- #1
- 19,557
- 10,337
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/01/world/war-on-drugs-failing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Can anyone find the original study article? [edit: linked on post 3]
Last edited:
Hong Kong (CNN) -- The global war on drugs is failing, new research suggests, as the price of heroin, cocaine and cannabis has fallen while their purity has increased.
Using seven sets of government drug surveillance data, a team of Canadian and U.S. researchers reviewed drug supply in the United States, Europe and Australia and drug production in regions such as Latin America, Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.
They found that illegal drugs have become cheaper while their potency has increased, indicating that efforts to control "the global illegal drug market through law enforcement are failing."
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/9/e003077.abstract?sid=0454e683-f092-4ab4-bd5c-c531558e96faAbstract
Objectives - Illegal drug use continues to be a major threat to community health and safety. We used international drug surveillance databases to assess the relationship between multiple long-term estimates of illegal drug price and purity.
Design - We systematically searched for longitudinal measures of illegal drug supply indicators to assess the long-term impact of enforcement-based supply reduction interventions.
Setting - Data from identified illegal drug surveillance systems were analysed using an a priori defined protocol in which we sought to present annual estimates beginning in 1990. Data were then subjected to trend analyses.
Main outcome measures - Data were obtained from government surveillance systems assessing price, purity and/or seizure quantities of illegal drugs; systems with at least 10 years of longitudinal data assessing price, purity/potency or seizures were included.
Results - We identified seven regional/international metasurveillance systems with longitudinal measures of price or purity/potency that met eligibility criteria. In the USA, the average inflation-adjusted and purity-adjusted prices of heroin, cocaine and cannabis decreased by 81%, 80% and 86%, respectively, between 1990 and 2007, whereas average purity increased by 60%, 11% and 161%, respectively. Similar trends were observed in Europe, where during the same period the average inflation-adjusted price of opiates and cocaine decreased by 74% and 51%, respectively. In Australia, the average inflation-adjusted price of cocaine decreased 14%, while the inflation-adjusted price of heroin and cannabis both decreased 49% between 2000 and 2010. During this time, seizures of these drugs in major production regions and major domestic markets generally increased.
Conclusions - With few exceptions and despite increasing investments in enforcement-based supply reduction efforts aimed at disrupting global drug supply, illegal drug prices have generally decreased while drug purity has generally increased since 1990. These findings suggest that expanding efforts at controlling the global illegal drug market through law enforcement are failing.
Ryan_m_b said:That's pretty much the biggest danger of many drugs. Things like ecstasy, cannabis and other soft drugs aren't very harmful by themselves, or at least are way less harmful than the legal drugs we already have.
chemisttree said:I cannot believe this comment has been allowed to stand! You guys need to moderate your comments.
Office_Shredder said:From a health and safety perspective, is purer drugs actually a bad thing?
Since the homemade mix is routinely injected immediately with little or no further purification, "krokodil" has become notorious for producing severe tissue damage, phlebitis and gangrene, sometimes requiring limb amputation in long-term users.
D H said:I am not saying that mind-altering drugs are harmless. They are not harmless. There is a cost to society in the very use of these drugs. There is, however, an even greater cost in criminalizing the use, sale, and production of these drugs. The cost to society of the war on drugs is extremely high, and because it has not worked, the benefits are rather low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...al-410086.html
The UK back in 2006 did a study about the relative dangers of various drugs, and ecstasy both fall under tobacco and alcohol. If you look at the death rate for alcohol vs ecstasy, 22,000 deaths for an adult population of 50,000,000 is about ten times the rate as 33 deaths for 800,000.
No endorsement expressed or implied.Ryan_m_b said:That's pretty much the biggest danger of many drugs. Things like ecstasy, cannabis and other soft drugs aren't very harmful by themselves, or at least are way less harmful than the legal drugs we already have.
Ryan_m_b said:That's pretty much the biggest danger of many drugs. Things like ecstasy, cannabis and other soft drugs aren't very harmful by themselves, or at least are way less harmful than the legal drugs we already have.
The rate of past year suicide attempt among adolescents with lifetime ecstasy use was almost double that of adolescents who had used other drugs only, and nine times that of adolescents with no history of illicit drug use.
Office_Shredder said:From a health and safety perspective, is purer drugs actually a bad thing? My limited impression has been that a reasonable amount of the danger of taking drugs is that they mix the actual drug with random other crap to save money, and that random other crap can be dangerous as well.
EternusVia said:Excellent! Perhaps something will finally be done about it.
Just as the prohibition was entirely unsuccessful in its endeavor, so will our generation's crusade be unsuccessful. People should be free to ingest whatever herbs or chemicals they want, so long as they do so without putting others at risk.
Yes -- drugs have harmful effects at times and CAN put other people at risk. This is why there are laws that make driving drunk illegal. The same could be instituted to make the world a safer place, if drugs were legal.
But as the current system stands the government is literally ensuring the existence of drug cartels, as making something illegal which is in high demand only makes it extremely profitable to be the supplier.
