Solving the War on Drugs

[mirkwood]

Cartels would ignore the laws and do what they do now, which is to do illegal grows/manufacture/distribution and continue with how they do business.  It is they way they operate.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The Jesus I learned about in Sunday School would heal addicts, not "destroy" them. The cartels would probably get the flamethrower, though.

You have taken my words out of context – you left out the context that it is only those drug addicts that refuse to cooperate.  These are those that rather than helping are the means and solders through which the enemy engages in a proxy war.   And in a time of war, such are traders.  Addicts that will not cooperate cannot and will not be healed by force.  I think you will find that Jesus (as well as His Father) do not tolerate traders in open rebellion. History has proven that until we are willing to deal decisively with traders, we will fail in our efforts to deal with drugs.

Quote

There's already been tremendous amounts of collateral damage as a result of the war on drugs, especially in the foreign countries where a lot of opioids and cocaine originate.

You are also missing an important point here as well.  The collateral damage you reference is the collateral damage of the drug cartels and those that align with cartels.  I am very concerned that you intend to blame that collateral damage on the victims.   There is a term for what you have done here, and it is called gaslighting.  If we are ever able to deal with the drug problem - we must be willing to hold those responsible for the damage of their crimes. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Cartels would ignore the laws and do what they do now, which is to do illegal grows/manufacture/distribution and continue with how they do business.  It is they way they operate.

Exactly, this is why the entire cartel organization and those that sympathize, help and support them must be dealt with as enemy combatants of war.  There is too much profit in the enterprise such that if it is not dealt with completely (similar to the gadianton robbers in the Book of Mormon) they will wage war themselves.  We learn from scripture that such organizations thrive where money and power are valued more than human life.   Treating cartel members and supporters as war time enemy combatants is the only way to deal with them.  Nothing else has shown to be effective.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

You have taken my words out of context – you left out the context that it is only those drug addicts that refuse to cooperate.  These are those that rather than helping are the means and solders through which the enemy engages in a proxy war.   

You're describing cartel behavior, not the behavior of your run-of-the-mill addict. Most of your run-of-the-mill addicts will probably bend the knee pretty as soon as Jesus shows up. Heck, a lot of them here in our country are already believers on some level that lost their way.

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

You are also missing an important point here as well.  The collateral damage you reference is the collateral damage of the drug cartels and those that align with cartels.  I am very concerned that you intend to blame that collateral damage on the victims. 

Not at all. Our government and the governments of the countries where hard narcotics originate have a great deal of blood on their hands as well . Treating users as criminals finds you surrounded by criminals very quickly, not because they're fighting you, but because you declared war on them. The US and its allies are responsible for some pretty reprehensible stuff in those origin countries, all in the name of keeping drugs off the street here at home. There's still more than enough blame to pass onto the cartels, but the cartels aren't the ones who declared war.

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

we must be willing to hold those responsible for the damage of their crimes.

I agree. I don't think you understand my position very well. Yes, the lines are sometimes blurry when talking about users vs dealers, but usually there's a decent amount of distinction. Plenty of dealers refuse to use their own product, after all. Treating the average user as a violent criminal is how we lost the war on drugs on the first place.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

We learn from scripture that such organizations thrive where money and power are valued more than human life.  

Indeed. I wonder, what's the primary motivator of most people who seek government office (regardless of party)? Is it any wonder that we've spent $1T+ over 50 years to fight the drug cartels and never made any meaningful headway? You're right, the most realistic chance of ending that particular war is nothing short than the return of your savior. 

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 Treating cartel members and supporters as war time enemy combatants is the only way to deal with them.  Nothing else has shown to be effective.

How has militarization against them proven effective? What metrics are you using for success? We've spent over a trillion dollars, locked up a sizeable portion of our minority population for minor drug crimes, and tens of thousands of people have died, many of them civilians. More people are dying from drug overdoses than ever, even if you remove the catastrophic spike in opioid deaths due to fentanyl.

The War on Drugs is a far bigger failure, in terms of outcomes, than LBJ's Great Society, and I think we hashed that one out recently as well. 60 years of policy and government spending to fight poverty have resulted in reductions in poverty rates that are marginal, at best. 50 years and a trillion dollars later, the War on Drugs doesn't even have marginal wins. If anything, it's been 50 years of losses, the brunt of which was carried by minorities and innocent civilians in 3rd world countries. From where I sit, the War on Drugs is far more of a colossal failure than the Great Society. At least the Great Society reduced the thing it was trying to eliminate (while mitigating the risk of new people falling into poverty). The War on Drugs just turned users into criminals, and I daresay that our heavy-handed approach over the years likely created more violent criminals than it took off the street.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Cartels would ignore the laws and do what they do now, which is to do illegal grows/manufacture/distribution and continue with how they do business.  It is they way they operate.

