Is the state "war on drugs" a joke?

[The Idler]

Was flicking through the TV guide today and noticed BBC 3 showing "Can I get high legally? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ljxk3)". Kinda makes it hard to believe the claims of the state to be waging "war on drugs" or the idea that getting high subverts the state.

[thethinkingchimp]

Some people will make the argument of the balance of "morality" against the war on drugs. Some people may argue that those people's whose lives are destroyed by the violence created by the gangs involved with trafficing drugs overshadows the lives lost by those that actually use drugs. By legalization, we may eradicate the black market that exists to supply these drugs.

I personally speculate that the legalization of drugs will reduce violence in society.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Um, no. It's not a joke at all. It's been an effective method of capitalist states criminalizing working people. Any "war on drugs" was lost long ago when drugs became a staple in our society (that is integrated into the world market for whatever uses), whether some people like it or not. A more contemporary look at the "war on drugs" will show that the very force that is supposedly fighting against drugs take part in the development of illegal drug markets as well. If your inclined to use the term, it's been a "joke" for fucking years now.

[Lymos]

Never make the mistake of equating propaganda with joking.

Also to clarify what the last poster said, capitalist states do this but it is an ideology closer to socialism than capitalism. (I am merely saying this because of the political culture of this board reducing the chance of this statement to be mentioned)

That is by ridding drug users by groups, the state can create a propaganda scamming ideology based on socialist like desire to address the benefit of the masses.

That is, to over-simplify, treat the War on Drugs as the opposite of free healthcare or public schools. The latter are praised in the mistaken idea that quantity is vastly superior/necessary than quality. The former is merely differentiating this in that it first sets up a BoogeyMan (as opposed to the real issues of education and healthcare) and provides them with a social wide solution not based on reducing drug users (quality) but on creating the numbers to convince people to give more of their freedom to the state. (quantity based on false premise)

In fact, the War on Drugs is very anti-capitalist in that it transfers profits away from the market and puts it into a black market, much more dangerous, detrimental and risky for both parties than the legal market.

By both parties, I mean the buyer (who can be influenced and associated with the wrong crowd to obtain their goods) and the seller (who not only is forced to sell to less customers but is forced to go into crime even if they want to do an honest job of selling the goods)

Also, it's not a popular stance but try to treat the War on Drugs as a soft fascist/fascist tactic. That's the short version of knowing it's ramifications without doing any proper research.

It's not just for criminalizing people. It's a puzzle piece used with other legislation to soften the limits, government can wrongfully accuse anyone of any crime without being accused of being a dictator.

It's prime value is that on it's own, you can't completely argue against it's morality to people who support it because they think it's for "protecting society from drugs" and is just one half good will to mankind/one half necessary evil.

The second value it has is that when we address the "Drug War", even opponents of the War rarely address anything BUT the Drug War.

It's among the near-perfect fascist propaganda tool. Pretend to be the false savior so that you can delay/maintain the facade and the scary thing is that there's no waking up from it except by being educated but here are the problems:

Most people rebelling against the war as I said, don't try to argue the full ramification. They're not part of the choir they need to convince so this creates separation.

Most people who would want to educate themselves about the war, fear not only illegality but they're screwed (in data) unless they become diverse drug users. Once that happens, they're automatically disqualified by the choir they used to belong with for being a drug user.

Most people are so drop dead apathetic and blind that they can't even calculate the fact that nicotine (cigs) and alcohol are legal. This is not just saying people are stupid, this is saying these government systems have been so great at implementing this propaganda that they not only convince people but convinced other governments to follow suit even with this major flaw.

This is why it's no joking matter. It's not just bad or a joke or the corrupt government.

