Slashdot Mirror
The Technology of Drug Prohibition
ches_grin writes "Although the GWOT gets all the headlines, technology is proving to be the key factor in the 'war on drugs'. This article and slideshow take a look at the current state-of-the-art for both federal agents and drug traffickers, from greenhouses to Predator drones: 'In the pitched battle surrounding illegal drugs, each side has its advantages. Law enforcement can take advantage of private sector expertise, expensive machines, and, of course, the law. Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand.'"
That has done nothing save expand and enshrine the prison "industry".
Feh!
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
From TFA:
On the other hand, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found in 2004 that about 20% high school seniors had used marijuana in the preceding month.
If 20% of your kids are actively sleeping with the enemy, you've already lost the war. No technology in the world will help you when the enemy has wide spread grass root support in your own country. It'd probably be a good idea to start to negotiate a cease fire.
I'd rather see money be spent on helping those trying to get out of enemy territory than punishing those who want to be there
And before writing an angry rant about how your cousin's roomate was kidnapped by dealers and forced into drug addiction and prostitution, please see my sig.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
some drugs?
Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all "psychotropic" substances.
actually it's worse than that. Due to the laws of supply and demand, By failing to reduce the market for drugs, all the war on drugs has done is increase the financial incentives to be a drug dealer.
it is no suprise therefore that many of your local terrorist organisations.. already very criminal by nature have moved into the drugs trade, because of the vast amount of money to be made
so the war on drugs is in direct conflict the war on terror due to economics
the farce of the taliban and heroin in afghanistan is particularly depressing.
prohibition leads to vast wealth going to criminals... choose the lesser of two evils legalise it and make that wealth go to the state.
mind you from my limited knowledge of american history, i seem to recall that many of your blue blooded super rich political families made money bootlegging whisky during prohibition, the kennedy's in particular.
anyone know what the bushes were doing in prohibition?
Legalizing these drugs (and others) serves two purposes:
1) It allows for the users without self-restraint to remove themselves from the picture, usually through death. It sounds hardhearted, but this really is the only way to convince some people. This has the side effect of showing a generation of would-be users just how awful addiction really is, and during their childhood to top it off!
2) It allows law enforcement to get back to its REAL job - enforcing laws to benefit society. There's nothing beneficial in forcing useless people to stop killing themselves. Allow them to die and enforce the laws that benefit the "greater good". Now, this doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye when someone in their death throes decides to stir trouble for everyone else. If you murder, steal, etc. you should still be held accountable for that.
I don't think drugs are good. Not even marijuana. But I think that people who are stupid enough to harm themselves should be allowed to. It's a long-forgotten concept here in America... "Freedom" they used to call it. Free will and the ability to exercise it are a necessity. Consequences should arise from conflicting interests, not from arbitrary rules.
Opening statement: I've never used any of the currently illegal drugs and don't intend to, yet I am a strong supporter marijuana legalization.
When I popped into this thread, I was expecting to see the usual arguments. I was expecting to spend a little time combatting ignorance. I wasn't expecting any actual progress.
However, what amazed me was that every highly rated comment (I browse at +3) was pro-legalization. Every single one. Sure, they were responding to some of the same tired old arguments, but it seemed that the pro-legalization camp was far more strongly represented by both posters and mods. That surprised me and made me hopeful. I'm a regular financial supporter of The Marijuana Policy Project. There are so many lost causes in the world, improvements I'd love to see that will never happen. But I believe this is one issue that we might actually see resolved in our lifetimes.
I live in the Las Vegas area, and there is a statutory initiative on the ballot this upcoming election. Please, please, please, if you live in the Las Vegas area get out and vote. There are initiatives in other states as well, but I don't know the details there.
I am convinced now there is more than enough support to pass legalization in many states. But people need to get active about it. They need to watch the issue an vote. If this is an issue you care about, please take the time. We're at a possible turning point in the next 10 to 20 years. We can make things better.
Cheers.
I think good drug education (DARE maybe?) that teaches people from an early age that drugs are powerful, must be respected, tend to cause a lot of complications, can lead to serious problems, must be used with moderation if used at all, can impair judgment, and contribute to health problems and traffic accidents---is much better at helping the social problem than simply trying to arrest it away.
You typically can't arrest a problem; you can usually only arrest its symptoms.
