read this

Mexico: The War Next Door - CBS News

Which is more dangerous, drugs, or the prohibitionist 'war on drugs'.

__________________
http://www.poseidons.net/

The War on Drugs is far more dangerous. It is the prohibition of narcotics that places the manufacture, distribution and sale of narcotics into the hands of criminals. Maybe politicians thought the "War on Drugs" was just a catchy phrase, but they were wrong. By declaring a War on Drugs, governments literally declared war on people involved in the drug business.

The US should have learned it's lesson during the prohibition of alcohol.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

I agree with that, if they controlled it and took it out of the hands of criminals that would reduce the crime, they dont do it because they fear the backlash.

"They" don't change the laws because of the money. In Mexico, it's direct cash from the cartels: the corruption. Here in the US we do not change the laws for many reasons: 1) law enforcement is addicted to war on drug funding and many departments could not sustain themselves without the war on drug funding 2) pharmaceutical companies do not want these laws changed and so they lobby the government 3) paper companies are also concerned, especially about industrial hemp 4) most of the public has bought into government propaganda about drugs and are therefore unable to take an informed stance on the matter.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

So what are talking about here,ethics? Because someone has to pay and it's always us, the victims of drug related crimes, lives lost through drug related deaths and the suffering of their families in the long term everyone pays surely? If you look at the enviromental war for example,the companies who dont wish to become green,(because it's not cost effective) so therefore continue to pollute are paid more,(to cover thier losses)-to become greener, can we not compensate some of these people at least numbers 1)2) and 3). There is always corruption whever you go, backhanders here there and everywhere, people are just greedy and have no morals!

They're both dangerous for different reasons. Drugs are dangerous to individuals, drugs are dangerous to society, drug cartels are effectively corrupt crime organizations, and the policy of combating has been misdirected, ineffective, and escalatory.

But don't give me this crap about how drugs should be legalized for the good of mankind. It's illegal to make children's toys out of lead and to make flammable pajamas and to sell used tires, all for the sake of public safety, and that hasn't caused a war. It's not the war on drugs that makes the drug suppliers dangerous. The fact is that their clientelle is addicted to a highly lucrative product, and they'll wield influence, power, and violence to maintain their wealth and influence.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel |Video Tutorials |Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"How you get so big eating food of this kind?" -Yoda

Right, they are dangerous for different reasons: but which is the greater threat to society, individual drug use or this, as you call it, escalatory war on drugs? Individual drug use can be effectively treated through medical care and education, but there is no remedy for this war on drugs except the end of the war.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

Don't overstate this... First of all, individual drug use destroys whole families and neighborhoods, not just the few individuals screwing up their bodies.

And you think medical care of the individual helps the public health problem of drug use? Hardly. A minority of people will effectively be helped, absolutely, but it comes at a huge price and is exceptionally low yield -- in part because helping someone with drugs isn't going to work if their life is a complete mess.

Education? You weren't born yet during Nancy Reagan's big public health push. Her "Just Say No" campaign in the 1980s. Those were my school years. We were inundated with the anti-drug education campaign. Yet that was one of the worst eras in the history of drug use, probably worse than now with the exception of the IV drug-induced HIV/HepC epidemics.

Education has never worked all that well with curbing teen smoking. Limiting access and increasing price HAVE worked.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel |Video Tutorials |Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"How you get so big eating food of this kind?" -Yoda

What are you going to do then with drug users if not medically treat them? If their life is a whole mess than surely it's looking at the whole package,(their life). What's your answer to the affects of drugs,(whole neighbourhoods destroyed)? Education: I was a teen in the "just say no years" too and it was an ignorant campaign which we should learn from and improve the education of drugs, just say no is not the answer, how do you teach people if not through education? (please be kind)!

I do. I try. But medically treating them is not nearly as effective a societal measure as would be an intervention that prevents people from starting drugs to begin with.

Teaching them isn't going to work very well when they're much more susceptible to chemical addiction and peer pressure. Drug education works the best for well-grounded kids with strong family and social supports -- i.e. the kids who need it the least.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel |Video Tutorials |Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"How you get so big eating food of this kind?" -Yoda