It is literally being encased in a global fascist tactic in which there is so little way to even remove the poison because it's so subtle in so many different aspects that you need to improve the pedagogy level of education which is near impossible when the socialists are concerned about public education, the capitalists can't even accept that in a free market selling drugs should be legal without looking like greedy scumbags, the brainwashed are repeating the same drawn out arguments regardless of whether they are for or against it and the rest would be so moderate to the issue that they are "cheered" on by the idea that it's a joke as opposed to a dangerous brain killer worse than any mass drug legalization can do. (even if we are factoring dangerous drugs here)

[KarlMarx1989]

I think that governments that are "engaging in a war on drugs" are all missing the point. The point is that glorifying drugs and kids doing them is making them grow to be idiots because that is what drugs do, they make you forget things. Drugs affect short-term memory.

[The Idler]

Um, no. It's not a joke at all. It's been an effective method of capitalist states criminalizing working people. Any "war on drugs" was lost long ago when drugs became a staple in our society (that is integrated into the world market for whatever uses), whether some people like it or not. A more contemporary look at the "war on drugs" will show that the very force that is supposedly fighting against drugs take part in the development of illegal drug markets as well. If your inclined to use the term, it's been a "joke" for fucking years now.I think we've disagreed on this same issue in other topics but the proportion of drug users (let alone the entire working class) actually ever arrested is infinitesmally small. You only have to look at number of admitted former drug-using Ministers (Dave Cameron or even Barack Obama in the US) who have been arrested (none) to see how lax the establishment attitude is.

[blake 3:17]

I think we've disagreed on this same issue in other topics but the proportion of drug users (let alone the entire working class) actually ever arrested is infinitesmally small. You only have to look at number of admitted former drug-using Ministers (Dave Cameron or even Barack Obama in the US) who have been arrested (none) to see how lax the establishment attitude is.

That is exactly the problem! Drug laws are very selectively enforced, with some people being punished in terrible ways, others getting away with it, and others being celebrated for it.

We don't have to argue for there being anything particular radical or wonderful about doing any drug, to say that the effect of the war on drugs is harmful to most people, through crop spraying, police brutality, criminal violence, dirty needles...

Get the guns and big bucks out of it and let people get high if they choose to.

[RotStern]

Prohibition doesn't work.
This has been proven many many times.
In the Netherlands where Marijuana is legal usage has actually gone down.
I think many more countries should seriously consider legalizing Marijuana and other drugs.

[Vendetta]

Salvia is legal.

The war on drugs is a failure.

[9]

Was flicking through the TV guide today and noticed BBC 3 showing "Can I get high legally? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ljxk3)". Kinda makes it hard to believe the claims of the state to be waging "war on drugs" or the idea that getting high subverts the state.

In this context, an appropriate parallel can be drawn between the concept of the "war on drugs" and the concept of the "war on terror". Both phrases are employed with the same superficiality for essentially the same ends.
Is the "war on terror" really a war against terror? Of course not. It’s a pretense employed by the capitalist class to justify the utilization of excessive force (more-so than usual), the aggressive incarceration of even larger numbers of impoverished people/ethnic minorities/the working class in general, while providing a convenient make-believe "enemy" for the workers and the capitalists to "unite against" - in other words, a scapegoat used by the bourgeoisie to distract workers from their common class enemy and primary oppressor.
Does this mean that the "war on terror" is a joke? Well, that is a matter of semantics. The idea that the US is waging a global war against "terrorism" is certainly a "joke" - assuming by "joke" one means "lie", or some variant. This is clear because the US knowingly harbors many of the world's worst "terrorists" and has single-handedly committed many of the world's worst terrorist atrocities. Members of the bourgeoisie are exempt, generally speaking, from persecution for terrorist acts just as members of the bourgeoisie are exempt, generally speaking, from persecution for drug use. "Selective enforcement" indeed.
But this most definitely does not mean that the "war on drugs"/"war on terror", so called, are merely rhetorical constructs which bear no implications beyond capitalist propaganda. As I noted before, such "banners" are used as justification for imperialist expansion and subjugation (financially and territorially), and excessive use of violence against, and incarceration of, broad swathes of the international proletariat.
The “war on drugs” has as little to do with eradicating drug use as the “war on terror” has to do with eradicating acts of terrorism. In fact, not only are both “wars” completely uninterested in “defeating” their proclaimed targets (drugs and terrorism), they actually serve to overtly exacerbate the problems they claim to be combating, which should in and of itself be sufficient to demonstrate that these “wars” are waged for entirely different reasons altogether.
So, in conclusion… are very real, aggressive, exploitive actions being carried out under the pretense of the “war on drugs”? Absolutely. Is the “war on drugs” really a “war on drugs”? Absolutely not, nor was it ever intended to be [see the 'pharmaceutical industry', for example].

