War on Drugs

[BigRedBuster]

I just don't know how you can quantify the "it wasn't cost effective".

pretty simply, actually; drug testing the recipients costed more than they saved in denying benefits.

 

That is my point. That doesn't look at the entire issue.

[carlfense]

The government spent more on drug testing than they saved by not paying benefits to people with hot tests. Rehab wasn't involved.

[BigRedBuster]

I would be willing to spend a huge amount of money if this is done right.

 

Just brain storming here, but, I think they should be drug tested. If they fail, then they go to rehab for X amount of time. They are then given assistance but tested monthly. If they fail again, they are sent back.

 

Yes, this is going to cost a HUGE amount of money. But, I personally find the drug problem so disgusting that I would rather spend MORE money on that then just constantly pay (admittedly less) money to these people so that they can go buy drugs where the money ends up in drug cartel's hands and other criminal organizations. Heck, there is even a certain amount of this money that ends up in terrorist's hands.

[Conga3]

@carlfense

 

- Bro is OK to use if your over 21. Deal.

- The war on drugs is a success. See my (your) awesome graphic. The % of addicts is unchanged. I believe that is the desired outcome? Less than 1.5% is probably unrealistic.

- ...so what they are spending must be just about right - and not a waste. Unless we want to make all recreational drugs legal... than the "war on drugs" changes quite a bit.

- Small potatoes? Please explain in what sense you mean. In costs associated with enforcement? Use? what? Smaller than actual potatoes?

- So please explain why you want to decriminalize marijuana only? So save $$ on the drug war and pay down the deficit?

[Conga3]

The government spent more on drug testing than they saved by not paying benefits to people with hot tests. Rehab wasn't involved.

I just don't know how you can quantify the "it wasn't cost effective".

pretty simply, actually; drug testing the recipients costed more than they saved in denying benefits.

That's not how you justify the drug testing. The point of testing for drugs on welfare recipients is to discourage or prevent drug use by the recipients.

 

The fact that the $ saved from violators doesn't add up to the cost of the tests in absolutely irrelevant - unless some stupid politician made that promise from the get go... and didn't realize that if the deterrent (drug test) is sucessfull at deterring drug use, than NO welfare recipients will fail the drug test.

[carlfense]

Bro is OK to use if your over 21. Deal.

Only if you're wearing your visor and Livestrong.

 

Small potatoes? Please explain in what sense you mean. In costs associated with enforcement? Use? what? Smaller than actual potatoes?

In my opinion the costs of enforcing our current marijuana laws aren't justified by the societal harm associated with marijuana use.

 

If there are other drugs that fall within a similar category I'd probably support their legalization as well. Certain drugs (methamphetamine, for example) are different.

[strigori]

@carlfense

 

- Bro is OK to use if your over 21. Deal.

- The war on drugs is a success. See my (your) awesome graphic. The % of addicts is unchanged. I believe that is the desired outcome? Less than 1.5% is probably unrealistic.

- ...so what they are spending must be just about right - and not a waste. Unless we want to make all recreational drugs legal... than the "war on drugs" changes quite a bit.

- Small potatoes? Please explain in what sense you mean. In costs associated with enforcement? Use? what? Smaller than actual potatoes?

- So please explain why you want to decriminalize marijuana only? So save $$ on the drug war and pay down the deficit?

No change is a success? That makes no sense. The numbers imply there is a certain portion of the population that will find a way to be addicted to something. So massive spending is pointless.

 

There is a multi point answer to why you decriminalize marijuana alone.

1 - You are not going to OD on pot. The amount of THC it would take to OD is more or less impossible to consume.

2 - THC is not chemically addicting like opiates. Sure someone can get addicted to the sensation, but that's no different that getting addicted to food or sex.

3 - People will find a way to get high. Just look at the progression of what people do. And they keep moving to something that is currently legal. People will pick a legal option, by and large, over an illegal one. What would most people do. Grab legal pot at 7-11 from a Marlboro brand, or find some guy on a corner for other drugs that are criminal?

4 - The 'gateway' drug argument largely exists because of the falsehoods the gov has propagated throughout the D.A.R.E. programs for example. So people ask themselves, after trying pot, "If I was lied to about this, they may have lied about everything else too"

[Conga3]

Bro is OK to use if your over 21. Deal.

Only if you're wearing your visor and Livestrong.

 

Small potatoes? Please explain in what sense you mean. In costs associated with enforcement? Use? what? Smaller than actual potatoes?

In my opinion the costs of enforcing our current marijuana laws aren't justified by the societal harm associated with marijuana use.

 

If there are other drugs that fall within a similar category I'd probably support their legalization as well. Certain drugs (methamphetamine, for example) are different.

How do you quantify this to justify your argument?

 

For example, sometimes folks justify a college degree by comparing salaries of those with one to those without.

[carlfense]

In my opinion the costs of enforcing our current marijuana laws aren't justified by the societal harm associated with marijuana use.

How do you quantify this to justify your argument?

strigori covered quite a bit here:

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/61711-war-on-drugs/page__view__findpost__p__1035805

 

I'd add that I rarely see people committing other crimes to support their marijuana habit and rehab/treatment is rarely needed to quit. Again, that's not the case with some other drugs like meth.

 

I could find sources that attach a more specific value to it if you'd like, bro.

[Landlord]

Which of my statements in this thread would you like me to back up with facts? Please let me know and I'll get on it ASAP. Thanks.

 

 

[carlfense]

 

[The Dude]

Seems to me we could have put that 1.5 trillion dollars towards something worthwhile.

[rawhide]

More coffee grown in the US by welfare recipients. Case closed.

 

As long as the coffee tastes like either Blue Mountain or Kenya AA.

[sd'sker]

weird day on twitter. two stories on the drug war.

@ggreenwald

I believe that 25 years from now, it will be a consensus that the Drug War was our dumbest & most destructive orthodoxy http://twitter.yfrog.com/0bolsqj

Brad Pitt: The War on Drugs is 'Nonsensical, Backwards and Inept'

[ZRod]

So I'm a little late to the party, but last night on the Daily Show they had Eugene Jarecki plugging his new film The House I Live In. Which is basically about how the war on drugs has been a failure on a much larger scale then I would have looked at. I think it touches on how the majority of drug laws are essentially racist (something I've tried to tell people for a long time), the means of punishment creates a lot more social issues than it "fixes", that we now have another instance of corporations getting into the pockets of politicians making it that much harder to create change, and some other things that I don't remember off the top of my head.

 

Really worth a watch even if you're not too concerned with the issue, it gives you a lot of things to think about.