We ought to focus on education and voluntary direction rather than brute force through the hand of the state.
"Unsuccessful" (failed) is poorly defined in this thread/the article. Do you think drug use would go up or down if it were made legal? Did alcohol use go up or down with prohibition and its repeal?EternusVia said:Just as the prohibition was entirely unsuccessful in its endeavor, so will our generation's crusade be unsuccessful.
So does that mean you would eliminate the FDA, getting rid of all food and pharmaceutical drug regulation?People should be free to ingest whatever herbs or chemicals they want, so long as they do so without putting others at risk.
Could be? You don't think such laws already exist?This is why there are laws that make driving drunk illegal. The same could be instituted to make the world a safer place, if drugs were legal.
russ_watters said:"Unsuccessful" (failed) is poorly defined in this thread/the article. Do you think drug use would go up or down if it were made legal? Did alcohol use go up or down with prohibition and its repeal?
russ_watters said:"Unsuccessful" (failed) is poorly defined in this thread/the article. Do you think drug use would go up or down if it were made legal? Did alcohol use go up or down with prohibition and its repeal?
It exists whether the government added a "war on drugs" specific bill or not. It exists because drug prohibition enforcement become a major focus in law enforcement, drug prohibition and our efforts in other countries to halt the trade cost tax payers billions of dollars, as do the prison costs of putting and keeping tens/hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders behind bars.It isn't a particular policy initiative. Basically, it doesn't exist.
russ_watters said:The basic problems are:
1. There is no "war on drugs". There is just a wide collection of anti-drug law enforcement.
2. Failure is poorly/improperly defined. It seems to be drug use up = failure. But if we're talking about repealing drug laws, then a proper comparison would be to compare the two: if legalizing drugs makes use go up more, then anti-drug laws were making a positive impact.
Agreed. But then why is incarceration the go-to after treatment? There's plenty of drug use in prisons. If we can't keep drugs out of prisons, where we put people in order to deter them from using drugs, then how do we expect these actions to deter drug use? All it takes is a couple uses for many of these drugs and these people don't care about the potential ramifications. But I agree that focusing on prevention is pretty meaningless as far as eliminating drug trade is concerned. But drug trade needs to be brought into the light and understood. People need to feel that they can safely get treatment without the risk of relapsing, getting caught, and going to jail.3. "Focus on prevention" is another meaningless catchphrase. They are not mutually exclusive and indeed prevention has no teeth unless coupled with enforcement. Opening up treatment centers does no good if no one chooses to go.
4. As I indicated before, the "let people put whatever they want into their bodies" is a very deep rabbit hole. Ironically, it is some of the same people using that argument who then violate it with food and drug restrictions. And while we're at it, we should then apply the same freedom of choice to product safety regulation. If you want pot to be in a unique regulatory black hole, so be it, but legalization proponents should at least be aware of/open about just how deep a black hole and stark a contradiction such positions are.
Well yes, it is semantics, but in common use that tends to mean "hairsplitting", which it is not. If Obama announces "I'm ending the war on terror", most people will know exactly what he means. But with the "war on drugs", because it is not a single policy initiative, the idea of "ending the war on drugs" can mean very different things to different people. That lack of consistent meaning is why it is a useless slogan. People need to instead describe exactly what changes they would make to the existing legal framework. And a simple "legalize drugs" isn't enough either. They need to be prepared to deal with the complex meaning and ramifications of complete legalization.Travis_King said:This is semantics. The war on drugs is defined as the collection of anti-drug law enforcement, as well as our border and international efforts to shut down the drug trade. The term "war on drugs" exists to talk about the entire social/policy issue of drug enforcement. There are some good policies, I'm sure, which would remain, and there are others which people feel are failing and should be re-thought.
Can you explain why you think these two statements don't contradict each other?Failure doesn't equal drug use going up... The current policies which are in place to mitigate and eliminate drug trade and use cost the public billions per year and yet there has been no measurable downward trend in drug use or trade (indeed, trade is increasing and the US is, I belive, the world leader in imported drugs)...
Can you explain why you think these two statements don't contradict each other? If we replace "any" with "enough", that would fix it, but I don't like having to strip-off exaggeration, particularly when it is more than just a matter of degree but actually changes the meaning.Perhaps drug use would increase somewhat... We're not getting any bang for our buck.
C'mon. You say you can't think of a reason for it to matter, but you acknowledge that many/most drugs are bad. That's why it matters!Travis_King said:Does it matter whether or not drug use goes up or down? I'm interested in why you would say drug use should be illegal in the first place. I can't think of anything, really...
For the most part, the cartels don't exist/operate in the US, so that isn't very relevant to the issue.If the point is to minimize the negative impact on society, then surely breaking up a large portion of the cartels supported by this prohibition...
Well that's a bit circular, since you can do that for any illegal activity. Make murder legal and *poof*, murderers are no longer criminals. That's neither here nor there....as well as the abolition of the idea that drug users are all criminals, will serve to better society.
