[macuenca]

What you suggest not to call a "war" has killed thousands of people in countries like Mexico and Colombia[1]. Is this what you mean when you say "deaths of large numbers of combatants"?

I come from a country that suffers this "war on drugs", I've had members of my family kidnapped, I've seen people being assassinated in front of me by hit-men. Some others haven't been that lucky.

I, with you permission, call this a "war".

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

[gerggerg]

What he is saying is in support of your point. Those gangs are actually at war. They're fighting over money and control, directly enlisting soldiers and killing each other. Calling a prohibition "The War on Drugs" is a new speak tactic that not only takes the public eye off of real problems, but also waters down the impact the word WAR has.

This produces 2 less that awesome situations:

It is because of the prohibition called "The War on Drugs" that a real war fueled by drug money is out of control.

Because of the over use of the word, it's now harder to distinguish between what is a war and what is not a war.

TLDR: You can't have a war on a concept. It logically and literally makes no sense.

[lukeschlather]

The US has been waging what can pretty validly be called a war on drug lords in Latin America for a few decades. After the fall of the USSR, that's basically what our military bases in Latin America do. Generally I agree with macuenca; claiming that it's a war on an abstract principle trivializes the very real combat between US-backed authorities and local drug lords.

[gerggerg]

"called a war on drug lords in Latin America"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Humans fighting humans. That is a war. The War on Drugs also includes locking up 16 year olds for smoking pot in their own houses. Calling the general concept of drug control and prohibition a war generates this very confusion.

"claiming that it's a war on an abstract principle trivializes the very real combat"

Claiming those 16 year olds are part of the war is what trivializes it. Theres bloodshed in Latin America? Oh well that's just part of the war on drugs. Got caught with an ounce on you at a party? Oh thats just part of the war on drugs.

[armandososa]

In Mexico it's called "The War Against Narcotraffic". It makes more sense.

[skore]

I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders.

It's really interesting to me in what way his statement is actually true, as you say, just not in the way that it is sold (he is right on that part - declaring "war" on anything from Iraq to Christmas is in itself an issue that can create dangerous narratives). As you've said, the way it is conducted in the US, it certainly does involve large numbers of deaths - if the drug-related deaths (due to criminalization) within the US don't convince you, the Mexican border or even further south paint a clear picture. Furthermore, the only option that is offered is indeed total surrender - the stated goal of The War On Drugs being to end illegal drug trade, preferably to end illegal drug use, completely.

The problem, via Wikipedia, is: >>ONDCP's view is that "drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated... making drugs more available will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe."(2011)<<

Illegal drugs equal addiction equal disease. Increasing availability increases addiction, reducing safety (think of the children!), meaning the only option is criminalizing any sort of availability. If that is the narrative you are selling, you have indeed polarized the debate enough to warrant a war. The problem is that it really just isn't true. The US has created this war - it is a fight they picked.

Today, the economics of prohibition have tipped off the scale and laid power in the hands of people that really shouldn't have any. The reality of criminalization has simply created a large number of criminals (rocketing the percentage of US citizens in prison from 0.2 to 0.8), it has not served to scare people from using drugs, it has actually been an example of the same-old "hide it, to make it more interesting".

But again, the real issue is that the War On Drugs completely misunderstands the actual reality: Drug addicts are people primarily having a problem, not causing problems. Drug Users can range from people enjoying a glass of wine to the Hollywood "crack house zombies". That is a sliding scale of regular folks to folks with some military grade issues. Rubber-stamping the majority of them as criminals is simple, costly and foolish. What they don't get is that you shouldn't punish people for having a problem. You should help them. That is what Portugal got right.

The problem is understood backwards and then it is "solved" backwards again. That such a thing can happen in a country that already got a pretty definitive statement on the counter-productivity of prohibition is incredibly ironic.

[wildgift]

Drugs use and addiction are mental health issues. People who use drugs often have other problems. Maybe not serious problems, but, who doesn't have some problems that can't get better with some "talking it out"?

How many of us have had a beer or smoked a bowl of marijuana to "chill out" after the stress of work? It's normal to self-medicate in this modern world. We have to work at jobs, and then we take a chemical that used to be a religous sacrament, and use it to get a little numb and giddy.

People who can't handle life in a modern society... some of them become the drug addicts, who self-medicate to create a curtain between themselves and the world.

[skore]

Correct - there are problems in this world that cannot be solved with force and guns, quite the opposite. The US is learning that in various ways these days.

[rue]

> I come from a country that suffers this "war on drugs"

I don't think anyone's disputing the toll the “war on drugs” is exacting – often outside the US, as is typically the case with these things. The problem is the idiotic approach to a problem, declaring it a “war”.

It may be held a truism, but it bears repeating that the violence in Mexico and South America is caused by drugs being illegal. Prohibition benefits three parties: criminals (especially organized, like the cartels), makers of non-prohibited drugs, and those making profit on jailing people, selling weapons and so on.

(I'm sure that many of the criminals would find other illicit activities to engage in, but I doubt they'd escalate to the level the cartel warfare has.)

[tdfx]

Well-armed criminal groups and government forces can have a war. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you can't go to war against a concept (i.e. drug use).

[gregholmberg]

Have a conventional war against a concept? No.

Declaring "war" on an idea allows the state to permanently oppress anyone who can be associated with the idea.

This is a powerful totalitarian tool. [0]

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war

[mkr-hn]

All that is a product of treating it like a war. Terminology has a way of controlling how we think. Imagine if we called it a holiday on drugs.

[huherto]

The violence we see here in Mexico is mostly a "war between drug cartels".