The war on drugs is over: drugs won

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
The War on Drugs Is Over. Drugs Won.
Now is the time to ask why
By Stephen Marche

Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com

esq-drugs-xlg-24576894.jpg



After a trillion dollars spent on the drug war, now is the greatest time in history to get high.

The world's most extensive study of the drug trade has just been published in the medical journal BMJ Open, providing the first "global snapshot" of four decades of the war on drugs. You can already guess the result. The war on drugs could not have been a bigger failure. To sum up their most important findings, the average purity of heroin and cocaine have increased, respectively, 60 percent and 11 percent between 1990 and 2007. Cannabis purity is up a whopping 161 percent over that same time. Not only are drugs way purer than ever, they're also way, way cheaper. Coke is on an 80 percent discount from 1990, heroin 81 percent, cannabis 86 percent. After a trillion dollars spent on the drug war, now is the greatest time in history to get high.

The new study only confirms what has been well-established for a decade at least, that trying to attack the drug supply is more or less pointless. The real question is demand, trying to mitigate its disastrous social consequences and treating the desire for drugs as a medical condition rather than as a moral failure.

But there's another question about demand that the research from BMJ Open poses. Why is there so much of it? No drug dealer ever worries about demand. Ever. The hunger for illegal drugs in America is assumed to be limitless. Why? One answer is that drugs feed a human despair that is equally limitless. And there is plenty of despair, no doubt. But the question becomes more complicated when you consider how many people are drugging themselves legally. In 2010 the CDC found that 48 percent of Americans used prescription drugs, 31 percent were taking two or more, and 11 percent were taking five or more. Two of the most common prescription drugs were stimulants, for adolescents, and anti-depressants, for middle-aged Americans.

Both the legal and illegal alteration of consciousness is at an all-time high. And it is quickly accelerating. One of the more interesting books published in the past year is Daniel Lieberman's The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease. It is a fascinating study by the chair of the department of human evolutionary biology at Harvard of how our Paleolithic natures, set in a hypermodern reality, are failing to adjust. His conclusions on the future of the species are somewhat dark:

"We didn't evolve to be healthy, but instead we were selected to have as many offspring as possible under diverse, challenging conditions. As a consequence, we never evolved to make rational choices about what to eat or how to exercise in conditions of abundance and comfort. What's more, interactions between the bodies we inherited, the environments we create, and the decisions we sometimes make have set in motion an insidious feedback loop. We get sick from chronic diseases by doing what we evolved to do but under conditions for which our bodies are poorly adapted, and we then pass on those same conditions to our children, who also then get sick."

Our psychological reality is equally unadjusted to the world we live in. Cortisol levels — the stress hormone — evolved to increase during moments of crisis, like when a lion attacks. If you live in a city, your cortisol levels are constantly elevated. You're always being chased. We are not built for that reality.

Lieberman's solution is that we "respectfully and sensibly nudge, push, and sometimes oblige ourselves" to make healthier decisions, to live more in keeping with our biology and to adapt to the modern world with sensible, rational limits. But the mass demand for drugs — the boundless need to opiate and numb ourselves — shows that the simpler solution remains, and will no doubt remain, much more popular. Just take something.



Read more: The War on Drugs Is Over. Drugs Won. - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Drug testing for everyone getting a government handout would curb drug use more than any other single thing we could do. Also every local, state, and federal employee should be tested. I don't want my tax money subsidizing the drug trade.


That reminds me, I got to call my guy. I am running low.
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
Do you have any idea on what that would cost?

Sounds great but how many millions of drug tests? How frequently? For how long?

Monthly for as long as they're getting assistance? Yeah, good luck with that.

GIVE ME SMALLER GOVERNMENT. JUST MAKE IT TESTS PEOPLE FOR DRUGS EVERY 4 WEEKS!!!
 
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Do you have any idea on what that would cost?

Sounds great but how many millions of drug tests? How frequently? For how long?

Monthly for as long as they're getting assistance? Yeah, good luck with that.
Well, in Utah, they saved like $370K in the first year of testing.
 

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
Yeah "but that's racist against minorities." Just like having an ID to vote is, somehow.

It's comes down to retaining votes.
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
Well, in Utah, they saved like $370K in the first year of testing.

I'm not sure that would be generalizable to other states.

Not really a giant urban area. Their drug problem isn't likely on par with other states. Per capita, I'd wager they're pretty low for reasons other than drug testing.

Small population that is under heavy influence not seen outside of that region.

Perhaps we should force the book of Mormon on people to curb drug use.
 
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure that would be generalizable to other states.

Not really a giant urban area. Their drug problem isn't likely on par with other states. Per capita, I'd wager they're pretty low for reasons other than drug testing.