Nevada (I think) has legalized prostitution, with certain restrictions and such by the government. From what I've heard, legalized prostitution is less of a problem than illegal prostitution: less disease, less loitering, less time required by law enforcement, and less abuse of sex workers.
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
There are some people who are mature enough to handle drugs. However, many people don't know the first thing about how drugs affect their brain and body...
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
One potential problem is that employers might start screening potential employees against the list of people with licenses; I'm not sure if it would be possible to keep the license list private and unavailable to the public, except perhaps if it's considered part of freedom of religion. (Maybe a better name for the license would be "Ceremonial substance permit.")
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Then, in the 1980s, an actor named Ronald Reagen, ascending to the office of president from his former job as governor of California, where he knocked the state university down a few notches, decided that America needs to spend all the money it gave back in tax cuts on arresting people who use drugs. Furthermore, we would begin saturating our children with anti-drug propaganda, riddled with half-truths and missing information but disguised as legitimate findings. We would adopt the Christian 12-step programs' philosophy of lifetime addictions ("addiction" has no agreed upon medical definition, by the way. Doctors use the terms "abuse" and "dependence" to describe specific behaviors), then tell the parents that if their kids become intoxicated with any illegal substances they will be lying in the gutters and become complete failures in life. Then, we use this theory that if a drug is illegal it is fundamentally bad in order to justify keeping all drugs illegal, until a new generation arises that grew up surrounded by the propaganda who won't even think to question something that they have been told since the age of 5.
Don't believe me? Consider a substance known as Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; street name is ecstasy). MDMA was sometimes used by psychiatrists for its ability to help people open up, and some research indicated that small amounts of the substance (below the threshold for getting high) could help cure cluster headaches. Then, a couple of techno fans discovered that the high from MDMA was kinda cool at their parties, and soon MDMA became the most popular party drug after alcohol and marijuana. The response of the US government? Reschedule MDMA as a "schedule I" substance, which classifies it as having no known medical use, and tell everybody that MDMA is the new plague threatening their kids. Tell all the kids that MDMA is going to get them in a lot of trouble in life, but don't bother to tell them what effects MDMA actually has, and create mass hysteria about the substance. Then, perform an experiment on primates that shows MDMA is as neurotoxic as methamphetamine is, and then hide the face that the research was recalled because instead of using MDMA, the scientists accidentally used methamphetamine. Result? People are taken about at the suggestion of legalization.
The funny thing is that nobody ever needs to present any evidence to support a claim that drugs are a plague to our society. The claims don't even have to make sense: many people believe that crack is a worse substance than cocaine...because nobody informed them that they are the same drug, taken in a different form (crack is smoked and therefore absorbed faster; but cocaine can be injected, and absorbed still faster). What is the difference between morphine and heroine? One is prescribed by a doctor, one is not (pure heroine and pure morphine have similar effects, both physical and mental). Why isn't alcohol demonized the way other drugs are? What about caffeine, don't people become dependent (physically and ment
Palm trees and 8
Gigantic megacorps that run farms like factories can ride out yearly dips and rises in the commodity price of staple crops, but some peasant trying to grow wheat cant say to his kids "wheat is worthless this year, but we can eat next year"; so the peasant farmers of colombia have to find a crop that has constant demand no matter what the US government is subsidising, embargoing or shipping out as aid, and that crop is coca and cannabis.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
I was going to moderate, but this is more interesting: Why not drop the federal insanity towards currently illegal drugs and leave it as a state matter (as it ought to be)? Vast differences in the attitudes and treatment of drugs would spring forth, and the people would have the opportunity to decide which policies work best. I can easily envision a place like New Hampshire legalizing nearly everything while Mississippi retains most of the draconian laws currently on the federal books.
But why not give it a shot, when the trillions spent already have done nothing to stem the demand?
"But the societal problems of alcohol use remained."
Yes, and they'll remain unless you eradicate every possible way for a human to mess with his brain in a psychologically addictive way. Since that's highly unlikely to ever happen, why not try a more reasonable approach?
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! And just to back you up everyone should go watch The History of Marijuana narrated by Woody Harrelson.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
And tobacco is tricky and expensive to grow, and it only grows well in a few places. MJ on the other hand grows like a weed in just about any temperate area, with no need for fertilizer or pesticide. Sounds like it would end up being very cheap.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain