More Evidence of Drug War Failures

[Brett85]

http://www.cato.org/blog/more-evidence-drug-war-failures?utm_content=bufferae002&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

[Brett85]

So I post a thread about how the police shouldn't be abolished, and it gets 390 replies. And I post a thread about how the war on drugs should be ended, and it gets 0 replies. :rolleyes:

[Origanalist]

So I post a thread about how the police shouldn't be abolished, and it gets 390 replies. And I post a thread about how the war on drugs should be ended, and it gets 0 replies. :rolleyes:

You will find no arguments here.

[Brett85]

You will find no arguments here.

Yeah, that's the thing. People wonder why I almost always post "divisive" threads about issues where there's disagreement. It's because no one ever comments on these threads where there's no disagreement at all.

[kcchiefs6465]

So I post a thread about how the police shouldn't be abolished, and it gets 390 replies. And I post a thread about how the war on drugs should be ended, and it gets 0 replies. :rolleyes:
You ever think it is because you have quoted nothing the article [supposedly] offers?

The hell would I randomly click links for?

I know the drug war failures. Is this ground breaking stuff?

Matt Collins does the same thing and it is equally annoying. It takes 10 seconds to highlight a relevant section and post it. I read too much as is and actually put off a short Judge Napolitano article until tomorrow. No way I'm randomly clicking links to go looking for something to read.

[kcchiefs6465]

Just being honest on why no one read the article.

[Origanalist]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSOxluNUMlwbBr4ugIDpm3Ag81F0GGJ N1yF0nF8fjDH0mAJUMaqOvXdLr1

[Brett85]

You ever think it is because you have quoted nothing the article [supposedly] offers?

The hell would I randomly click links for?

I know the drug war failures. Is this ground breaking stuff?

Matt Collins does the same thing and it is equally annoying. It takes 10 seconds to highlight a relevant section and post it. I read too much as is and actually put off a short Judge Napolitano article until tomorrow. No way I'm randomly clicking links to go looking for something to read.

Ok, maybe that's the reason.

[invisible]

You ever think it is because you have quoted nothing the article [supposedly] offers?

The hell would I randomly click links for?

I know the drug war failures. Is this ground breaking stuff?

Matt Collins does the same thing and it is equally annoying. It takes 10 seconds to highlight a relevant section and post it. I read too much as is and actually put off a short Judge Napolitano article until tomorrow. No way I'm randomly clicking links to go looking for something to read.

And The Collins isn't the only one, others are equally guilty. This annoys me as well, I don't like clicking all over the place either, it kinda defeats the purpose of having everything of interest here in one place (which is exactly the thing that makes RPF as great as it is). Even a paragraph or two may spark the rare amount of interest for me to click elsewhere, but to post nothing but a link prompts absolutely no interest on my part whatsoever.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So I post a thread about how the police shouldn't be abolished, and it gets 390 replies. And I post a thread about how the war on drugs should be ended, and it gets 0 replies. :rolleyes:

Well, in all fairness, you made this comment less than one hour after you created the thread. I don't know your age and this might not apply to you, but the younger generation is the most impatient and attention deficient generation I've ever seen.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok, maybe that's the reason.

I always do try and paste a hilight paragraph from any links I make threads on. They really to get way more traffic and discussion that way.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And nothing personal, TC, but Americans love to argue more than any other group I've seen. Catharsis is also one big purpose of discussion forums. Combine those two things with the drug topic (a topic on which most--if not all--people here agree), and it might explain why fewer will reply to this thread. Okay, maybe I am starting to argue here. D'oh.

I do agree that posting a little of the article helps. It's certainly useful to know the article is about information in that British journal.

I'll click on a Cato link because it's familiar, but I also won't click on an unfamiliar website. I have good antivirus, but there is just too much internet junk to click on something unfamiliar. If somebody replaces the URL link with their own words, then I definitely won't click on it. The website address often tells me a lot, while word replacement of that link tells me nothing.

[GunnyFreedom]

CATO article


As the BMJ Open study notes, the international drug trade is a $350 billion a year industry. There is no realistic way to suppress such an economic juggernaut. We can only determine whether the trade will be in the hands of honest businesses or ruthless criminals. The quixotic U.S. crusade against alcohol in the 1920s and early 1930 empowered gangsters like Al Capone and Dutch Shultz. Bootleggers bribed and corrupted elected officials and police personnel throughout the country. There were shootouts on the streets of Chicago, New York, and other American cities—just as we have gun battles between drug gangs in numerous cities today. Once Prohibition ended, legitimate business provided consumers with the beverages they sought, and the carnage and corruption subsided.



Read More (http://www.cato.org/blog/more-evidence-drug-war-failures?utm_content=bufferae002&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer)

[Cleaner44]

Stating the war on drugs is a failure = stating water is wet. Not much else to say.

[GunnyFreedom]

Though this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/opinion/carpenter-drug-war/index.html) that the CATO article references, may be more on point.


The report's policy recommendations are relatively tepid. It emphasizes the need to shift from a strategy of eradication and interdiction of drugs to one focused more on drug abuse prevention and treatment. Although that shift away from law enforcement to a "harm reduction" approach would be an improvement on the current futile, counterproductive strategy, it is not nearly sufficient.

Moreover, the report too readily accepts the conventional wisdom that drug use is largely responsible for a host of social pathologies. The reality is that the strategy of drug prohibition, not drug use itself, is responsible for many of those pathologies.

Read More (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/opinion/carpenter-drug-war/index.html)