Casualties of the war on drugs

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jreilly89**

Spoiler:

Student Drug Informant Found With a Bullet in His Head and Rocks in His Backpack

When police found Andrew Sadek selling $80 worth of pot, they pressured him into being a confidential informant and told him to go after ‘harder drugs.’ Then he turned up dead.
On Andrew Sadek’s 20th birthday, North Dakota police made him an offer: moonlight as a confidential informant and avoid rotting in prison.
It was November 2013, and Sadek had never been in trouble before. Months earlier, he’d sold a small amount of pot—$20 and $60 worth—to a narc at his school, the North Dakota State College of Science.
Sadek was in the crosshairs of a local task force, which searched his dorm room and found a plastic grinder with marijuana residue. A day later, he was in an interrogation room with Richland County sheriff’s deputy Jason Weber.

Weber warned the baby-faced student he was facing 40 years in prison and a $40,000 fine for peddling weed on campus.
“Obviously, you’re probably not going to get 40 years, but is it a good possibility you’re going to get prison time if you don’t help yourself out? Yeah, there is,” Weber said during the recorded interview. “That’s probably not a way to start off your young adult life and career, right?
“What I’m going to ask for you to do is do some buys for me… then depending upon how you do… a lot of this could go away,” Weber added.
A frightened Sadek swore not to tell a soul about the undercover ops. He never spoke to his parents or a lawyer. He was encouraged to ferret out dealers and heavier drugs on his own, footage of the interview shows. The video was released to local media last year under open-records requests.
Six months later, Sadek turned up dead. Authorities pulled his body, bound to a backpack full of rocks, from the Red River. There was a bullet hole in his head. Police tried to tell his parents, John and Tammy Sadek, he committed suicide, Tammy Sadek told The Daily Beast.
Two years later, and the Sadeks still have no answers about how their son died—but they believe he was murdered as a result of the informant gig.

On Monday, the family filed a wrongful death suit against Richland County and Deputy Weber, who helmed the dangerous operation as part of the South East Multi-County Agency Narcotics Task Force, or SEMCA.
When reached by phone, Weber declined to comment. His attorney, who also represents Richland County, also refused to speak.
Tammy Sadek says she’s waited for details on her son’s undercover buys, and still hopes the same deputies who recruited him will nab his killer.
“That’s why we’re forced into this lawsuit. A lawsuit is not the North Dakota way. But this is our last grasp at hoping to get some answers,” Tammy Sadek told The Daily Beast.
“We’re not a sue-happy state. A man’s word means something here in North Dakota,” she added. “We trust that people are going to honor their word. We trust the police. It just didn’t happen in this case.”
The Sadeks have asked the FBI to take over the case, which is being probed by Minnesota and North Dakota authorities. Tammy Sadek is also working with a Republican state lawmaker on legislation to protect informants and reduce marijuana penalties in North Dakota.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/05/student-drug-informant-found-with-a-bullet-in-his-head-and-rocks-in-his-backpack.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29&yptr=yahoo

Not the first time I've heard of something like this. Being an undercover informant is already dangerous, and pressuring college kids into this seems like a terrible way to enforce the law/combat drugs.

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

**TheCustomLime**

So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Edit: To clarify my thoughts, I do feel bad for the informant that got shot. Especially since he was pressured into doing it by local cops when he wasn't really qualified for it.But when the thread title is "Casualties on the war on drugs" and it's just about an American student in North Dakota it rubs me the wrong way. Especially since Americans are largely responsible for the violence in Mexico.

**jreilly89**

TheCustomLime wrote:
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).

Again, not saying his life is worth more than anyone else's, just that the "War on drugs" needs to find new ways of combating drugs that don't involve innocents getting murdered.

**cuda1179**

So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).

In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.

While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.

**jreilly89**

cuda1179 wrote:
So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).

In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.

While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.

Sorry, but no. Did you the read the article? He got pressured in to being an informant by the cops saying he'd go to jail (he most likely would have gotten a fine and maybe kicked out college). Instead, he got in over his head and got murdered for $20 of weed.

