The War on Drugs

[spot]

Could we try to define a state of affairs in which this could be declared won? What would constitute victory? Who would have won it and who would have lost?

[Lon]

Originally Posted by spot

Could we try to define a state of affairs in which this could be declared won? What would constitute victory? Who would have won it and who would have lost?

I have my own definition, and it would be when not one dollar of profit is made from illicit drugs.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Lon

I have my own definition, and it would be when not one dollar of profit is made from illicit drugs.

By whom? Break it down, list the categories of people who mustn't profit before the war's won.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by spot

By whom? Break it down, list the categories of people who mustn't profit before the war's won.

Profit period, irrespective of the recipient.

[spot]

Okay, I'll say "in that case it's won if..." and then you refine your definition.

It's won if all drugs are declared licit. Nobody can then profit from trading in illicit drugs.

Your turn.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by spot

Okay, I'll say "in that case it's won if..." and then you refine your definition.

It's won if all drugs are declared licit. Nobody can then profit from trading in illicit drugs.

Your turn.

Let's exclude prescription meds and consider just those that are deemed to be illicit by international drug agencies. After all, that's the Drug War that they are talking about winning.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Lon

Let's exclude prescription meds and consider just those that are deemed to be illicit by international drug agencies. After all, that's the Drug War that they are talking about winning.

Each country has it's own list of illicit drugs - there is no central international register.

Given that, any single country could take Spot's route and declare all drugs legal, instantly winning their war on drugs according to your definition.

Was that your intention?

[Lon]

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

Each country has it's own list of illicit drugs - there is no central international register.

Given that, any single country could take Spot's route and declare all drugs legal, instantly winning their war on drugs according to your definition.

Was that your intention?

No, my intention is to try and not let Spot turn this discussion around to Pharmas and their grubby profit making capitalistic ways via legal prescription drugs. I'm trying to focus our discussion on what we deem to be illicit drugs. If their were no profit to be made with sale of illicit drugs, the war on drugs would be won.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Lon

No, my intention is to try and not let Spot turn this discussion around to Pharmas and their grubby profit making capitalistic ways via legal prescription drugs. I'm trying to focus our discussion on what we deem to be illicit drugs. If their were no profit to be made with sale of illicit drugs, the war on drugs would be won.

I hadn't a thought in my mind about pharmas. If you declare all drugs you currently deem to be illicit drugs to be lawful and start selling them in corner stores legally next to the cigarettes and whiskey you've won your war on drugs, according to your definition. That's why I'm asking you either to delve deeper or to say wow, okay, that would win it.

[Galbally]

I would consider it won, when as a general cultural rule human beings don't feel the need en masse to view reality through the prism of drink, or coke, or dope or any other recreational drug. However, human beings being weak, foolish, and easily deluded by their own desires will continue to do all these things. So I don't see there ever being a situation where people won't feel the need to get off their heads to be themselves. Sad.

Its an interesting question, but I suppose slightly to one side. What effect would you say it has had that many of the traders, bankers, hedge funders, and other financials are mostly young arrogant men, coked out of their brains most weekends, with as much easy money, sex with numerous young women, drugs and endless opportunities to misbehave (and be lauded for their machismo) had on their totally irresponsible attitude to what they were actually doing with other people's money?

Its a strange time, when all the rock stars are timid vegitarian middle aged men, and the bankers are totally irresponsible, young, crazy drug-fuelled hedonists.