What was the point of The War on Drugs?

The point was getting a excuse to arrest criminals after the Warren Court and the 1960s criminal reforms made the traditional way of performing police work ineffective.

As it turns out, it's easier to arrest a criminal who robs and murders people on drug charges than actually going to court by accusing him of theft and homicide.

To reduce violent crime.

Then why do other countries have much lower rates of both incarceration and violent crime?

To fuck with blacks, Jews, and hippies.

Yes.

>What was the point of The War on Drugs?
The point was to prevent people taking drugs in large numbers. It was to preserve a population which was in charge of its faculties and didn't have another easy escape-from-reality medicine like alcohol. It was easier to stop other damaging drugs from becoming widespread before it was too late and a culture had to forcibly be changed.

>Did it work?
No, mainly because governments across the Western world focused solely on the supply side rather than demand as well. I criminal business will always find a way around the law - sometimes violently - if people are willing to pay huge amounts of money to get high. I'm aware in the US, many ethnic minorites were targeted for possessing drugs but in order for there to have been a true 'war' on drugs, everybody found in possession should have been jailed.
(and that includes spoilt white middle-class adolescents whose parents have always bailed them out)

>everybody found in possession should have been jailed.
>(and that includes spoilt white middle-class adolescents whose parents have always bailed them out)

OK junior, time to grow up and meet the real world.

The real problems with the drug trade are ->

Corrupt cops that profit from the drug trade

The corrupt intelligence agencies that profit from the drug trade

The corrupt government officials that profit from the drug trade

The corrupt banks and financial companies that profit from laundering massive quantities of drug money

The little teenage white boy smoking a joint isn't your fucking problem, you fucking shit head.

I dont think you can compare usa to any other country

>OK junior, time to grow up and meet the real world.
So difficult not to discard your opinion off the bat just from that start.

>the real problems with the drug trade are: the people that profit from drug trade
>people that directly fund this corruption dindu nuffin

>The little teenage white boy smoking a joint isn't your fucking problem, you fucking shit head.
I'm guessing I've touched a nerve here. Perhaps you should stop being a selfish immoral degenerate and put an end to your vile habit.

heres the thing tho

if the state has the authority to set by law what a citisen can and can not consume, then it has more power ovver the individual than is designated by the constitution

any one of us can now go into the bathroom with a spoon and eat detergent

this would be bad and unhealthy and migh result in hospitalisation, but you can do it, you can eat detergent with a spoon

theres no law against it, the state does not sanction your freedom to eat detergent

so where does the state get theright to sanction your freedom to consume other shit?

see its not about weather its seen as good or bad for you, its a question of why the fuck a adult citisen wouldnt be free to consume substances

get the point?

In English not American so I can understand this line of argument. The English conservative tradition has always been more paternalistic than Libertarian-style American conservatism.

That being said, I'm very sceptical about the claim you made in your repsonse.

>if the state has the authority to set by law what a citisen can and can not consume, then it has more power ovver the individual than is designated by the constitution

Where is this in the constitution? I'm not at familiar with the document as an American citizen - for obvious reaons

Isn't America having a Heroin Epidemic right now?

If you eat detergent you only fuck yourself up, but drug use needs to be funded so their users often resort to crime.

In short, druggie degenerates fuck up society, so we have a right to limit their freedom.

Stop invoking the constitution when talking about the liberty to take drugs.

The 'freedom' to permanently damage your brain and then damage other people's lives is not the same freedom as the freedom of conscience, thought and assembly.

Messing with your health and rejecting self-discipline cannot be equated with freedoms that prevent tyranny

That was caused by big pharma and oxy

Drugs need to be "funded" because of prohibition.

Black markets supply people at a massive premium.

People turn to crime mostly to pay for the premium as opposed to the cost of production of the drug, which is usually cheap.

When you say something like "We have a right to limit their freedom", you're saying that you want to pay for an entire additional structure of bureaucratic parasites preying upon the nation they ostensibly "serve".