Besides, calling an 18-20 year old an adult is iffy. Sure, they're legally an adult, but most are still new to the real world.

Glad to see another human's life means so much to you.

**TheCustomLime**

jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).

Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding. And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.

**Ustrello**

cuda1179 wrote:
So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).

In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.

While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.

It was pot and a small amount of it. Good thing you've never drank illegally before otherwise we could talk about us not caring when you got shot and killed

**jreilly89**

TheCustomLime wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).

Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.

Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.

And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.

Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"

**Tannhauser42**

jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

**Vaktathi**

cuda1179 wrote:
So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).

In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.

While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.

Hrm, this characterization is probably a wee bit harsh methinks. He was 20, not exactly an age reknowned for critical thinking ability or great maturity. Likewise, $80 worth of pot isnt exactly a hardcore drug dealer, thats less than the legal maximum daily individual personal purchase amount in my state. A relatively minor offense. His suppliers were probably a local grow operation, probably not Cartel in ND.

The cops used this kid, and pressured him into an entirely different league of stuff for what honestly was a trivial offense, and it got him killed. That should be the end of someone's career.

**Krinsath**

cuda1179 wrote:
So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).

In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.

While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.

Point of order: Cannabis/marijuana is not legally defined as a narcotic. The police in this case told him to pursue those dealers, which likely greatly increased the chances of him running into violent people. Cannabis is, quite literally, a weed and does not require the specialized growing, manufacturing and processing that "hard" drugs require. It is entirely possible that his supplier was a hippie who happened to own a camo tarp, or indeed, a locality where the sale is legal (though he is a smuggler at that point), as it was to be a drug cartel. The police provided no information on who they were interested in, didn't know if this person had any connection, it was basically "go find things and let us know" wherein this outcome was a high likelihood. The cartels haven't stayed in business this long without being aware that the police will try to infiltrate them in pretty much exactly this way.

To re-frame what the police did here, someone commits a low-level crime such as running a red light multiple times. In a deal, the police tell someone in an interrogation room without legal counsel that if they infiltrate a street racing ring they can make those things go away and they won't serve any time for their repeated offenses (which was unlikely to be particularly long if it even got that far, which a lawyer would have told him). During the process, the informant has to participate in a race, crashes and is killed in an illegal street race they otherwise would not have been in. While you can argue that running the red lights was still a traffic violation, the risk that the police "motivated" them to undertake seems wholly out of sorts with what was going on.

It was irresponsible of the police to do, though I doubt legally negligent. However, they should be held to account for the lies that they told the family after the fact to cover it up. Also, America's drug policy needs a massive revamp, because this is the smallest of casualties as has already been mentioned.

**TheCustomLime**

jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).

Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.

Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.

And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.

Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"

I meant it in the sense that America's appetite for drugs outweighs Mexico's by a big margin. But you're right, Mexico and America do have a problem with drugs. It just seems that America's problem is getting little Jimmy to stop smoking dope and Mexico's problem is that little Jimmy is in a shallow grave while his dad's severed hand is sent to his family.

I agree that the Mexican government does share some of the blame in the current drug war. Corruption is rife even after Calderon's purges. Some of the top cartel leaders are ex-government officials.

**jreilly89**

TheCustomLime wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).

Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.

Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.

And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.

Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"

I meant it in the sense that America's appetite for drugs outweighs Mexico's by a big margin. But you're right, Mexico and America do have a problem with drugs. It just seems that America's problem is getting little Jimmy to stop smoking dope and Mexico's problem is that little Jimmy is in a shallow grave while his dad's severed hand is sent to his family.

I agree that the Mexican government does share some of the blame in the current drug war. Corruption is rife even after Calderon's purges. Some of the top cartel leaders are ex-government officials.

Agreed. For the record, I went to school with a great guy. He wanted to be a journalist and got an assignment in Mexico to report on some drug activity. They found him a week later at the bottom of an elevator shaft.