Supply and Demand, basic capitalism. 

You increase supply enough and the Cartels, though they may still exist, will lose their ability to fund it via drug smuggling. 

Afterall, why buy from a drug smuggler when you can buy a safer, cheaper, and better option at your local drug store?

 

PS:  Just to be clear, I don't take drugs.  Never have, and never will.  Even in my old age I'm cautious about taking drugs.  I've been blessed thus far not to need them that often (so medically, I don't have any prescriptions that are required, though they do prescribe some medications I normally don't take them.  I have arthritis, but the hardest drug I take is aleve, and only when absolutely necessary). 

Edited November 13, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Supply and Demand, basic capitalism. 

You increase supply enough and the Cartels, though they may still exist, will lose their ability to fund it via drug smuggling. 

Afterall, why buy from a drug smuggler when you can buy a safer, cheaper, and better option at your local drug store?

 

PS:  Just to be clear, I don't take drugs.  Never have, and never will.  Even in my old age I'm cautious about taking drugs.  I've been blessed thus far not to need them that often (so medically, I don't have any prescriptions that are required, though they do prescribe some medications I normally don't take them.  I have arthritis, but the hardest drug I take is aleve, and only when absolutely necessary). 

 

This.  The cartels will always be cheaper.  Always.  That will drive their "success."  Addicts are not worried about safer.

[zil2]

Maybe it won't work in the US (because so many in power want people to be addicted), but boy does this discussion sound reasonable:

 

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You're describing cartel behavior, not the behavior of your run-of-the-mill addict. Most of your run-of-the-mill addicts will probably bend the knee pretty as soon as Jesus shows up. Heck, a lot of them here in our country are already believers on some level that lost their way.

There is a slight difference between an addict and user - even in their ability to cooperate.  I did not want to get into all the nuances because I am not an expert, nor do I believe there is enough expertise on this forum.  My point is that there is very little trust that can be applied to those involved which requires that such must be completely isolated both from trust or contributing to the problem.

Quote

Not at all. Our government and the governments of the countries where hard narcotics originate have a great deal of blood on their hands as well . Treating users as criminals finds you surrounded by criminals very quickly, not because they're fighting you, but because you declared war on them. The US and its allies are responsible for some pretty reprehensible stuff in those origin countries, all in the name of keeping drugs off the street here at home. There's still more than enough blame to pass onto the cartels, but the cartels aren't the ones who declared war.

Not exactly true - it is true that there are elements within our government that are working outside of the protocol of law.   I will provide two such displays of such elements.  The first involves the coverup and lack of transparency of the current Whitehouse administration to a drug stash that was discovered there.  The second also involves the current democratic party (and many of the rank-and-file hard core party members and citizens) and their refusal to support and enforce the current border and immigration laws – which primarily benefits the drug cartels (human traffickers).  Both regarding what comes into our country and what is exported illegally.  Obviously, the cost for such criminal behavior is considered negligible, including monetarily, politically (power) and socially (bendably) compared to the realized rewards.

Quote

I agree. I don't think you understand my position very well. Yes, the lines are sometimes blurry when talking about users vs dealers, but usually there's a decent amount of distinction. Plenty of dealers refuse to use their own product, after all. Treating the average user as a violent criminal is how we lost the war on drugs on the first place.

Indeed. I wonder, what's the primary motivator of most people who seek government office (regardless of party)? Is it any wonder that we've spent $1T+ over 50 years to fight the drug cartels and never made any meaningful headway? You're right, the most realistic chance of ending that particular war is nothing short than the return of your savior. 

How has militarization against them proven effective? What metrics are you using for success? We've spent over a trillion dollars, locked up a sizeable portion of our minority population for minor drug crimes, and tens of thousands of people have died, many of them civilians. More people are dying from drug overdoses than ever, even if you remove the catastrophic spike in opioid deaths due to fentanyl.

