If its a war on drugs, why doesnt the goverment in the USA want to win it?

Well, for one thing, it would put a lot of people out of work -- FDA narcs, some FBI and ATF agents, rehab centers etc. etc. etc. The US gummint doesn't want to contribute to the unemployment problem.



Right. You answered your own question.

it is a beautiful facility to laundry your money in too

the ruling class, where American power resides, does not have a problem with drugs. Those who humans who are wasted by drugs are not required for making America work, they are no loss. An underclass stung out or otherwise occupied with drugs is an underclass that will not revolt in the streets and work to overthrow the regime. The pain that drugs cause is for the most part a private pain, it is not something that concerns the all large society that normally rallies to every victims cause.

Are you suggesting that the "ruling class" has engineered an underclass addicted to drugs, or are you simply suggesting that the "ruling class" doesn't care about addiction because it serves their ends?

I can't believe you think that the "ruling class" is immune to the personal and family devastation caused by addiction.

In your opinion, does the stupefying effect of drugs only work on the urge to revolt against the "ruling class," because throughout American history there have been quite a few riots, most having a component of race, and the drugs in the societal system didn't seem capable of preventing them. Or maybe the "ruling classes" have been feeding drugs to the masses that are designed to keep them at each other's throats rather than those of the "ruling class."

I'm sure there is an element of job security involved in the never ending nature of the drug war, but I'm equally sure it is immaterial. There is no reason for anyone making money on fighting the war on drugs to worry about job security.

The war on drugs hasn't been won because it can't be won.

The addictive nature of most drugs combined with a primal urge to experience their effects will ensure a never-ending consumer base.

By outlawing drugs we deliberately have limited the supply.

The unique supply and demand equation of illegal drugs guarantees tremendous profits for those who market them. Since they are illegal the only people who can avail themselves of these profits are criminals.

There is also an excess of criminals who wish to make these enormous profits to such an extent that they are in a state of continuous warfare with one another. If they, with no limit on the extent of brutality they can employ, cannot wipe each other out, what chance do law enforcement agencies have?

Throw into the mix the inevitable widespread corruption such vast profits promote and you are assured of a war that can't be won.

It is insane to fight a war that can't be won if there is an alternative solution to the problem: legalize and regulate drug use.

By doing so we will realize two enormous benefits almost immediately.

1) We will put hundreds of thousands of violence prone criminals out of business. With their demise will be eliminated a major source of political corruption and funding for terrorist groups
2) We will reap an enormous windfall from taxes specifically levied on drug use.

There are other benefits as well

3) We will save an enormous amount of taxpayer money current being spent on the war on drugs. Something like $20 billion dollars is spent annually. More than enough to finance education and addiction withdrawal programs. Probably enough to finance research into non-addictive versions of the most popular drugs.

4) We will solve the nation's overcrowded jail problem in only a few years. Almost 50% of the inmates in federal prison have been convicted on drug offenses. 80% of the increase in the federal prison population is due to drug convictions between 1985 and 1995.

does not care because it is not a problem for them. I cant think of a single celeb or foundation off of the top of my head working for a sane and effective drug policy in America. If the wealthy individuals and foundations make a list of causes that they would like to do something about America's drug problem is far down the list, and never gets funding or attention. All we have is massive spending for the governments idiotic military/law and order anti drug trafficking war.

there is no plot, I am not on of those paranoid conspiracy theorists.

you forgot to mention all the prison guards and staff.

half of the population of most prisons are drug violators.

do the math...

(it's kinda like vietnam, i think the same group may be responsible)

Oh, you're way wrong there. Paul Newman, just as one example, campaigned against drug abuse all his life. So have a number of other Hollywood celebrities. Finn is right at least to this extent -- drug abuse cuts across all socio-economic lines. Cocaine used to have the reputation of being a "rich man's drug of choice." The only way in which your statement that "it is not a problem for them" is true is in the sense that the "ruling class can afford their drugs of choice and, should they decide to clean up their act, can afford the best detox and rehab clinics. But it's absurd to suggest that narcotics addiction is exclusively -- or even primarily -- a blue-collar neighborhood problem.

Right you are, Rock.



I suspect the percentage is larger than that. Most of the inmates doing time for something other than a drug charge were higher than kites when they did whatever they did to get arrested.

I also suspect that some of the top CEOs of drug cartels -- not the street dealers, but the so-called "drug lords" -- are heavy contributors to the campaigns of political candidates. You sure don't want to put them out of business.