Why do people not get this shit? You want to enforce a limitation on people, you want to pay for absolute garbage human beings to manage the limitation.

You're a fucking idiot. You might as well level public schools.

The cost of treating the wages of meals for millions of kids that encourage pre-diabetes is far beyond the ravages of illegal drugs.

If you tracked the life history of a kid who had to eat public school meals, you'd find we pay a far bigger cost in lifetime medical treatment for diseases that could've been stopped early on by providing a diet that doesn't raise the insulin of kids to the point of eventual diabetes.

School lunches are worse than drugs.

CONT

Once again.

You want to put a leash on people. That implies you want to pay for scumbags to hold the leash.

Because consumers of drugs oftentimes constitute huge burdens on the state and thus the general public, and people do consume drugs and do not consume detergent.

>huge burdens on the state and thus the general public,

How do you make this equivalence? It's the state that "takes huge burden" on its own initiative to consolidate control over people.

The "general public" is, unironically, a spook that can be changed by the state any time.

Cheapest way to minimise that burden is just to prescribe the scum drugs though.

Readily available unadulterated drugs of a known purity eliminate most of the cost in policing, jailing, property loss and health costs.

CONT

Not only school lunches but breakfast cereals and the whole shitshow of insulin raising foods that are marketed to kids.

Captain Crunch and Trix have a bigger negative effect on kids than drugs.

You're retarded mate.

If the State should restrict things that have the potential to cause harm, then there is a long list of things to ban.

>Motorcycles
>Riding Horses
>Extreme Sports
>Junk food

The state is by definition the general public you fucking mongoloid. You just said that the people who live in a country are spooks.

>its only about money

Lets also put a bullet into every criminal ever and also you, because that'd be cheap.

How? Do you know how expensive it is to treat increasing levels of society-wide diabetes? Not only diabetes but the satellite of mental and physiological disorders that surround it?

stop using slippery slope arguments

>x isn't a problem because y is a problem

SOLID FUCKING ARGUMENT MATE

>The state is by definition the general public you fucking mongoloid.

? The state is a collection of institutions determined by the historical particulars of a "nation". The notion of "general public" is a bizarre spook when you look at the oligarchic backing of "states".

>Lets also put a bullet into every criminal ever and also you, because that'd be cheap.

By invoking prohibition, you not only empower bureaucratic assholes, you empower black market scumbags.

You just said that the people who live in a country are spooks.

i'm saying if you actually care about the health of your society, you'd be on a crusade against societal-wide diabetes.

I'm crusading against neither. In fact im an avid drug user. I just want to point out that your arguments are shite.

How is my argumentation shit? Do you know what diabetes does? Do you know how pathetically easy it is to prevent it?

Do you understand the whole medical complex that profits from the fact that people eat shit diets and develop shit bodies and then after a lifetime of shit, demand that societies pay for their medical costs that mostly came about from eating shit for a lifetime.

Explain to me why one hedonistic activity with mild risk should be banned while another not?

Horse riding is perhaps the best example, as based David Nutt points out it has a lower incidence of harm than MDMA, so why is it legal?

> It's an incel virgin on Veeky Forums calling people degenerates for using drugs episode

this

>x isn't a problem because y is a problem

Long term damage from mdma (ab)use far outweighs any harm from horse riding. Legal availability of mdma would certainly create a huge problem of people frying their brains on it.

a way to suppress minorities and make a profit off the government.

Yup. Doctors that get people addicted to oxycotin need to be fucking hung.

It doesn't help that we're still occupying Afghanistan aka The Place Heroine Comes From

So your position is that there is a scale of risk which factors in both short and long term effects, and that on a point along that scale the State should ban?

>>x isn't a problem because y is a problem

You do realize such diets lower impulse control and that the negative effects of such diets encourage a lessening of delayed gratification?

My position is that your using a slippery slope argument which is a fallacy.

No I'm not.

I'm not suggesting banning these things, I am trying to understand how you decide what to ban.

Then naturally look for inconsistencies in how you say X is Halal while Y is Haram.

So is it just about risk?

