing.

Yah, we do. Addicts in the UK are given maintenance IIRC.

Alcohol is also used in cases of methanol poisoning and various other
emergency treatments, though that's not quite the same thing I guess.

>> We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care
after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most
likely be many more than we estimate now.

It'll still be cheaper than the prisons, the militarised police etc etc.

Of course, like you, I'm not naive enough to think those things will just go
away.

>> I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a
criminal from not robbing me.

>> If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want
to rob me), why again should it be legalized?

Legalising would help you be less likely to have a criminal rob you by not
pushing up the prices of their addiction to the point they feel they have to
do this.

But we're talking here about your demand that we not fund any healthcare or
rehab once we have legalised/decriminalised. This is all part of the picture
of helping people to recover and contribute to society rather than casting
them out and saying "you fix it", which has a long history of not working.

I mean, you're just kind-of OK with legalisation, not outraged at the billions
spent in your name on making everything worse, but you're demanding that not
one red-cent be spent on helping people? Sick dude.

>> You aren't really making a good case, sorry.

There are not many cases that can be made when someone has already decided
that everyone else in society is not their problem.

------
jqm
I'm against the drug war and for people's choice to decide what they want to
put in their bodies. I'm also against waste, cruel treatment and general
stupidity which are also reasons I oppose the drug war.

That being said, I believe drug wars can work. China and opium a century ago
and modern day Singapore come to mind. The reason the drug war isn't being won
in the West is because it isn't being executed properly. So why not drop the
pretense?

~~~
Nursie
What's "properly"?

I think (hope) the citizens of the USA and Europe would not put up with people
being executed for what we currently consider quite minor offences.

I guess in some ways you're right - if this was transformed to total warfare,
with no mercy for anyone in any part of it, then it might be won, maybe. But
the price is unacceptably high.

(Oh, also, Singapore is one small island with one city on it and a
comparatively huge security service, it's often considered a sham democracy
and a police-state. Cure worse than disease, IMHO)

~~~
jqm
Just responding to the title (which is not factual). I didn't even read the
article.

Unacceptable prices and value judgements aside, drug wars _can_ be won and
they have before.