The War on Drugs is a far bigger failure, in terms of outcomes, than LBJ's Great Society, and I think we hashed that one out recently as well. 60 years of policy and government spending to fight poverty have resulted in reductions in poverty rates that are marginal, at best. 50 years and a trillion dollars later, the War on Drugs doesn't even have marginal wins. If anything, it's been 50 years of losses, the brunt of which was carried by minorities and innocent civilians in 3rd world countries. From where I sit, the War on Drugs is far more of a colossal failure than the Great Society. At least the Great Society reduced the thing it was trying to eliminate (while mitigating the risk of new people falling into poverty). The War on Drugs just turned users into criminals, and I daresay that our heavy-handed approach over the years likely created more violent criminals than it took off the street.

Quote

You are correct – I do not understand your position.  The limited experience I have had with any user is that they will push others to try whatever it is they are using.  

Quote

Indeed. I wonder, what's the primary motivator of most people who seek government office (regardless of party)? Is it any wonder that we've spent $1T+ over 50 years to fight the drug cartels and never made any meaningful headway? You're right, the most realistic chance of ending that particular war is nothing short than the return of your savior. 

There are two kinds of politicians (both parties) that I see.  One type, that I support, are sort of like Trump, Ragan and Eisenhower (strange that they all were republicans – do you know of any such democratic presidents? maybe Carter).  They will run for one particular office for a limited time, but it is obvious that elected political office is not their occupation of choice.  The others are lifelong professional party politicians.  I do not trust any lifelong politicians – it appears you do not so much either.

Quote

How has militarization against them proven effective? What metrics are you using for success? We've spent over a trillion dollars, locked up a sizeable portion of our minority population for minor drug crimes, and tens of thousands of people have died, many of them civilians. More people are dying from drug overdoses than ever, even if you remove the catastrophic spike in opioid deaths due to fentanyl.

 

The proof of necessary militarization is China that tried to end the intrusion of drugs for 200 years.  It was not until the militarization of Communism that they succeeded.  Obviously, the militarization of government for even a single issue is scary.  It is interesting that you picked the return of the Messiah as the only workable option because that seems to be inconsistent with the persona you display.  This causes me to wonder if there are elements of your character you hide even from yourself.

Quote

The War on Drugs is a far bigger failure, in terms of outcomes, than LBJ's Great Society, and I think we hashed that one out recently as well. 60 years of policy and government spending to fight poverty have resulted in reductions in poverty rates that are marginal, at best. 50 years and a trillion dollars later, the War on Drugs doesn't even have marginal wins. If anything, it's been 50 years of losses, the brunt of which was carried by minorities and innocent civilians in 3rd world countries. From where I sit, the War on Drugs is far more of a colossal failure than the Great Society. At least the Great Society reduced the thing it was trying to eliminate (while mitigating the risk of new people falling into poverty). The War on Drugs just turned users into criminals, and I daresay that our heavy-handed approach over the years likely created more violent criminals than it took off the street.

It seem obvious to me that we know how to win a war but that we have (since Korea) failed (with many things) in ignoring our constitution, especially in how we engage in war activities.  Even our HIPPA law concerning drug use by criminals is too political to allow transparency to understand how drugs are affecting our society (mass shootings for example).  It also seems obvious to me that both with the so-called war on drugs and the Great Society – that political power is more relevant than protecting our citizens.   There needs to be a significant change

It is my personal belief that our discussions on this topic ought to be proof enough of secret societies in control of our government.  And this is another brick in the structure that demonstrates Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of G-d.  We may agree on a lot more than I have anticipated.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

There is a slight difference between an addict and user - even in their ability to cooperate.  I did not want to get into all the nuances because I am not an expert, nor do I believe there is enough expertise on this forum.

I asked my streetwise master-level expert in such things, if there was a difference between addict and user.   They replied "If someone is trying to debate the difference with you, they're an addict."  

[mirkwood]

I'll use alcohol as an example of the difference between user and addict.

 

My dad is a social drinker.  He drinks (drank, he drinks very little now) at social gatherings or pizza night with his buddies.  He is/was not a daily drinker.  

 

Dad = user.

 

The alcoholic whose death I responded to today was an addict.  He drank daily, for decades.

 

Dead dude = addict.

 

The difference is fairly easy to see.

 

 

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I'll use alcohol as an example of the difference between user and addict.

 

My dad is a social drinker.  He drinks (drank, he drinks very little now) at social gatherings or pizza night with his buddies.  He is/was not a daily drinker.  

 

Dad = user.

 

The alcoholic whose death I responded to today was an addict.  He drank daily, for decades.

 

Dead dude = addict.

 

The difference is fairly easy to see.

