What if the US puts 'War on Drugs' on the minimum priority?

Deleted member 1487

When? Remember when it was created there was a crime boom and the theory of the day was that drugs were the cause; if the WoD was considered a minimum priority then it wouldn't have existed at all, as the 'war on drugs' campaign was created because it was made a priority. If it were a minimum issue then there wouldn't be a 'war on drugs' at all, just existing drug laws being enforced at the leisure of law enforcement. Frankly though given drug usage rates and the rise of violent crime into the 1990s it is going to be impossible to stop the war on drugs as the priority in crime reduction. You'd have to somehow prevent the rise in crime from the 1960s-90s to make drug enforcement a minimum priority. Honestly the way to do it IMHO is to prevent the world wars which led to the original 'war on drugs', Prohibition, and it's impact on the rise of organized crime as well as the disruption/destruction of lives in the wars. So much of the problems of the 20th century could probably be traced back to the WWs, so preventing them from happening means drug enforcement likely never becomes a priority due to crime not getting boosted by all the resulting issues from the wars.
 
Honestly the way to do it IMHO is to prevent the world wars which led to the original 'war on drugs', Prohibition, and it's impact on the rise of organized crime as well as the disruption/destruction of lives in the wars. So much of the problems of the 20th century could probably be traced back to the WWs, so preventing them from happening means drug enforcement likely never becomes a priority due to crime not getting boosted by all the resulting issues from the wars.

When you say "world wars", which are you talking about? Of the conflicts that are usually given that label, there is only one that took place prior to the implementation of Prohibition.
 
I would hope more prevention and treatment effort in the past four decades. Between experience in substance abuse programs in the military long ago, and recent ongoing experience in social service organizations, I'm convinced the mass incarceration policy is not only a failure, but made things worse.
 

Deleted member 1487

When you say "world wars", which are you talking about? Of the conflicts that are usually given that label, there is only one that took place prior to the implementation of Prohibition.
WW1 helped lead to alcohol prohibition which led to the rise of organized crime as a major force in the US thanks to be funding they got from illegal alcohol.
WW2 and the subsequent wars led to all sorts of nasty social fall out including alcoholism and drug addiction; the stories I've heard and read about from Vietnam vets and doctors treating them suggests that abuse and addiction were astronomical and continued after survivors got home...which leads me to believe much of the same happened after Korea and WW2. Hearing stories from children of WW2 and Vietnam vets their trauma impacted the entire family, some of which led to behavioral and drug addiction issues, which helped create the wider crime problems of the 1960s and beyond.

In the US drug access went up dramatically as a result of the wars in Vietnam (though internationally it had been increasing in the aftermath of WW1 as a result of the international instability caused by the conflict), as the CIA may have been involved in the trade to help fund their efforts off the books (Air America as a component of that) as well as organized crime helping to create pipelines from SE Asia to the US, while the conflicts in South America did the same with Cocaine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Atkinson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_in_Burma#CIA_connection_and_opium_trade

It is hard to see that level of organized international drug trafficking happening without the World Wars and Cold War. Even Japan's entre into the drug dealing business was part of a policy that grew out of the aftermath of WW1 and the result of taking over Manchuria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_Manchukuo#Drug_trafficking
In 2007, an article by Reiji Yoshida in the Japan Times argued that the Japanese investments in Manchukuo were partly financed by selling drugs. According to the article, a document claimed to have been found by Yoshida directly implicated the Kōa-in in providing funds to drug dealers in China for the benefit of the puppet governments of Manchukuo, Nanjing and Mongolia.[7] This document corroborates evidence analyzed earlier by the Tokyo tribunal which stated that

“ Japan's real purpose in engaging drug traffic was far more sinister than even the debauchery of Chinese people. Japan, having signed and ratified the opium conventions, was bound not to engage in drug traffic, but she found in the alleged but false independence of Manchukuo a convenient opportunity to carry on a worldwide drug traffic and cast the guilt upon that puppet state ... In 1937, it was pointed out in the League of Nations that 90% of all illicit white drugs in the world were of Japanese origin ...[8]
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...an-profited-as-opium-dealer-in-wartime-china/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara
 
the war on drugs has always seemed counter-productive. It is really a problem of supply & demand. As long as there are potential users there will be a supply - no matter how had the government tries. (remember Prohabition)
 

Lusitania

Donor
I was under the impression that war on drugs became a priority when the US won the Cold War. Is this true if so have the Cold War continue and be the government top priority.
 
Prevent the world wars, discover the evils of lead earlier (the banning of lead in products coincided with a drop in crime), and no Prohibition (it remains a county and state matter). Abuse and PTSD are averted, crime levels do not increase leading to a presumed correlation between drugs and crime, thus it doesn't become a priority. Bonus: no Watergate. Nixon originally slated the war on drugs to be through treatment and programs. The fallout from Watergate forced him to be more aggressive.
 
I was under the impression that war on drugs became a priority when the US won the Cold War. ...