Small population that is under heavy influence not seen outside of that region.

Perhaps we should force the book of Mormon on people to curb drug use.
True, but, honestly, I think the amount saved would actually grow in urban areas. I dont think drug tests are all that expensive.
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
True, but, honestly, I think the amount saved would actually grow in urban areas. I dont think drug tests are all that expensive.

The test itself, no.

But the staff, facilities, all the other administrative shit that would come along with accommodating hundreds of thousands of tests per week would be insane.

On top of that you'd have to have MROs who would determine if a positive test is for a valid prescription. There's more wasted time and money paying doctors to simply sign off or disapprove of prescription use.........use prescribed by another doctor.

It's a health record issue which means the entire process would have to be HIPAA compliant. There's more training for all the staff members, more requirements for protection of personal information, and more administrative bullshit for everyone involved.

And then to cap it all off, most of the drugs are washed from the body in a short time anyway so you're really only testing for weed. All these football players would be 100% solid if they were able to identify their testing times and cut out their adderall 3 to 4 days before pissing.

What happens if a mother or father of 2 tests positive for something? Kids just go without basic necessities because they were dealt a shitty hand by their parents?

What happens for people on government assistance in rural areas where the closest testing facility is a long ass drive? Not really a problem in urban settings but most of the biggest meth states are largely rural states. Wyoming and Missouri are like #1 and #2 (maybe #2 and #1, I can't remember anymore).

I think it'd be a nightmare.
 
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
The test itself, no.

But the staff, facilities, all the other administrative shit that would come along with accommodating hundreds of thousands of tests per week would be insane.

On top of that you'd have to have MROs who would determine if a positive test is for a valid prescription. There's more wasted time and money paying doctors to simply sign off or disapprove of prescription use.........use prescribed by another doctor.

It's a health record issue which means the entire process would have to be HIPAA compliant. There's more training for all the staff members, more requirements for protection of personal information, and more administrative bullshit for everyone involved.

And then to cap it all off, most of the drugs are washed from the body in a short time anyway so you're really only testing for weed. All these football players would be 100% solid if they were able to identify their testing times and cut out their adderall 3 to 4 days before pissing.

What happens if a mother or father of 2 tests positive for something? Kids just go without basic necessities because they were dealt a shitty hand by their parents?

What happens for people on government assistance in rural areas where the closest testing facility is a long ass drive? Not really a problem in urban settings but most of the biggest meth states are largely rural states. Wyoming and Missouri are like #1 and #2 (maybe #2 and #1, I can't remember anymore).

I think it'd be a nightmare.
Hmm, I dont necessarily disagree with all that, but I wouldnt exactly consider Utah a metropolis. And I think that there are are always going to be extenuating circumstances to deal with kids. The drug testing is designed, for the most part, to get people out of the system who are just abusing it so that they don't have to try to work.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
The test itself, no.

But the staff, facilities, all the other administrative shit that would come along with accommodating hundreds of thousands of tests per week would be insane.

I think it'd be a nightmare.

No more insane than paying people to not work and to do drugs.
 

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
It's blatantly obvious that over half of the people on assitance abuse the system.

It really pisses me off to see some lazy POS with a shopping cart packed full of food that you just know they're paying with EBT while I have to watch what I buy. I'm the one paying taxes so they can sit at home and eat better than I do. It's a joke.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
It's blatantly obvious that over half of the people on assitance abuse the system.

It really pisses me off to see some lazy POS with a shopping cart packed full of food that you just know they're paying with EBT while I have to watch what I buy. I'm the one paying taxes so they can sit at home and eat better than I do. It's a joke.

It also creates an inflationary effect on food prices. Those who choose not to work and are living off the hard work of others should have an extremely limited list of what they can purchase. Generic brands only. Fresh fruit and vegetables. No junk food, liquor, smokes etc.
 

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
I'm pretty sure they can buy whatever they want as long as it's food. I've seen people buying all kinds of junk to take back to their section 8 houses. Then in 20 years we'll be paying for their diabetes.

I love the people running this country. All handouts do is make people lazy and give them a huge sense of entitlement. Don't try to explain that to some people though.
 
Last edited:

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
Hmm, I dont necessarily disagree with all that, but I wouldnt exactly consider Utah a metropolis. And I think that there are are always going to be extenuating circumstances to deal with kids. The drug testing is designed, for the most part, to get people out of the system who are just abusing it so that they don't have to try to work.

Utah may not be a metropolis but a very significant portion of the population resides right along the Wasatch front.

To prevent people from abusing the system you don't need to institute drug testing and drug testing doesn't weed out the non-addicts who still abuse the population.
 
Top Bottom