I don't know. Do you agree, though, that the number is greater than zero? If nothing else, being illegal makes the street price higher due to lower availability. That makes it more difficult to become a drug user than if it were completely legal.How many people out there do you think are really itching to get addicted to heroin or cocaine, but don't because "it's illegal"?
That's not a relevant comparison: The beef isn't intended by either the manufacturer or the user to be rancid. Drugs are intended to be what they are by the manufacturer, sell and user. A better comparison would be a machine gun, which is illegal to manufacture, sell and own (for civilians). But if a civilian gets ahold of one, it is exactly what he, the manufacturer and seller intended it to be.You mentioned the FDA, and that's fine and good. They do the important job of making sure that distributers don't give out bad food and medicines. But it's not illegal for me as a private citizen to consume rancid beef. It may be bad for me, but it's not illegal.
russ_watters said:Well yes, it is semantics, but in common use that tends to mean "hairsplitting", which it is not. If Obama announces "I'm ending the war on terror", most people will know exactly what he means. But with the "war on drugs", because it is not a single policy initiative, the idea of "ending the war on drugs" can mean very different things to different people. That lack of consistent meaning is why it is a useless slogan. People need to instead describe exactly what changes they would make to the existing legal framework. And a simple "legalize drugs" isn't enough either. They need to be prepared to deal with the complex meaning and ramifications of complete legalization.
Sure, but their mistake doesn't mean their opinion is invalid. Most people just don't understand why so many people are jailed and fined for possession and use of drugs, or why the government spends so much on trying, and not typically succeeding, to stop it's sale and use. I look at it more of anti-persecution sentiment than an actual attempt at reforming public policy.And that is, of course, ignoring the fact that there are people who mistakenly believe it is a single coherent policy - and even an actual "war", such as Pythagorean appears to believe.
Can you explain why you think these two statements don't contradict each other?
Can you explain why you think these two statements don't contradict each other? If we replace "any" with "enough", that would fix it, but I don't like having to strip-off exaggeration, particularly when it is more than just a matter of degree but actually changes the meaning.
No I'm with you, I understand that it is a complex social issue. But to me the prohibition of drugs is a failed and dangerous social policy. The gray area comes into play for me when we talk about how legalization or decriminalization would be implemented.An overall comment that relates to much of what is in your post, you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking this is a black-and-white, coherent issue for anyone, including me.
I'm not in favor of the status quo and I would prefer more fines and forced treatment instead of jail for users.
But with the possible exception of pot legalization, that's as far as I'd change things. Still, that alone could have a marked effect of reducing prison populations and maybe even adding some revenue. But that is somewhat tangential to the scope of the thread; I didn't write the article in the OP, so the thesis here isn't mine.
C'mon. You say you can't think of a reason for it to matter, but you acknowledge that many/most drugs are bad. That's why it matters!
We spend billions yearly on fighting cartels in their home countries, actually...But the point is that legalizing drugs and regulating their trade will cripple and destroy the back door markets run by these cartels. They can't operate if there's no demand because users can get it cheaper and free and with no risk of jail time from the government or the guy down the road.For the most part, the cartels don't exist/operate in the US, so that isn't very relevant to the issue.
Well that's a bit circular, since you can do that for any illegal activity. Make murder legal and *poof*, murderers are no longer criminals. That's neither here nor there.
I don't know. Do you agree, though, that the number is greater than zero? If nothing else, being illegal makes the street price higher due to lower availability. That makes it more difficult to become a drug user than if it were completely legal.
The beef isn't intended by either the manufacturer or the user to be rancid. Drugs are intended to be what they are by the manufacturer, sell and user. A better comparison would be a machine gun, which is illegal to manufacture, sell and own (for civilians). But if a civilian gets ahold of one, it is exactly what he, the manufacturer and seller intended it to be.
Travis_King said:Agreed to an extent. There's more to it than "legalize drugs!", but the main point is that current policy is ineffective, expensive, not serving the betterment of our society. It needs to be addressed and overhauled. Many people do express the changes they would make, as not everyone believes we should go cold turkey on the drug enforcement policies. But eliminating mandatory minimums for drug users (for example) would be a good start.
The war on drugs is failing because despite billions of dollars spent and countless arrests made, drug use and availability have not significantly decreased. In fact, the number of drug-related deaths and overdoses continues to rise.
The research suggests that the war on drugs is not an effective approach to reducing drug use and addiction. Studies have shown that criminalization and punishment do not address the root causes of drug abuse and can actually exacerbate the problem.
The war on drugs is still being pursued because it is a complex issue with no easy solutions. Many governments and organizations are hesitant to change their approach due to political and social pressures, despite evidence that it is not working.
Some alternative approaches to the war on drugs include harm reduction strategies, such as providing access to clean needles and safe injection sites, as well as treatment and rehabilitation programs. These approaches focus on addressing the underlying issues of drug use and addiction rather than punishment.
To address the failure of the war on drugs, there needs to be a shift towards evidence-based policies and a focus on public health rather than criminalization. This includes investing in prevention, treatment, and harm reduction strategies, as well as addressing social and economic factors that contribute to drug abuse.