Have to take a close look at items like relative funds (adjusted for inflation, numbers of prosecutions and time spent on them, length of incarcerate, to pin that down. My personal take is the attention started during the Nixon administration and ramped up quickly. It was popular among middle class and conservative voters who felt threatened by crime, and their children's behavior/failures.

the stories I've heard and read about from Vietnam vets and doctors treating them suggests that abuse and addiction were astronomical and continued after survivors got home...which leads me to believe much of the same happened after Korea and WW2. Hearing stories from children of WW2 and Vietnam vets their trauma impacted the entire family, some of which led to behavioral and drug addiction issues, which helped create the wider crime problems of the 1960s and beyond.

My observation from the era was, among veterans who used drugs, those who went through the military treatment programs of the early 1970s had a lower recidivism and crime rate than those punished through the legal system. The veterans incarcerated, and all those given Other than Honorable, and Dishonorable discharges were far less likely to to acquire follow on education, hold well paying jobs, and pay much in income taxes. They were more likely to have ongoing legal problems and cost the tax revenue stream for their law enforcement attention. From circa 1970 a portion of the service embers using drugs were run through treatment programs and give Honorable discharges if successful. That cohort were far more likely to gain better paying employment, pay more in taxes, and incur lower costs to the legal system.

In the last few years I've seen a similar thing among both veterans and civilians. the small number lucky enough to enter a effective treatment program have a lower recidivism rate, and have better more productive lives. Those incarcerated of severely punish, are pretty much marginal as employees, taxpayers, and generally as citizens.
 

Deleted member 1487

My observation from the era was, among veterans who used drugs, those who went through the military treatment programs of the early 1970s had a lower recidivism and crime rate than those punished through the legal system. The veterans incarcerated, and all those given Other than Honorable, and Dishonorable discharges were far less likely to to acquire follow on education, hold well paying jobs, and pay much in income taxes. They were more likely to have ongoing legal problems and cost the tax revenue stream for their law enforcement attention. From circa 1970 a portion of the service embers using drugs were run through treatment programs and give Honorable discharges if successful. That cohort were far more likely to gain better paying employment, pay more in taxes, and incur lower costs to the legal system.

In the last few years I've seen a similar thing among both veterans and civilians. the small number lucky enough to enter a effective treatment program have a lower recidivism rate, and have better more productive lives. Those incarcerated of severely punish, are pretty much marginal as employees, taxpayers, and generally as citizens.
Well of course someone getting medical treatment will do better on average than someone just being punished by being put in a cage with violent criminals. Even leaving aside addiction rates going into to prison, those exiting the US prison system tend to have PTSD from the experience and often find drugs easier to obtain inside than outside of prison.
https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/FRCIJ-05-00158.pdf
https://www.thedailybeast.com/prisoners-on-the-eight-rules-of-dealing-drugs-behind-bars

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-05-psychologist-link-ptsd-prison.html
https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/trauma-ptsd/prisoners-higher-risk-ptsd/
 
Unfortunately the 'of course' part has not been accepted in the US & the punitive model remains the primary & for many people the only model.
 

Deleted member 1487

Unfortunately the 'of course' part has not been accepted in the US & the punitive model remains the primary & for many people the only model.
Yes unfortunately that is the primary model of handling drug issues especially for people who aren't in the upper income brackets and even more sadly seemingly the result of special interests that want to maintain the current model lobbying to prevent any changes coupled with outmoded thinking by geriatric politicians who don't seem to accept change well.
 
Well of course someone getting medical treatment will do better on average than someone just being punished by being put in a cage with violent criminals.
that seems logical, but there's the problem of when the legal system finds someone with an illegal addiction, they still have to be confined as well as treated. So, what's the best way to do that? Separate prison/hospital confinement centers that still medically treat them but don't allow them to leave either? That seems like it would be a way better option than 'throw them into the general prison population'...
 

Deleted member 1487

that seems logical, but there's the problem of when the legal system finds someone with an illegal addiction, they still have to be confined as well as treated. So, what's the best way to do that? Separate prison/hospital confinement centers that still medically treat them but don't allow them to leave either? That seems like it would be a way better option than 'throw them into the general prison population'...
Look at the Portuguese example; 30 days mandatory drug treatment no matter how often they are caught. Generally speaking though the best option is to help find them jobs and housing and other things to make their life worthwhile outside of using drugs, which would include extended mental health treatment if needed. There is a psychologist, Gabor Mate, who focuses on addiction and has said generally speaking serious chronic drug addicts tend to be suffering from some untreated mental health issue due to abuse or traumatic experiences and are self medicating with drugs. So to treat it you have to try and get at the root cause of the problem rather than deal with the symptoms by themselves.
 
Look at the Portuguese example; 30 days mandatory drug treatment no matter how often they are caught. Generally speaking though the best option is to help find them jobs and housing and other things to make their life worthwhile outside of using drugs, which would include extended mental health treatment if needed.
agree with all that, but it still comes down to 'you have to confine them someplace while they are getting treatment'. Does Portugal have separate treatment centers for criminal addicts? You shouldn't really toss them into normal hospitals or prisons...
 
Top