With regard to the second part of your question/statement, the only context in which I have ever heard anyone suggest "the idea that getting high subverts the state" is when its employed as a strawman by apologists for capitalist drug policy, with the purpose of putting words in their opponents' mouths in an attempt to obscure their opponents' message.

[The Idler]

The “war on drugs” has as little to do with eradicating drug use as the “war on terror” has to do with eradicating acts of terrorism.
I think you've possibly hit the nail on the head here.

With regard to the second part of your question/statement, the only context in which I have ever heard anyone suggest "the idea that getting high subverts the state" is when its employed as a strawman by apologists for capitalist drug policy, with the purpose of putting words in their opponents' mouths in an attempt to obscure their opponents' message.

I understand the case for legalisation and am inclined to agree but that has been gone over in many topics previously. I think there is certainly a misguided sentiment (if not outright statement) that recreational drug use is bucking the system somehow.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think we've disagreed on this same issue in other topics but the proportion of drug users (let alone the entire working class) actually ever arrested is infinitesmally small.
You must live under a rock then. Or you've just completely ignored the incarceration of non-violent drug users as well as traffickers. Try doing just a little bit of research before claiming that the number of drug users that are actually arrested is small. A quick google search will show:


"The number of offenders under age 18 admitted to prison for drug offenses increased twelvefold (from 70 to 840) between 1985 to 1997. By 1997 drug offenders made up 11% of admissions among persons under 18 compared to 2% in 1985."

Source:
Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 4.

In 2006, drug law violators comprised 19.6% of all adults serving time in State prisons - 249,400 out of 1,274,600 State prison inmates.

Source:
Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9, and p. 25, Appendix Table 10.
Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.

Source:
US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).


You only have to look at number of admitted former drug-using Ministers (Dave Cameron or even Barack Obama in the US) who have been arrested (none) to see how lax the establishment attitude is.Lax? Are you kidding me? It doesn't matter if government officials admit to using drugs. That's completely beside the point. The "war on drugs" isn't about eradicating drug use. So your argument is ridiculous.



Salvia is legal.

The war on drugs is a failure.
Actually it's criminalized in most US states, as well as many other countries.

[rebelmouse]

there is no war on drugs, maybe there is war against those who don't finance US cops, secret agents and politicians.
as I know, people from organized criminal are in fact children of powerful people (families with influence in society) and therefore they get very easy protection from the state (father in secret agency, brother police inspector, etc). therefore there is no chance that top of organized criminals finish in prison. they have strong connections with the state officials. if they want to arrest them, in every country they can do it for one day. secret agency knows everything about drug business. only stupid person can believe that secret agency can catch Muslims who just planned something but they never catch domestic big organized criminals. they catch only small fishes, if they catch big ones, they would arrest their own families or families of their private friends. US is big (but not so big when so big business is in question, top of criminals are near to politicians), but beside USA, there are lot of small countries where everybody knows everything but only small fishes are arrested.

[brigadista]

depends who is taking the drugs... there is only a war on drugs taken by the working class,,often supplied covertly by the state as a means of social control...if you are high addicted .. your not going to be rebelling any time soon...

whereas the rich capitalist and aristocratic classes take drugs as they please and due to their class and therefore political /social connections manage to escape and avoid any kind of sanction whatsoever... and moral outrage...

The war on drugs is cynical BS

[Revy]

It's no laughing matter, it's an atrocity.

