Having lived in Asia (low drug problems) and Latin America (drug-dominated hellhole) I much prefer the way drugs (and dealers) are dealt with in Asia than in Latam. The idea that waging war on drugs is a bad one sounds like a nut idea from out-of-touch people who have never been to a narco-state like Brazil, Mexico, or Colombia.
Potentially, yes. But that case would only be good against poor _execution_ of the war on drugs, not the _concept_ that drugs need to be dealt with as if we were in a war. Activists seem to oppose the concept, which is where I disagree.
The concept is fundamentally flawed. Curtailing rights and imprisoning people for victmimless crimes is incompatible with anything approaching a free society. There are many approaches to dealing with the problems inherent with drugs, we just keep using the wrong over and over and at an extraordinary cost, in money, liberty and ruined lives.
Living in Seattle and seeing the fentanyl crisis first hand, I disagree with you that addicts aren’t victims.
Not to mention the citizens who are victimized by the crime needed to sustain that addiction.
Legalization of marijuana has gone fine, but there are drugs so powerful that adults lose all control and reason, and I can’t see ever legalizing something like that.
The people you see on the street are a tiny percentage of illegal drug users. I'd also consider the vast range of options between where we are now (people dying regularly from contaminated street drugs, spreading diseases, violence associated with black markets) and full-on, no limits legalization. Somewhere in between is a place where we can save lives, enhance liberty and still not have Ultra-Meth available at every corner store.
Narco-states (and the ensuing migrant crisis), the US carceral state, fentanyl overdoses, organized crime, gang violence and many other second-order effects are consequences of drug prohibition, not consequences of the fact that we are too lax with drugs.
The war on drugs is the sole cause of drug-related violence. If you want to end violence related to the drug trade in free societies, the solution is to end the drug war, not mass executions.
Solidly false. Just a few days ago I was held from behind with a knife to my neck by a Colombian who was sure I had cocaine and was demanding I hand it over. After insisting I didn't, he threw us both to the ground and choked me out until I went limp. I was mentally aware of the sensation of him stealing all my shit (as a backpacker, everything I had was on me), but was too out of breath when I came back around to do anything about it.
Keep in mind cocaine goes for $6/g there, and that's gringo street price.
Degenerate coke fiends can't be rationalized into "poor byproducts of the war on drugs". They're gnarly, and I'm glad to be away from them. God bless the USCG.
The vast majority of documented violence related to drugs is from the black market drug trade. There will always be drug addicts and antisocial behavior. But the black market violence only exists because government refuse to end those black markets.
I mean yeah sure whatever but you've moved the goalposts into a tautology: "the war on drugs is the sole cause of drug-related violence" => "black markets and their constituents wouldn't exist if governments got rid of them".
You should also consider that your idea of the "vast majority of documented violence related to drugs" is probably very far from the real set of violence related to drugs, in no small part because as you admit: it happens in black markets, where documentation is notoriously unreliable.
And, FWIW, my case is in all likelihood present in 0 "documentations". I was able to talk to the police briefly after, but it was treated as a robbery (and completely disregarded).
What exactly is that that you take exception with? Classifying Colombia as a narco-state? Just because the cartels were (mostly) destroyed it doesn't mean narcotraficantes don't have incredible influence on the Colombian state. The Gulf Clan is a very powerful organization.
Y no, no soy colombiano pero mi familia si lo es. Soy de otro narco-state.
> The idea of hardcore legalization is the ultimate outcome of capitalism without morality or awareness of consequences.
Don't know if I buy this. In general, parties pushing for legalization fall more on the left side of the political spectrum. I can also appreciated that libertarians on the far-right think the same (shoehorn theory?) but on the right this is a fringe opinion, unlike in the left.