I wish there was more cooperation between Mexico and the US, I just don't know what the answer to that is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

I think weed is pretty harmless, and people getting locked up or charged for pot possession is a waste of our task forces time and money.

**Prestor Jon**

Krinsath wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).

In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.

While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.

Point of order: Cannabis/marijuana is not legally defined as a narcotic. The police in this case told him to pursue those dealers, which likely greatly increased the chances of him running into violent people. Cannabis is, quite literally, a weed and does not require the specialized growing, manufacturing and processing that "hard" drugs require. It is entirely possible that his supplier was a hippie who happened to own a camo tarp, or indeed, a locality where the sale is legal (though he is a smuggler at that point), as it was to be a drug cartel. The police provided no information on who they were interested in, didn't know if this person had any connection, it was basically "go find things and let us know" wherein this outcome was a high likelihood. The cartels haven't stayed in business this long without being aware that the police will try to infiltrate them in pretty much exactly this way.

To re-frame what the police did here, someone commits a low-level crime such as running a red light multiple times. In a deal, the police tell someone in an interrogation room without legal counsel that if they infiltrate a street racing ring they can make those things go away and they won't serve any time for their repeated offenses (which was unlikely to be particularly long if it even got that far, which a lawyer would have told him). During the process, the informant has to participate in a race, crashes and is killed in an illegal street race they otherwise would not have been in. While you can argue that running the red lights was still a traffic violation, the risk that the police "motivated" them to undertake seems wholly out of sorts with what was going on.

It was irresponsible of the police to do, though I doubt legally negligent. However, they should be held to account for the lies that they told the family after the fact to cover it up. Also, America's drug policy needs a massive revamp, because this is the smallest of casualties as has already been mentioned.

Agreed. The cops made some inexcusably bad decisions in this instance. Just objectively looking at the risk/reward should have convinced the cops that there was no way a low level weed dealer was going to be able to deliver a much bigger bust for them. Those cops were stupid, lazy and excercised poor judgement.

Nobody should ever talk to the police without invoking their right to legal counsel. Doesn't matter why the cops want to speak with you, doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent, doesn't matter if you think the cops involved are your friends, speaking to police without a lawyer is never a good idea.

Legalizing drugs would go a long way to improving our country and the "War on Drugs."

Blaming the US for Mexico's narco terrorism is silly. The lack of economic and political stability in Mexico, the ineffectiveness and corruption of their police forces, and all the other myriad factors that make Mexico suspectible to domestic turmoil all contribute more to their trouble with narco terrorism than the US market. The market for drugs in the US is going to exist independent of whatever happens in Mexico and that market is going to be supplied by somebody, it certainly doesn't have to be Mexico that produces the drugs. The fact that a lot of drugs do come from Mexico has everything to do with internal Mexican problems and little to do with the US. That's like blaming the poppy fields in Afghanistan on the US. It's not America's fault that there are no better alternatives to making money in Afghanistan other than growing heroin. That country has been an anarchic mess with crippling poverty long before we ever got involved over there.

**feeder**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

Sure there is. Legalization.

Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.

The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.

Everybody wins.

**Dreadwinter**

TheCustomLime wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?

(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)

Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).

Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.

Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.

And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.

Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"

I meant it in the sense that America's appetite for drugs outweighs Mexico's by a big margin. But you're right, Mexico and America do have a problem with drugs. It just seems that America's problem is getting little Jimmy to stop smoking dope and Mexico's problem is that little Jimmy is in a shallow grave while his dad's severed hand is sent to his family.

I agree that the Mexican government does share some of the blame in the current drug war. Corruption is rife even after Calderon's purges. Some of the top cartel leaders are ex-government officials.

America's problem is not getting little Jimmy to stop smoking pot. America's problem is that only a few places can grow pot and that means there is a high demand from the rest of the country. Which means the Cartels can slip in and make a huge profit by smuggling large amounts of low grade and cheap weed.

