Do you think that most politicans support it because they believe that it helps the public or because they receive campaign contributions from drug cartels or members of drug cartels?
I think the liquor and cigarette cartels are pleased that there’s a War on Drugs, not to mention the vast police state apparatus ever-expanding at its behest.
it sounds like the right thing to support if you are running for office… I am pretty sure saying “Let’s put an end to all drugs for the sake of our children and future generations!” would get somebody way more votes than saying “Let’s eliminate the war on drugs, for that is the reason for the drug cartels power!” The majority of people do not think outside the box and would be attracted to the pro-war on drugs statement.
it is war on people, not drugs. People get murdered enjoying their own bodies. No-brainer.
There’s also doublethink at work in the minds of most people. If asked, they’d rightly say alcohol prohibition was ineffectual and harmful to society, yet they can’t apply the same conclusions to drug prohibition.
I think the liquor and cigarette cartels are pleased that there’s a War on Drugs, not to mention the vast police state apparatus ever-expanding at its behest.
Not to mention pharmasutical companies(including medical marijuana dispeneries), and churches and nanny-statists who feel the need to push their moral views onto everybody.
Its pretty much the ‘bootleggers and Baptists’ model.
Politicians support/promote the “war on drugs” because it gets them votes.
Voters support/promote the “war on drugs” because they believe it keeps them safe even if it doesn’t. Why would drugs be any different from other positions voters take that has very little to do with economic logic?
Criminals support/promote the “war on drugs” because it makes their product more valuable. If they support certain politicians, it’s just to make sure those politicians who support no laws/regulations on drugs lose. They don’t even want to hear about legalization.
The media support/promote the war on drugs because it sells. Either there’s a big drug bust, which is news, or there’s government incompetence, which is news. They can also cover the legalization side as a bunch of nut-jobs, which is also news. News has very little to do with the Truth these days.
I have had arguments with conservatives over this. I advocated the legalization of all drugs, which people won’t engage me on because it is too out there. We usually end up arguing over marijuana. The argument I hear is that marijuana is different than alcohol because it reduces productivity. I counter that, if true, there are market consequences for those actors. This leads to them saying, yeah but the tax payers will have to foot the bill. I counter with “let’s get rid of those programs, too.” Then they consider that too unrealistic.
I’m pretty sure that moderate consumption of marijuana doesnt reduce productivity any more than moderate consumption of alchoal. Just like most people who drink do so on the weekends or evenings, Most people who smoke do so on the weekends, or after work as a way to relax, they arent constantly high.
In any case, overconsumption of pretty much anything can lead to a reduction of productivity. So we should ban the use of anything people enjoy, lest we risk having people who overconsume and reduce their productivity…
Every society needs its boogeymen. People need to believe there’s some mysterious, sinister threat to their existence which can only be stopped by a “thin red line o’ heroes”. Politicians need these boogeymen to stay in power and increase their influence: right now, with the threat of great real wars removed from the public’s thoughts they need to turn everything into a threat to society. People will be much more likely to swallow the disgusting dish in front of them if it’s covered in militaristic sauce: everybody should make sacrifices during a war! And everything these days turns into a war: war on poverty, war on pollution, war on terror, war on drugs… People at home should do their part, of course: report potential spies/saboteurs, save fuel/rubber, buy victory bonds and support the troops. Anything less is unpatriotic.
Of course there are a few twists to this: during a real war your children can be drafted in the army and return home in a coffin or on a wheelchair. Enemy bombers can turn your home in a pile of rubble. You really need to tighten the belt because even such essentials as fuel and meat are rationed. Present wars only require “small sacrificies” and, more importantly, always affect “somebody else”. The War on Drugs is all about “somebody else”. It’s high school students who should be put through compulsory drug tests and have their belongings sniffed by K9’s, not “us”. FLIR equipped helicopters should look for pot inside other people’s houses, not “ours”. This is very important for the average voter. Of course there comes a time when this attitude bites him back with a vengeance. Some European governments are cosidering mandatory drug tests for “sensitive professions” whose list is a mile long. “Drug warriors” are becoming more and more aggressive: right now all it takes for your phone to be put under control is if your number appears in the mobile of somebody caught with a few ounces of pot. You may just have business relationships with him and know nothing about his private life but that doesn’t matter to the “drug warriors”. Their career comes first, your rights are at the bottom of the list.
For the politician and the common man this is about as deep as the argument goes… Almost literally
Among other reasons. You support ending the Drug War because you want my little Johnny to sell his body for heroin.