9 ms·

There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful cr

by kawa 11y ago

There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing. The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay on the track of keeping most drugs illegal, so that the drug lords and cartels can continue to earn money. So does really anybody wonder why the (obviously totally pointless) "war on drugs" is still waged and will probably waged for quite a while?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view that's blocking them - the first pharmaceutical company to step up and vote for legalization could face a serious PR shitstorm centered about morality of "legitimizing addiction".
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability. They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    You're right. As long as there are limits to access to drugs, there will be some market for getting them illicitly - even if for convenience reasons (say, getting prescription drugs without a prescription). The question is, whether that market will be big enough to support organized crime the way the war on drugs does.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  > So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health, and pharma industry selling that stuff -- even if completely pure and legitimate -- would be disastrous for their public image, and profits. The public will want separate recreational drug companies (but even then there will be "revelations" that Big Pharma is "secretly" producing harmful drugs in factories that are also used for production of legitimate, useful medication).
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    "Dangerous" is too vague to be useful. There's plenty of legal, commercially produced opioids and opiates. Those have been well studied and have a variety of adverse reactions if not used delicately. However, they're perceived as "medicine" or "useful drugs" and hence do not have the same stigma.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      If "dangerous" is too vague, then "untested" is valid. You can absolutely get me on board with the "DEA/FDA limit testing of illegal substances" rebuttal, but you can't say the variety of illegal substances have been as well tested through customer dosage as something that currently goes to market.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I think the biggest advantage Big Pharma would have over the cartels and fly-by-night drug makers is that legitimate companies are held accountable to quality and safety standards, therefore you can be sure that you're buying a drug produced following a proper process and contains only what it's supposed to. A lot of deaths from (illegal) drug use is caused by impurities and not by the drug itself, and illicit actors don't have incentives to reduce them.
  - wz1000 11y ago
    > Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use. They are the same kind of thing, recreational drugs just happen to be used for, well, recreation. Some recreational chemicals are even less dangerous than drugs you can get OTC. For example, LSD has a stellar safety record. There are no recorded overdoses on it, and no known long term physical side effects. It is impossible to get addicted to LSD, because frequent use builds up a massive short term tolerance extremely quickly. Contrast that with acetaminophen. It is widely and cheaply available, overused by a large number of people and it does some serious damage to your liver. You can also overdose on it. Also, the pharmaceutical industry already produces many chemicals that are used recreationally, like opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines(including methamphetamine), various other stimulants, ketamine, DXM etc. Infact, the only class of popular recreational compounds they don't produce happen to be the comparatively much safer psychedelics including tryptamines, phenylethylamines and lysergamides.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Firstly because they are well known drugs which they can't patent and make big profits off, their interest is in novel drugs which they can invent and profit off. Secondly they are a part of the system, and many drugs can actually threaten their model, like if mushrooms proved effective for depression, it could affect their sales of anti-depressants.
fsloth 11y ago
I have no idea if gangsters partake in lobbying but I find it hard to believe it would be the main cause for the continuing policies. Some hold the view that the war on drugs is mainly ideological. Chomsky has quite a critical view of the matter. E.g. "So there are two possibilities: Either those conducting the Drug War are lunatics, or they have another purpose." http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  What's interesting is that the CIA has been proven to be involved in the drug trade, and they need untraceable money for covert operations quite frequently. Also this trade is so lucrative, that massive banks are quite involved in it too. What's more, large corporations in the US are py directly involve in selling dangerous narcotics around the world, it's called to tobacco and it's the most lethal drug sold in the world. It's interesting, Chomsky points out that we in the US feel entitled to send helicopters to spray coca crops and troops into Colombia to burn coca crops etc. Well hard drugs kill not even 1% of the amount of people tobacco kills, so what if China were to send helicopters and troops to destroy tobacco plantations in Virginia? Would that be acceptable?
  - user_0001 11y ago
    Whilst US made tobacco certainly does kill many Chinese, the vast majority of it is Chinese tobacco. The cheap <50c a packet type
  - talmand 11y ago
    In those cases, a government destroying drug crops is not about saving lives, it's about money. Illegal drug cartels do not pay taxes, tobacco plantations in Virginia do.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      This sounds like another argument for marijuana plantations in Virginia.