Legalize weed and give people the ability to grow weed in the US, the Cartels weed business will die. Plus, we grow much better stuff here in the states. Brick weed is gak. It is like the difference between McDonalds and 5 Guys.

**Breotan**

feeder wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

Sure there is. Legalization.

Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.

The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.

Everybody wins.

Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.

Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?

**Prestor Jon**

It would take some high quality weed to get me to eat at 5 Giys, I'll give you that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
feeder wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

Sure there is. Legalization.

Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.

The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.

Everybody wins.

Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.

Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?

Legalization doesn't solve every problem. It does change the set of problems from unmanageable ones to manageable problems. Nothing is ever going to be problem free.

**Dreadwinter**

Breotan wrote:
feeder wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

Sure there is. Legalization.

Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.

The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.

Everybody wins.

Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.

Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?

So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?

Also, a lot of the chronic homeless who are addicted to alcohol have major mental health issues that cause them to be addicted to alcohol easier. The same way that certain mental health issues cause people to be more susceptible to nicotine addiction and so on and so forth.

Nobody is saying legalization will solve all of the problems, but it will reduce all of them in a major way. From there, they can be managed much easier. Instead we have a War on Drugs that we can never win that is continuing to spiral out of control, hurting large populations of countries that are mostly innocent in it. All because we have this fear of "druggies."

**Jihadin**

War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.

**Eldarain**

Jihadin wrote:
War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.

Unless they were peddled by a doctor. The War on Drugs looks more like a bid for monopolization when Pharma, Cigarettes and Alcohol are considered.

**Breotan**

Dreadwinter wrote:
So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?

Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.

Dreadwinter wrote:
Nobody is saying legalization will solve all of the problems, but it will reduce all of them in a major way. From there, they can be managed much easier.

How? Show me specifically how Meth and Crack would be "managed easier" or that the problem would be reduced "in a major way".

The closest thing I have seen to a possible solution is Portugal's decriminalization of the addict's drug use and pushing them into treatment instead of prison. The problem with this in the US is that treatment centers are almost always full to capacity and drug offenses often include non-drug crimes such as theft, breaking & entering, etc. so the user is likely headed to prison anyway. Then there are the civil liberties issues. In the US, we simply cannot force people into treatment no matter how impaired they are or how many lives it would save. So what works in another country isn't easily imported to ours.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldarain wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.

Unless they were peddled by a doctor. The War on Drugs looks more like a bid for monopolization when Pharma, Cigarettes and Alcohol are considered.

In Washington State, the revenue expected from pot sales isn't coming in as much as was anticipated. Illegal pot growers can still import their stuff to Washington and sell it cheaper than the legal growers can, thus the black market still exists and is a significant portion of sales in Washington State. Gangs and cartels haven't really been hurt by legalization. In other words, legalization isn't doing what was promised because the taxes are so high the criminals can easily undercut the legal stuff and make a lot of money. Also, downtown Seattle stinks. Seriously, it is not a pleasant odor.

As a side note, Washington and Colorado are being treated at as laboratory experiments by the Fed. Legalization/decriminalization hasn't been in place long enough to get good metrics on how effective it is which is why everyone is in a sort of holding pattern nationally. Also, the effects of pot use on people is another thing being looked at in these states and that will need a long term study to get the facts straight.

**Vaktathi**

Breotan wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?

Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.

what does criminalizing these substances do for the users aside from inflate prison populations? A lot of these people get stuck in these substances after convictions for lighter substances kill job prospects. They get on meth and stay on it because they dont think they have any eay out or any better options. Some are too far gone to ever really help but by no means all. All criminalization does is gove them a record that'll haunt them forever and make breaking that cycle just that much harder. Having known active and former addicts, the people who get on these substances are in them because it's the only bright spot on their lives in most cases. Some are irretrievably lost, some arent, but tossing them in jail just for using isnt doing anyone any good.

In Washington State, the revenue expected from pot sales isn't coming in as much as was anticipated.

