It feels like in a world where people were generally interested in solving the issues with the drug trade the DEA wouldn't need to exist. It's something that should be solvable.
People will take recreational drugs, so obviously the solution is not to create an organisation to fight that. There has to be a safe source for these drugs that plays nicely with society and the political system. Do you have any good recommendations for information regarding places where this has been tried in earnest?
You're welcome. I agree. Since the dawn of time humans have wanted to alter their consciousness.
Glenn Greenwald has a great paper about drug decriminalization in Portugal. Lots of shocking graphs and statistics. The digital version is legally available online for free.
Unfortunately that's about the only resource I can think of when it comes to drug legalization/decriminalization in an actual real world environment. I'm hoping to see some papers in the next couple years about marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado.
This is only semi-related, but Vangard has a really fascinating documentary on prescription drug abuse/doctor shopping in Florida you might find interesting. It's called the Oxycontin Express. Basically people go down to Florida, get a whole bunch of prescriptions for Oxycontin and then resell the pills in Kentucky and other States at a ridiculous profit. Here's a link to an online copy of it.
"Unfortunately that's about the only resource I can think of when it comes to drug legalization/decriminalization in an actual real world environment."
Marijuana is effectively legal in the Netherlands. (Technically illegal, but "tolerated")
Due to a loophole, for a year you could legally buy psilocybin mushrooms in the UK, in "head shops," on market stalls, online, anywhere, with zero regulation. It was fine. The government eventually banned them out of embarrassment. The public information posters announcing the upcoming ban had a rainbow coloured fractal background. It was pretty funny.
I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet (half way through) but that was exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks again.
One thing I don't understand is what happens to the supply line the decriminalisation case. Obviously trafficking is still illegal but is still happening. I guess there's still the same amount of money running back to the drug cartels.
"It feels like in a world where people were generally interested in solving the issues with the drug trade the DEA wouldn't need to exist."
Drug prohibition has never really been about solving the problems society faces with drugs. In the early days when cocaine and heroin were first made illegal, the argument was overtly racist. Black cocaine users would be more accurate with a gun, would go into a frenzied state where they attack white women, and would be difficult to stop even when shot in the chest. Philipino immigrants were bringing their bad opium habits with them, and heroin was marketed by a German company. Marijuana was said to cause white women to want to have sex with black men, and good white boys were being corrupted by Mexicans who gave them marijuana.
In this day and age the war on drugs is not overtly racist (but it just happens to disproportionately affect black communities -- coincidence, really!), but we now have a host of new reasons for it. Drugs are an easy way to terrify a population that grew up with war on drugs propaganda, and politicians looking for a few more votes can easily play up their "tough on crime" stance with drugs. Deploying soldiers to arrest suspected drug dealers is the norm, and police forces wanted to build a paramilitary wing can always turn to drug crime as a justification for it. Pharmaceutical companies love the war on drugs because it inflates the demand for prescription medications; a prominent example is methamphetamine, the supposed scourge that also happens to be prescribed as a treatment for narcolepsy, obesity, and ADHD (you can bet that the pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine is cleaner and purer than the stuff you buy at a truck stop). Alcohol and tobacco companies lobby in favor of the war on drugs (ironically), for obvious reasons.
So really, to understand the war on drugs you just need to change your perspective. Do not think in terms of solving the problems associated with drugs, because that is little more than a facade. Think in terms of money and power, which are the real purpose of the war on drugs and the reason we will not see the DEA disbanded any time soon.
You don't have to go back that far for evidence that the "War on Drugs" is racist. The phrase itself was coined for Nixon's first term, where the southern strategy was first used.
In the 80ies Zurich, Switzerland had a really bad problem with Heroin addicts and the related crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platzspitz_park). The problem went away completely and instantly when the state began issuing Heroin to addicted people in a controlled environment. Now that park is back to being one of the nicest places in the city.
The english Wikipedia article unfortunately doesn't talk about that program but only about "... and in 1992, police moved in to clear up the park..." which did clean the park but did nothing to solve the problem - the addicts and associated crime just crossed the river.
The only real fix for the issue was to destroy the market by just handing out the drug freely.
Seriously though, I wonder what will happen to the prescription/drugstore model if full drug legalization ever took place. It's an interesting question - you can get cocaine or heroin walking in off the street, but you need a doctor's prescription for some Xanax or Aderall? Would everything go over the counter? Is that wise?
To be honest, I don't know. This is an interesting problem. I do know that a lot of people get hooked on Oxycotin and then turn to heroin for a variety of reasons. Though if heroin was legal it could be manufactured in a sterile environment where you could probably get like 99% purity or something ridiculous like that. It's relatively easy to get a prescription for whatever you want. Especially in States like Florida that don't check if you're doctor shopping.
There are also legal drugs that have similar effects to things like Adderall. A lot of people don't know about them or use them because they haven't been researched as much and come in powder form.
At the very least I think that you shouldn't be put in prison for carrying pills without a prescription.
You might find this Vice article interesting. It talks about how Oxycotin is essentially legal heroin.
I say we should take it slow when it comes to legalization. Perhaps start with things that are found in nature. Marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, being legally able to harvest the opium from poppy seed plants, etc.
>Though if heroin was legal it could be manufactured in a sterile environment where you could probably get like 99% purity or something ridiculous like that.
This already happens. Diamorphine (heroin) is commonly used as a painkiller in hospitals. If you've ever been seriously injured and wound up in hospital with a tube going into your arm attached to a button which gives you a dose of painkiller, limited to something like 3 presses an hour, then you've probably taken heroin, likely in large amounts. The nurse may well have called it "morphine" to avoid scaring you.
Famously, "Heroin" was originally a trademark of the Bayer company.
EDIT: apparently this is only true in the UK. This might be why we don't have the fancy modern opiates here, oxycontin etc.
You are correct. I forgot about our friends across the pond. I believe I read heroin was supposed to be a less addictive alternative of morphine. I don't know much about opioids, I wonder what the breakdown in pricing is between commercial, hospital heroin versus something Oxycontin. I'm guessing it's probably cheaper to produce hospital heroin and drug companies can't compete with it.
Also consider that the US army burns the enormous afghan poppy harvest every summer while big pharma synthesises its opiate molecules at great expense.
It feels like in a world where people were generally interested in solving the issues with the drug trade the DEA wouldn't need to exist. It's something that should be solvable.
People will take recreational drugs, so obviously the solution is not to create an organisation to fight that. There has to be a safe source for these drugs that plays nicely with society and the political system. Do you have any good recommendations for information regarding places where this has been tried in earnest?