by kawa 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view that's blocking them - the first pharmaceutical company to step up and vote for legalization could face a serious PR shitstorm centered about morality of "legitimizing addiction".

maxerickson 11y ago
Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability. They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You're right. As long as there are limits to access to drugs, there will be some market for getting them illicitly - even if for convenience reasons (say, getting prescription drugs without a prescription). The question is, whether that market will be big enough to support organized crime the way the war on drugs does.
ptaipale 11y ago
> So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health, and pharma industry selling that stuff -- even if completely pure and legitimate -- would be disastrous for their public image, and profits. The public will want separate recreational drug companies (but even then there will be "revelations" that Big Pharma is "secretly" producing harmful drugs in factories that are also used for production of legitimate, useful medication).
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  "Dangerous" is too vague to be useful. There's plenty of legal, commercially produced opioids and opiates. Those have been well studied and have a variety of adverse reactions if not used delicately. However, they're perceived as "medicine" or "useful drugs" and hence do not have the same stigma.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    If "dangerous" is too vague, then "untested" is valid. You can absolutely get me on board with the "DEA/FDA limit testing of illegal substances" rebuttal, but you can't say the variety of illegal substances have been as well tested through customer dosage as something that currently goes to market.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I think the biggest advantage Big Pharma would have over the cartels and fly-by-night drug makers is that legitimate companies are held accountable to quality and safety standards, therefore you can be sure that you're buying a drug produced following a proper process and contains only what it's supposed to. A lot of deaths from (illegal) drug use is caused by impurities and not by the drug itself, and illicit actors don't have incentives to reduce them.
- wz1000 11y ago
  > Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use. They are the same kind of thing, recreational drugs just happen to be used for, well, recreation. Some recreational chemicals are even less dangerous than drugs you can get OTC. For example, LSD has a stellar safety record. There are no recorded overdoses on it, and no known long term physical side effects. It is impossible to get addicted to LSD, because frequent use builds up a massive short term tolerance extremely quickly. Contrast that with acetaminophen. It is widely and cheaply available, overused by a large number of people and it does some serious damage to your liver. You can also overdose on it. Also, the pharmaceutical industry already produces many chemicals that are used recreationally, like opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines(including methamphetamine), various other stimulants, ketamine, DXM etc. Infact, the only class of popular recreational compounds they don't produce happen to be the comparatively much safer psychedelics including tryptamines, phenylethylamines and lysergamides.
Synaesthesia 11y ago
Firstly because they are well known drugs which they can't patent and make big profits off, their interest is in novel drugs which they can invent and profit off. Secondly they are a part of the system, and many drugs can actually threaten their model, like if mushrooms proved effective for depression, it could affect their sales of anti-depressants.

fsloth 11y ago

I have no idea if gangsters partake in lobbying but I find it hard to believe it would be the main cause for the continuing policies. Some hold the view that the war on drugs is mainly ideological. Chomsky has quite a critical view of the matter. E.g. "So there are two possibilities: Either those conducting the Drug War are lunatics, or they have another purpose." http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky

Synaesthesia 11y ago
What's interesting is that the CIA has been proven to be involved in the drug trade, and they need untraceable money for covert operations quite frequently. Also this trade is so lucrative, that massive banks are quite involved in it too. What's more, large corporations in the US are py directly involve in selling dangerous narcotics around the world, it's called to tobacco and it's the most lethal drug sold in the world. It's interesting, Chomsky points out that we in the US feel entitled to send helicopters to spray coca crops and troops into Colombia to burn coca crops etc. Well hard drugs kill not even 1% of the amount of people tobacco kills, so what if China were to send helicopters and troops to destroy tobacco plantations in Virginia? Would that be acceptable?
- user_0001 11y ago
  Whilst US made tobacco certainly does kill many Chinese, the vast majority of it is Chinese tobacco. The cheap <50c a packet type
- talmand 11y ago
  In those cases, a government destroying drug crops is not about saving lives, it's about money. Illegal drug cartels do not pay taxes, tobacco plantations in Virginia do.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    This sounds like another argument for marijuana plantations in Virginia.