[brigadista]

It's no laughing matter, it's an atrocity.


i dont know if you were replying ot my comment .. but i agree .. and to clarify my post was one of outrage

[The Idler]

You must live under a rock then. Or you've just completely ignored the incarceration of non-violent drug users as well as traffickers. Try doing just a little bit of research before claiming that the number of drug users that are actually arrested is small. A quick google search will show:

Lax? Are you kidding me? It doesn't matter if government officials admit to using drugs. That's completely beside the point. The "war on drugs" isn't about eradicating drug use. So your argument is ridiculous.Well, there are estimates of 20 million Americans who have used an illegal drug in the last year and only 1.8 million illegal drug arrests of Americans so around 18.2 million Americans use an illegal drug in the last year with no state interference in the so-called "war on drugs".

[BabylonHoruv]

It is the largest and most effective employment program being run by the government aside, possibly, from the armed forces. By providing jobs both to police and to drug dealers (who could not make the profits they do if drugs were legal) it has put millions of people to work.

[BabylonHoruv]

In this context, an appropriate parallel can be drawn between the concept of the "war on drugs" and the concept of the "war on terror". Both phrases are employed with the same superficiality for essentially the same ends.
Is the "war on terror" really a war against terror? Of course not. It’s a pretense employed by the capitalist class to justify the utilization of excessive force (more-so than usual), the aggressive incarceration of even larger numbers of impoverished people/ethnic minorities/the working class in general, while providing a convenient make-believe "enemy" for the workers and the capitalists to "unite against" - in other words, a scapegoat used by the bourgeoisie to distract workers from their common class enemy and primary oppressor.
Does this mean that the "war on terror" is a joke? Well, that is a matter of semantics. The idea that the US is waging a global war against "terrorism" is certainly a "joke" - assuming by "joke" one means "lie", or some variant. This is clear because the US knowingly harbors many of the world's worst "terrorists" and has single-handedly committed many of the world's worst terrorist atrocities. Members of the bourgeoisie are exempt, generally speaking, from persecution for terrorist acts just as members of the bourgeoisie are exempt, generally speaking, from persecution for drug use. "Selective enforcement" indeed.
But this most definitely does not mean that the "war on drugs"/"war on terror", so called, are merely rhetorical constructs which bear no implications beyond capitalist propaganda. As I noted before, such "banners" are used as justification for imperialist expansion and subjugation (financially and territorially), and excessive use of violence against, and incarceration of, broad swathes of the international proletariat.
The “war on drugs” has as little to do with eradicating drug use as the “war on terror” has to do with eradicating acts of terrorism. In fact, not only are both “wars” completely uninterested in “defeating” their proclaimed targets (drugs and terrorism), they actually serve to overtly exacerbate the problems they claim to be combating, which should in and of itself be sufficient to demonstrate that these “wars” are waged for entirely different reasons altogether.
So, in conclusion… are very real, aggressive, exploitive actions being carried out under the pretense of the “war on drugs”? Absolutely. Is the “war on drugs” really a “war on drugs”? Absolutely not, nor was it ever intended to be [see the 'pharmaceutical industry', for example].

With regard to the second part of your question/statement, the only context in which I have ever heard anyone suggest "the idea that getting high subverts the state" is when its employed as a strawman by apologists for capitalist drug policy, with the purpose of putting words in their opponents' mouths in an attempt to obscure their opponents' message.



Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others that the US government is going after in the war on terror are members of the bourgoisie, this is not a class war, ity is different factions of the bourgoisie fighting and using the working class as meat in their fights, just like always.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well, there are estimates of 20 million Americans who have used an illegal drug in the last year and only 1.8 million illegal drug arrests of Americans so around 18.2 million Americans use an illegal drug in the last year with no state interference in the so-called "war on drugs".

What is your point? If your idea of a lax policy on drugs is arresting 1.8 million people then that's insane. Just because they don't catch all of them doesn't mean they aren't trying. I think its already been established that the "war on drugs" isn't about eliminating drug use.

[mannetje]

legalizing it leads to less violence.