It's nice to see the unraveling of the drug war Nixon gave us in 1970 (and really earlier). It only took, what? 45 years? I dare say it's the bloodiest war we've ever fought.
How many people do you wager bled any amount over the half century in this 'war'? It is my understanding that a lot of people (rightfully) faced criminal penalties, and even that number pales in comparison to the victims of actual violence in real wars.
You are horribly underinformed if you think any of Afghanistan's issues are rooted in US domestic drug policy. I recommend reading more than one book on the history of the region.
For the prohibition, conservatively the homicide rate dropped 5-13%.
if about 15k people in the US are murdered every year.
Ending drug prohibition would save lets say 10% of those murdered? or 1,500 people. thats about half the amount killed on 9/11.
This isn't counting all the deaths south of the border or all of the violence.
This is a rather lazy analysis. Would you like to consider any more than a single act of terrorism on the other side of your accounting? 'All of the death [or violence] south of the border' is also rather imprecise and self-generous.
It is not my intention to hurt any feelings. I apologize if I have been interpreted as personally hostile. I will take care to avoid any further confusion. Thanks.
As a side note, this is my tenth+ (stopped updating this) attempt to post this comment due to the slowban you've imposed on my account, so I would like if you clarified to readers that my ability to comment further here has been impaired, contrary to the plain subtext of your post.
I don't have an answer for you but I do know that if there is one it needs to include:
- Murders due to the existence of a black market (people don't tend to get killed in such high volumes in an open market)
- Deaths due to enforcement of the laws. Both "criminals" and law enforcement.
- Deaths due to people failing to seek medical help because they don't want to go to jail
- Deaths in prison of people who are only there because of prohibition
- Suicides due to the consequences of prohibition
- May or may not count people whose lives were generally ruined because they are felons now and the trickle down punishment of those people's families as well.
I have no doubt that number will pail in comparison to a "real" war. But that doesn't mean those lives are not worth saving.
It is a bad precedence to say that because one thing (real war) is worse than another (drug war) that we shouldn't try to end both.
The OP chose to talk about bloodshed. We are now characterizing how bloody the 'war on drugs' has been. We are not characterizing how bad it might be in any other sense. This is a focused argument intended to examine something precisely. I asked about bloodshed in response to a claim about bloodshed. I don't want to hear about 'trickle down punishment' in response. Do you understand how inadequate that is?
It is my hope that the power of our words will sort things out. I'm here to argue in the original sense of the word, and while I am ultimately interested in the broad consequences of drug laws in the US, I consider it healthy and productive to first focus on an indisputably negative consequence, physical harm -- especially when it has been proposed that these laws have resulted in more of this than any war in recent history. If we can't talk through this point, a fair treatment of broader and less easily chracterized consequences is hopeless.
By bloodshed, I mean death or casualties, not limited to only when blood pours out. When people talk about bloody wars, they also cite casualties which includes wounded. It's obviously incalculable, but consider these:
1. US gang violence. (8,900 deaths in 2010, higher in 80s,90s)
2. Drug war related deaths in Mexico 1990-2010 (220,000 deaths)
3. Drug war related deaths in Columbia, 1990-2010 (450,000 deaths)
4. Killings by militarized police. (unknown)
5. Overdose deaths (65K in 2016 at peak, but a lot in 70s-90s)
I would guess that overdose deaths primarily occur because the user doesn't know what dosage they are given, a result of the black market. I suspect there are some intentional suicide overdose deaths, but those would be low. The overdose deaths are just for one year as are the gang violence deaths. Gangs arm themselves with drug money.
The US had 720,000 deaths in our bloodiest war, the Civil War, 2/3rds of that was disease, which you may or may not consider bloodshed. Just Mexico and Columbia alone account for 670K deaths between 1990 and 2010. Add 7 years to the top end, and 20 years from 1970 to 1990 and that number is growing substantially.
I'm not sure if you would count the Philippines as directly related to US policies, but I think their death count is already at 12K for the year.