WA has collected over $200 million in tax receipts from marijuana

http://kpq.com/3524-2/

Washington's problem is that Oregon now made it legal too, decreasing some of the "tourist" revenue. Oregon took in more tax revenue in the first month of taxation than they were expecting for the entire year.

http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2016/03/first_month_of_taxed_recreatio.html

**djones520**

Vaktathi wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?

Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.
what does criminalizing these substances do for the users aside from inflate prison populations? A lot of these people get stuck in these substances after convictions for lighter substances kill job prospects. They get on meth and stay on it because they dont think they have any eay out or any better options. Some are too far gone to ever really help but by no means all. All criminalization does is gove them a record that'll haunt them forever and make breaking that cycle just that much harder. Having known active and former addicts, the people who get on these substances are in them because it's the only bright spot on their lives in most cases. Some are irretrievably lost, some arent, but tossing them in jail just for using isnt doing anyone any good.

As Breotan pointed out, it keeps them from committing criminal acts that often coincide with the consumption of Meth. 50-70% of property crime is committed by those on Meth. How much higher do you think that rate will get if we just give them free passage?

**Breotan**

Vaktathi wrote:
WA has collected over $200 million in tax receipts from marijuana

And yet the black market still exists and takes in more than the legal market.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/legal-pot-and-the-black-market/481506/

The new system has clearly not replaced, or even threatened, corner dealers either in Washington or Colorado. Rather, they fit into the cracks of a new world, where middle-class stoners are able to engage in a favorite pastime without fear of prosecution, and an expensive legal market keeps everyone else looking for a bargain. The result: Small-time, under-the-table dealing remains lucrative enough to entice young black men to cross the line, to be arrested far more frequently than their white peers. And the hustle continues.

Actually, the biggest fear I have with legal pot is that the tobacco companies will come in and take over the market. Once they start dumping chemicals into the pot, you'll see all the same health issues you see with tobacco but by then it will be accepted and society will have forgotten the lessons learned and paid so dearly for.

**Spinner**

Why would it be higher?

**Breotan**

Spinner wrote:
Why would it be higher?

More people using and becoming addicted? I see it as staying relatively the same as a percentage of crime but that doesn't mean much to the victims or the addicts.

**Spinner**

I wouldn't think legalizing drugs would give much of a spike in meth use. It's meth. Sure, maybe all that's holding back one or two people is the illegality, but I thought the appeal of the stuff was how it could be made comparatively under the radar from legal substances.

**feeder**

Breotan wrote:
feeder wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.

There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.

Sure there is. Legalization.

Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.

The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.

Everybody wins.

Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.

Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?

I know quite a few "weekend warriors" who only smoke crack/ meth on the Friday/Saturday night, and work five days a week to help fund that habit. Imagine your own party culture in your twenties, except they add hard drugs to the "fun".

Breotan wrote:
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth.

Do you actually know any people addicted to meth or crack? In addition to the weekend warrior types, I know two girls who were full time crackheads who hated every second of it. One of them now lives halfway across the country to get out of the "scene".

Breotan wrote:
The closest thing I have seen to a possible solution is Portugal's decriminalization of the addict's drug use and pushing them into treatment instead of prison. The problem with this in the US is that treatment centers are almost always full to capacity and drug offenses often include non-drug crimes such as theft, breaking & entering, etc. so the user is likely headed to prison anyway. Then there are the civil liberties issues. In the US, we simply cannot force people into treatment no matter how impaired they are or how many lives it would save. So what works in another country isn't easily imported to ours.

If the the money currently wasted in the futile and destructive War on Drugs was put into treatment centres, the lack of capacity problem would cease.

The US can force people into prisons can't it? Why not treatment? Why not treatment centres in prisons?

The real problem is the massive Prison Industrial Complex that has sprung up in the US. I thought profiting from crime was illegal in the USA?

Edit: fix quote derp

**Rosebuddy**

Perhaps legalisation of narcotics should not be in the form of leaving them up to private companies that have an interest in increasing consumption but handled by the state as a matter of national health.

That way we can stop throwing people into for-profit prisons and instead tackle the reasons for why people become and stay addicted.