The point was for some people to make a shitload of money selling prisons and prison-related services, while politicians can claim to be "tough on crime" by incarcerating as many people as possible.

Man, how the fuck did Private Prisons even become a thing?

Who looked at that and said, "That's Rad."?

> Who looked at that and said, "That's Rad."?

pic very related

Wouldn't there be less drug violence if it was legal and more easily available?

>Land of the Free

Absolutely

On the West Coast, I pull out my ID, and can walk out a store with an ounce of lab-tested marijuana for $100 on sale for high grade with the effects that you want if you have a legit condition.

Here on the East Coast, I got to call some rinky-dink drug dealer that are selling mid quality weed grown by who knows at $300 an ounce. It's probably been stepped on too, and anything West Coast shits on it.

Hmmmm, which one do I want? The more expensive weed that I have no idea the quality control or the high quality weed with government oversight?

I live in Sacramento.

I can call for delivery on my shit. I can have weed at my front door within a reasonable time.

PS: Most cost-effective way of weed is vaporizer + concentrates. And buy small amounts of a wide amount of strains to cycle through and mediate tolerance to a particular strain.

You seemed to have forgotten the part where the FBI was putting drugs in those inner cities

Even in the UK drugs are cheap, meaning the supply is plentiful

We're an island so if we can't stop it i doubt any countries with a land border will be able too

The only way to stop it would be through education but that's not going to work because they aren't as bad as the state makes out

They have less blacks. Blacks in america have similar murder rates as any black country while whites in america have similar murder rates as european countries. Tendency to violence is genetic, as has been proven by animal breeding and experiments.

Niggers and spics, duh.

Even after you control for income, education, IQ, urban/rural placement, etc. they are just more violent than whites.

proofs?

What's the proofs that blacks operate on the same level as whites?

Why should I assume that people with different genetics are equal?

Where are the proofs that there are no genetic differences?

...

Where are the proofs that the genetic differences are big enough?

>Milton Friedman
FUCK OFF

Personal experience being homeless. People revert to stereotypical behaviors without social pressure, fast.

The (few) asian homeless tried their hardest to get odd jobs. Usually it was something like cocaine or heroin usage that brought their downfall.

Mexicans weren't perfect but if they were non-gang affiliated, they were generally chill dudes.

White guys were a mix of meth heads, alcoholics, and hobo-like people who usually had some form of intense personal tragedy that estranges them from the concerns of majority societies.

Blacks on the otherhand...look there were a few simply "misfortunate" individuals. But the vast majority are fucking barbarians with a mix of mental problems, lack of impulse control, drug usage, and inability to cooperate without challenging the dominance hierarchy every chance they got.

It sucks for the good people because they're surrounded by people who don't even recognize the strength of cooperating with larger society.

Keynesian retard detected

The people who said I don't want to pay more in taxes when a private company can do it more efficiently and better aka Johnny Q. Public

>What was the point of The War on Drugs?
Fuck the minorities
>Did it work?
Are the minorities more fucked?

Me, I own a bunch of stock in private prisons.
Praise papa Trump, those stocks are doing well.

The intent was to not have a drugged out citizenry that focused on nothing more than their next fix.

It failed.

If that were the case the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't be pumping the populace full of pills.

...

>"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people"

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities"

>"We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

That was all Ronald Reagan.

assert deep state monopoly of the narco-traffic. The illicit drug trade is another reason dollars remain a reserve currency.

...

>Drugs need to be "funded" because of prohibition
???
What universe do you live in where prescription drugs are made and then given away without compensation? Drugs, legal or not, will always cost money somewhere in the transactional chain. A drug habit, again legal or not, will always need money from somewhere. Hard drug users do not make good employees, ergo the money must be acquired from somewhere and that somewhere inevitably leads to crime. You can mental gymnastics your way into making it not so however you'd like, but the reality is that hard drug use has absolutely no benefit to society and is ultimately a net drain.

It all comes back to Ronny

Why were you homeless?

I meant "funded" as in an exorbitant amount of third-party activity has to be funded for drugs to bypass the hurdles of illegalization and law enforcement.