Anyway, these are some numbers that I threw together in about 10 minutes. It excludes a bunch of countries that were directly affected by US drug war policies. The numbers are quite high. Not WWII total deaths high, but certainly Civil War military deaths high (our bloodiest war).
When cartels can't sell drugs, they sell organs, arms, and women. We have lawlessness in countries hosting organized crime and a troubled, self-destructive underclass
driving demand for their product to blame, not drug laws themselves. Those laws are almost the only good thing about the situation.
But the drug money funds them and funds them well. It's just too lucrative. That money comes from the illegality of the inelastic demand product. You don't see people cutting off heads for the cigarette or alcohol trade.
The cartels are only powerful because they have the money to be powerful. I can't imagine selling organs would be nearly as lucrative.
I mean Pablo Escobar was worth $30 billion dollars in 1993, which is around $51 billion today. For reference, Gates is worth around $86 billion, and Gates operates within the law while Escobar could buy off entire countries and was, for the longest time, immune from real prosecution. You can't buy that by selling organs.
24 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadFor a well-written and in-depth overview, I recommend "The Politics of Heroin."
if about 15k people in the US are murdered every year. Ending drug prohibition would save lets say 10% of those murdered? or 1,500 people. thats about half the amount killed on 9/11. This isn't counting all the deaths south of the border or all of the violence.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/the-not...
As a side note, this is my tenth+ (stopped updating this) attempt to post this comment due to the slowban you've imposed on my account, so I would like if you clarified to readers that my ability to comment further here has been impaired, contrary to the plain subtext of your post.
- Murders due to the existence of a black market (people don't tend to get killed in such high volumes in an open market)
- Deaths due to enforcement of the laws. Both "criminals" and law enforcement.
- Deaths due to people failing to seek medical help because they don't want to go to jail
- Deaths in prison of people who are only there because of prohibition
- Suicides due to the consequences of prohibition
- May or may not count people whose lives were generally ruined because they are felons now and the trickle down punishment of those people's families as well.
I have no doubt that number will pail in comparison to a "real" war. But that doesn't mean those lives are not worth saving.
It is a bad precedence to say that because one thing (real war) is worse than another (drug war) that we shouldn't try to end both.
Also, you don't own the thread; people can respond as they please and the votes and mods will sort it out.
https://colombiareports.com/the-price-of-colombias-drug-war/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid...
I would guess that overdose deaths primarily occur because the user doesn't know what dosage they are given, a result of the black market. I suspect there are some intentional suicide overdose deaths, but those would be low. The overdose deaths are just for one year as are the gang violence deaths. Gangs arm themselves with drug money.
The US had 720,000 deaths in our bloodiest war, the Civil War, 2/3rds of that was disease, which you may or may not consider bloodshed. Just Mexico and Columbia alone account for 670K deaths between 1990 and 2010. Add 7 years to the top end, and 20 years from 1970 to 1990 and that number is growing substantially.
I'm not sure if you would count the Philippines as directly related to US policies, but I think their death count is already at 12K for the year.
Anyway, these are some numbers that I threw together in about 10 minutes. It excludes a bunch of countries that were directly affected by US drug war policies. The numbers are quite high. Not WWII total deaths high, but certainly Civil War military deaths high (our bloodiest war).
The cartels are only powerful because they have the money to be powerful. I can't imagine selling organs would be nearly as lucrative.
I mean Pablo Escobar was worth $30 billion dollars in 1993, which is around $51 billion today. For reference, Gates is worth around $86 billion, and Gates operates within the law while Escobar could buy off entire countries and was, for the longest time, immune from real prosecution. You can't buy that by selling organs.
Because an arbitrary law envisioned by a paranoid man to silence his political opposition makes it rightful?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
I can see that you are a true believer. Please research the death tolls in Mexico and Columbia to try to convince yourself of our folly.
We've edited the title above to be more accurate.
At what point do they become illegal? When you pick them? When you dry them? When they start budding out of the ground?
You can't see me laughing, but it's pretty absurd. Yeah, I know, you CAN grow cannabis. But you have to TRY to stop mushrooms from growing.