The traffickers are winning the war on drugs(economist.com)
economist.com
The traffickers are winning the war on drugs
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/10/16/the-traffickers-are-winning-the-war-on-drugs
32 comments
It's funny how we keep using the propaganda phrases the govt has fed us, like "War on Drugs". There has never been a war on drugs. The USG was instrumental in creating and proliferating the drug trade from the 1980s up to our exit from Afghanistan, and is likely still doing so.
A government is perfectly capable of doing proliferation and interdiction at the same time. On interdiction and enforcement the USG has spent over a trillion dollars and incarcerated millions since war was declared in the '70s. That ain't nothing.
That makes it sound like there was some sort of plan or strategy to try to end abuse of illegal drugs. There wasn't. First they propped up cartels in order to sell drugs. Then when our people got addicted to them, they passed draconian laws to punish the drug addicts (and marginalized communities that have no way to live except drugs). And finally they invaded and destabilized a country, enabling the mass production of cheap opium/heroin, which was sold to our citizens. The trillions of dollars and millions put in jail was to incarcerate our own citizens that we got hooked on drugs in the first place. The war wasn't on drugs, it was on communism and poor minorities.
TIL that Afghanistan resumed exporting Opium and derived goid from 2000/1 to 2022, which coincides with the US invasion of Afghanistan.
The US wanted them to import synthetic OxyContin, which is stronger and therefore more dangerous than Heroin (which can be produced from Poppy (Sr's name)).
Opium production in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanista...
--
The now $7.4B Sackler opioid pill settlement.
Also, Opioids actually prolong pain by affecting the nervous system.
--
The film "American Made" is about US government involvement in trafficking in the 1980s.
"Mandatory minimum sentences! Build more prisons! Lock up the users!"
Meanwhile they - the Republican federal government of the 1980s that recklessly deficit spent to a record degree - were involved in trafficking, were driving up the price with artificial scarcity, were dumping toxic exfoliant on campesinos in their country, where structuro-lateral adjustment by US banks that had very strongly recommended that other countries forego developing an internal economy in favor of specializing in certain exports only had failed. For example, "You (your country must only) grow wheat. Do not make washing machines for yourselves." And then the market for illicit exports that compete with the price of wheat.
Republicans have built these prisons and filled them with drug users and sellers.
Democrats have advocated for harm reduction, criminal justice reform, medicalization, and legalization.
Nixon, a Republican in the 1970s, decided that he was qualified to disagree with the interim Shaeffer report; which - like the LaGuardia report - found that cannabis should be a public health issue instead of a criminal issue. Nixon disregarded the major government-commissioned report on drugs at the time and villified drugs, druggies, anti-war idiot left on his lawn, and fucking hippies.
Should they hippocritically have access to cannabis that they have so criminalized and so victimized?
There are tens of millions of cannabis users in the US. There are thus millions of person years of wrongful incarceration.
The Right has vilified and wrongfully incarcerated unequally according to medical status, without proving intent, and with cruel and foolish disregard for the evaluations of the La Guardia commission and Shaffer report.
How can we refuse to pay for another bs junta claiming to be protecting us from severe peril while knocking out their competition, protecting their liability as sellers, and sabotaging quality control they enjoy for their essential inputs?
Somewhere there's a chart of (1) the addiction rate; and (2) and the federal and state funding schedules for criminalization of drugs.
Killing traffickers without due process presumably forces drug prices up, causes violence, and terrifies the competition.
Should the US government kill drug traffickers without due process? The former president of the Philippines should not have been killing people for drugs without due process.
If you murder (foreign traffickers, goy women and children, towlies, etc.) without positive identification or due process or presenting credentials, you cannot be the "good guy" to Americans who know the law and stick to their values.
The US wanted them to import synthetic OxyContin, which is stronger and therefore more dangerous than Heroin (which can be produced from Poppy (Sr's name)).
Opium production in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanista...
--
The now $7.4B Sackler opioid pill settlement.
Also, Opioids actually prolong pain by affecting the nervous system.
--
The film "American Made" is about US government involvement in trafficking in the 1980s.
"Mandatory minimum sentences! Build more prisons! Lock up the users!"
Meanwhile they - the Republican federal government of the 1980s that recklessly deficit spent to a record degree - were involved in trafficking, were driving up the price with artificial scarcity, were dumping toxic exfoliant on campesinos in their country, where structuro-lateral adjustment by US banks that had very strongly recommended that other countries forego developing an internal economy in favor of specializing in certain exports only had failed. For example, "You (your country must only) grow wheat. Do not make washing machines for yourselves." And then the market for illicit exports that compete with the price of wheat.
Republicans have built these prisons and filled them with drug users and sellers.
Democrats have advocated for harm reduction, criminal justice reform, medicalization, and legalization.