.
> but the reality is that hard drug use has absolutely no benefit to society and is ultimately a net drain.

So you fund bureaucratic sociopaths who have the "noble" goal of making larger and larger "busts" as a pirate activity.

You want a certain type of morality to exist but you have no actual idea the price most of society has to pay for your fucking prudishness.

And guess what, your prudishness turns into support for murderous cartels who will gladly supply the person looking for a drug. Congratulations, instead of letting man make his own choices, you let man suffer a million evils so that you have a class of newly made degenerates to frown upon.

>Hard drug users do not make good employees, ergo the money must be acquired from somewhere and that somewhere inevitably leads to crime.

Hard drugs are expensive because layers of bureaucracy headed by sociopaths reap rewards from asset confiscation and propagandizing the "sincerity" of their mission.

Shit family, shit pedagogy, shit society, shit choices, shit money management. It happens.

CONT

EX: You have a newly discovered dissociative (street name = MXE) with minimal drawbacks and a magic ability to bring relief to chronic pain sufferers and those unfortunate enough to experience phantom limb syndrome.

Instead of embracing the possible therapeutic uses, bureaucrats banned it because it makes stupid kids feel good.

It's okay though. At least kids receive school lunches that help them on the road to pre-diabetes and immerse them in a society where shitty processed grain diets have a disturbing majority presence.

If hard drug use has no net benefit, then enforcing prohibition has far stronger net drains than you can imagine.

Or get public schools to feed them properly

And yet again, you're a fucking idiot.

Public schools are black holes of money for the benefit of everyone but children.

You think they really give a damn about the actual nutrition of the meals they serve? They give a damn about the amount of money allocated to food and keeping it within budget. They give a far more damn about pensions for teachers and pensions for administrators.

EX: I stayed at a shelter for a period of time. for vets. The contractor they hired for food gave use awful fucking shit. Shitty pancakes with syrup. Shitty eggs made from a carton. Shitty undercooked sausages. But they couldn't change shit because a fucking "nutritionist" said it was "okay".

The inertia of dumb idiotic bureaucracy is another one of those speechless things in the world that strikes you if you try to think about it.

CONT.

Or to formulate public schools: A pension racket that requires the impairment of millions of young minds because to suggest any other, and more effective, methods of pedagogy would mean an end to the pension racket and the voting machines of various unions.

CIA, not FBI

Less black populations. But that's changing and Europe is seeing a direct rise in crime with African immigrants.

Not even trying to be hateful or /pol/, but it's just how it is.

>thinking you have in any way a moral high ground here while not just allowing but encouraging highly addictive and damaging drugs into society
Seriously, nys. Being anti-narcotics is the only moral action. You can be pro-liberty as much as you like, but at the end of the day, it's fucking horrible for society.

Are you me? That's my exact experience. Except I've never met a homeless Asian.

See

Never take anything at face value.
The War on Drugs has nothing to do with drugs. It has everything to do with lining the pockets of the DEA, FBI, CIA, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Not sure how layman vs how expert you want it. Genetic predisposition to certain behaviors and intelligence (IQ or other means of testing, it's hard to find a single reliable measure of intelligence, but no matter what types or ways you use, results seem consistent across racial lines) does vary by race.

/pol/ thinks this means whites are the master race, but most European populations (we really should just scrap that and talk in terms of haplogroups) fall short of East Asian populations as well as the dreaded Ashkenazi Jew. Bring that up and you'll get a lot of excuses, arguments over who counts as white, etc, then the conversation goes back to gloating at being smarter than Africans and Arabs.

google.ca/amp/s/z139.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-allele-counting-begins/amp/

>Blacks on the otherhand...look there were a few simply "misfortunate" individuals. But the vast majority are fucking barbarians with a mix of mental problems, lack of impulse control, drug usage, and inability to cooperate without challenging the dominance hierarchy every chance they got.
do you mean this as evidence before or against blacks? it seems to me that the first three issues derive from hereditary problems or a life of poor nutrition and harmful cultural and social influences. As for the problem with hierarchies that, for better or worse, has obvious historical roots

>Buying into the propaganda
Cocaine is very similar to caffeine, except that it has a much higher therapeutic index, meaning that if you take a very large amount of cocaine you will get an increased stimulant effect, and if you take a very large amount of caffeine you will die. Because cocaine is illegal and relatively expensive, most people only use it when they want a greater stimulant effect than they can get from caffeine. If it were legal, it would see more use as a safe and convenient stimulant, probably mainly in the form of coca tea.