 

 

This seems to me to be a spectrum, and you have chosen two elements that are far apart - the difference is easy to differentiate.  The problem is where is the line in the spectrum that definitely separates the two concepts.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The problem is where is the line in the spectrum that definitely separates the two concepts.

Dependency. You can enjoy an addictive substance without becoming dependent on it. Once you feel like you "have" to have a drink/bump/whatever, that's where the trouble starts. A lot of military veterans are functional alcoholics. I spent 7 years monetizing my addiction in the beer industry. My ex-FIL is a recovering alcoholic and a retired Marine who's done very well for himself working in his former military position as a civilian (contracting of some sort, which I realize is odd for a Marine).

Edited November 14, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You can enjoy an addictive substance without becoming dependent on it. Once you feel like you "have" to have a drink/bump/whatever, that's where the trouble starts.

Exactly my point on stuff like social media.   My phone tells me I only do 5 hrs a day online.  It's not a problem, it's not something I "have to do".    Just a harmless way to pass time.  Nothing wrong with it, and it's something I can give up any time I want.  I'm obviously only a user, not an addict. 

See, my wise person would point to folks who say stuff like that, and say "that's an addict".   Addicts are masters of lies.  Most of 'em believe their own lies.  

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Dependency. You can enjoy an addictive substance without becoming dependent on it. Once you feel like you "have" to have a drink/bump/whatever, that's where the trouble starts. A lot of military veterans are functional alcoholics. I spent 7 years monetizing my addiction in the beer industry. My ex-FIL is a recovering alcoholic and a retired Marine who's done very well for himself working in his former military position as a civilian (contracting of some sort, which I realize is odd for a Marine).

 

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Exactly my point on stuff like social media.   My phone tells me I only do 5 hrs a day online.  It's not a problem, it's not something I "have to do".    Just a harmless way to pass time.  Nothing wrong with it, and it's something I can give up any time I want.  I'm obviously only a user, not an addict. 

See, my wise person would point to folks who say stuff like that, and say "that's an addict".   Addicts are masters of lies.  Most of 'em believe their own lies.  

This assumes that life is like a river that flows consistently towards the ocean.    The problem is that there are constant changes in the ebbs and flows of life.  I am aware that there are many individuals that indulge in various substances (including coffee of various energy drinks) and other seeming “harmless” drugs.  Then comes a time of increased difficulty or trial where life goes off the rails when something beyond “normal” is needed and something is obviously overused.  It could be anything from sugar to something vaped or even the release of something natural like anger or sorrow.

Dependency is relative and excuses are easy.

I bring this up because many think that expectations in the Church are too “judgmental” in keeping the commandments.  Wars are seldom won with one battle.  One battle may turn the tides but there are two principles of righteousness (defining righteousness as loyalty to G-d and covenants).  First is faith in Jesus Christ and the second is repentance.  Sometimes (for me it is daily) our faith manifest itself in something other than Christ and we need to reevaluate ourselves and repent.

I will be honest my friend @Phoenix_person  – I do not know how atheists or agnostics navigate life and what they are working to accomplish – especially when our live experience is obviously coming to an end.  Sometimes it may not be our life but the life of someone we hold dear.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

So, you're not an addict until your addiction starts causing obvious problems that are noticed by others?  But before then, you're not an addict, just a user?

Edited November 14, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[mikbone]

38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, you're not an addict until your addiction starts causing obvious problems that are noticed by others?  But before then, you're not an addict, just a user?

Lovin the new avatar.

[Carborendum]

36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, you're not an addict until your addiction starts causing obvious problems that are noticed by others?  But before then, you're not an addict, just a user?

If we're talking about a consistent definition, here's one:

Quote

Addiction: Any behavior that brings short-term benefits but long-term damage.

Life itself is an addiction that is 100% fatal.  We never get out alive. LoL.

Obviously, we can twist any definition to reductio ad absurdum.  But if you catch the spirit of what that definition is getting at, we realize that there are some things that are marginally harmful that can provide pleasure to some without it going over the line of "addiction."  And it is always a judgment call.  So, whose judgment do you trust?  That's the difficult part of the argument.

Let me be clear.  I'm not trying to encourage drug use in any way shape or form.  I'm the guy who avoids using Tylenol or cold capsules.  I think the damage greatly outweighs the benefits for all drugs that are not tightly controlled using competent medical judgment.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, you're not an addict until your addiction starts causing obvious problems that are noticed by others?  But before then, you're not an addict, just a user?

Do you have a scriptural reference for this?   I can resist anything but temptation.  

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 I can resist anything but temptation.