[pengaru]

> wars on drugs etc

I don't think we should be equating TSA with DEA and ATF. The latter two are practically military divisions operating domestically, the wars on drugs are unwinnable nebulous things by design to maintain these standing armies ripe for domestic abuse. TSA however does seem to be a security theater jobs program...

[corbulo]

The war on drugs is as winnable as the war on murder or the war on petty theft. Just because it doesn't go away doesn't mean you failed at enforcing it.

War on drugs is just a shitty political campaign slogan everyone fell for. It's a fantastic one from the perspective of the politician, because they'd never be held accountable for 'losing' it during their tenure.

[oneeyedpigeon]

The war on drugs is unwinnable because, in general, human beings want to take drugs. Or want to have the freedom to take drugs. Most people don't want to murder or steal.

[grishka]

Besides, taking drugs is a victimless crime. Theft or murder, on the other hand, both have very real victims.

[corbulo]

100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?

[grishka]

People do it to themselves. It's not like people don't know what hard drugs do to human body. They willingly start taking them. It ultimately is their own choice. Same can be said about alcoholism, btw, yet that is perfectly legal.

Somehow, it's mostly accepted that making it harder to intentionally kill oneself is not the right way to stop people from committing suicide. Yet at the same time, we still consider this total war on drugs the correct approach to preventing people from killing themselves with drug abuse. The sibling comment is right.

[corbulo]

Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all?

Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?

[locallost]

No, but it's not the root cause that should be fought.

Things that cause drug abuse, especially the most harmful ones, are:

* lack of education. This was sometimes on purpose, with drug companies lying to get people hooked on opioids

* poverty and despair in general

* mental health

* many other things

Those can and should be fought, and they are a lot more effective than policing overall, and also a lot cheaper.

[corbulo]

Do you think it's possible that drugs prevent the things on that list from happening? Drugs are more frequently causal of those things than a symptom.

It's more common to find people who start addictions from a financially stable position where they have some discretional income. Rarely do people begin addictions where they have to decide between food or a drug they're not addicted to.

[oneeyedpigeon]

How many dead annually from inactive lifestyles or overeating? Those are all choices that people make that affect them — nobody should be forced to live in a virtuous bubble just because it might extend their life a few years. That's all totally different from choosing to harm another human being.

[corbulo]

not doing anything and overindulging in an activity required to live are not equivalents to a drug addiction.

[trasz3]

The vast majority of drug victims are really the victims of war on drugs - that’s what makes clean, safe drugs unavailable and forces people to use dangerous replacements.

From the very beginning the American war on drugs was motivated by racism. It’s just another state-organized genocide in disguise.