Amphetamines are bad long term, yes, but as a society we've shown that we're perfectly okay with force feeding them to children, who are the most at risk for the chronic effects, for years or even decades straight. Most of the bad things we associate with meth addicts like fucked up teeth are caused by secondary factors: smoking dries out the mouth, all sorts of side effects are caused by impurities, etc. Legalization is the first step toward working these problems out.

Opiate pills like Vicodin are normally something like 5mg of the actual drug and 50-300 mg acetaminophen. Why? It's not because of the analgesic effect; take a dose of opiate and you don't give a shit about the pain anymore. Besides, if 200mg of Tylenol was enough to take the edge off, you probably should have just been taking NSAIDs. The reason is that it's extremely toxic to your liver in high doses, especially when combined with alcohol. The point of it is literally to kill you if you decide to take more of the drug than prescribed.

The common thread here is that drugs aren't the problem, secondary issues caused by the illegality of the drug are the problem. There's all sorts of other problems caused by prohibition as well: organized crime, all of the well-studied effects of households raised by single mothers, extreme taxation to fund the mass incarceration that removes 5% of the populace from the workforce, and many more.

>You have a newly discovered dissociative (street name = MXE) with minimal drawbacks and a magic ability to bring relief to chronic pain sufferers and those unfortunate enough to experience phantom limb syndrome.
This is so retarded because it's an entirely hypothetical situation that has no connection to reality. Hard drugs in circulation have NO such miracle effects that you state and if they do there's awful side-effects from continued use and the risk of addiction. It seems like your mind is so clouded by your libertarian "anti-guberment" ideology that you feel the need to shoe-horn it into the discussion.

>Cocaine is very similar to caffeine, except that it has a much higher therapeutic index
Maybe if coffee rotted your fucking insides and if you stopped taking it you would very quickly go into a deadly withdrawal.

>Opiate pills like Vicodin are normally something like 5mg of the actual drug and 50-300 mg acetaminophen
Are you seriously trying to claim that opiates are only bad when mixed with NSAIDs?

>The contractor they hired for food gave use awful fucking shit. Shitty pancakes with syrup. Shitty eggs made from a carton. Shitty undercooked sausages.
That is sad that the shelter or contractor doesn't take account nutrition, but have you literally not heard the expression "beggars can't be choosers"?

This is a total non-sequiter. Teachers receive pensions, therefore children suffer? How did you start from that premise and arrive at that conclusion?
Also, how are unions mobilizing their constituency any different from evangelical organizations or politicians doing the same? Unions have an interest in protecting their interests, just like any other social group. Without them teaching would be even shittier, as 1) teachers would get paid even less (they already get paid like dogshit) thereby discouraging any bright people from pursuing the profession, 2) teachers would get hired and fired at the whims of the administration, which maybe eliminates the so-called union problem protecting teachers and replace it for another autocracy wherein the educational hierarchy pursues a policy of divide and rule with tecahers mercilessly having to maintain their jobs by competing for arbitrary metrics such as standardized testing.

p.s. pensions are not as plush as you think. you HAVE to be a teacher for like 25 years to even qualify for receiving one and what's more you have to dedicate a portion of your salary to financing it. Then theres the fact that in return for these pensions teachers receive LESS social security in return. Teachers are also offered awful savings plans by their schools which further hampers their retirement plans

>Cocaine is very similar to caffeine, except that it has a much higher therapeutic index
ayy lmao. pls snort cocaine for habitually and see what happens.