Nixon, a Republican in the 1970s, decided that he was qualified to disagree with the interim Shaeffer report; which - like the LaGuardia report - found that cannabis should be a public health issue instead of a criminal issue. Nixon disregarded the major government-commissioned report on drugs at the time and villified drugs, druggies, anti-war idiot left on his lawn, and fucking hippies.
Should they hippocritically have access to cannabis that they have so criminalized and so victimized?
There are tens of millions of cannabis users in the US. There are thus millions of person years of wrongful incarceration.
The Right has vilified and wrongfully incarcerated unequally according to medical status, without proving intent, and with cruel and foolish disregard for the evaluations of the La Guardia commission and Shaffer report.
How can we refuse to pay for another bs junta claiming to be protecting us from severe peril while knocking out their competition, protecting their liability as sellers, and sabotaging quality control they enjoy for their essential inputs?
Somewhere there's a chart of (1) the addiction rate; and (2) and the federal and state funding schedules for criminalization of drugs.
Killing traffickers without due process presumably forces drug prices up, causes violence, and terrifies the competition.
Should the US government kill drug traffickers without due process? The former president of the Philippines should not have been killing people for drugs without due process.
If you murder (foreign traffickers, goy women and children, towlies, etc.) without positive identification or due process or presenting credentials, you cannot be the "good guy" to Americans who know the law and stick to their values.
> Also, Opioids actually prolong pain by affecting the nervous system.
Outrageous claims require significant citation, of which yours has zero.
Outrageous claims require significant citation, of which yours has zero.
I used drugs recreationally. I don't like to talk about it. I especially don't like to talk about it online on a profile that's very heavily linked to my identity. Over many years of regular use of all kinds of different drugs, I have identified the war on drugs -- not drugs themselves -- to be the persistent threat to my safety, health, psyche and existence. Merely talking about this like I'm doing right now is a gigantic risk I am taking. And this means honest communication between the sides is non-existent. If you are a rational and a thinking person, you should eschew the persistent harassment and demonization of an entire societal layer that is the war on drugs.
What that means practically? Don't call the police on that one person smoking weed in a park or smoking fentanyl or injecting heroin on your bus if they are not bothering you. Don't make that joke about how crackheads are making this town dirty. Be humane. Be kind. Don't get dragged as a combatant into the war you know nothing about and that doesn't matter to you personally.
What that means practically? Don't call the police on that one person smoking weed in a park or smoking fentanyl or injecting heroin on your bus if they are not bothering you. Don't make that joke about how crackheads are making this town dirty. Be humane. Be kind. Don't get dragged as a combatant into the war you know nothing about and that doesn't matter to you personally.
"Australia seems to consume more cocaine per person than any other country."
Yep, when ever I meantion cocaine as a joke half the office lights up like I was about to offer it to them. It is wild to see how prevelant under the surface it is.
All I think about is that in a few hundred year there will be the myths/stories of the excessive fools that were so blitzed that they boiled the planet. Incorrect but partially based on fact.
Yep, when ever I meantion cocaine as a joke half the office lights up like I was about to offer it to them. It is wild to see how prevelant under the surface it is.
All I think about is that in a few hundred year there will be the myths/stories of the excessive fools that were so blitzed that they boiled the planet. Incorrect but partially based on fact.
> in Australia [a kilo] can reach over $250,000
WTF?! Why is it so expensive in Australia?
WTF?! Why is it so expensive in Australia?
It is wealthy people in highly affluent harbourside suburbs who are the customers for cocaine in Australia.
It is not being consumed by 'junkies'.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/affluent-suburb-called-drug-issue-...
Boomers with seven or more rental houses:
It might relate to amateurs dealing with sharks and the ocean increasing the risk - Australian airports are pretty tight for bulk smuggling, transit shipping through the ports is looser, but the preferred method for tonnes of drugs is to transfer from a container ship to a small boat - which often goes wrong (not enough to stem the tide, enough to see a tonne of coke on the beach every year).
eg: Mexico to WA: Couriers sentenced for massive 1.2 tonne cocaine conspiracy (2025)
Despite a cost-of-living crisis, Dr Hurley said there are enough people with plenty of disposable cash to ensure the demand remains high.
"We generally have a good standard of living, therefore we can afford the price of cocaine."
It might relate to amateurs dealing with sharks and the ocean increasing the risk - Australian airports are pretty tight for bulk smuggling, transit shipping through the ports is looser, but the preferred method for tonnes of drugs is to transfer from a container ship to a small boat - which often goes wrong (not enough to stem the tide, enough to see a tonne of coke on the beach every year).
eg: Mexico to WA: Couriers sentenced for massive 1.2 tonne cocaine conspiracy (2025)
Six men have been sentenced over the attempted importation of 1.2 tonnes of cocaine that was shipped from Mexico to WA shores in 2022, with their bungled and “comical” attempts to retrieve it played out in front of a Perth court.
...
At the time it was the largest drug bust in Australian history and was part of an even bigger interception of around a billion dollars worth of cocaine that was destined for our shores.
Heavily cut with cheaper substances, with no alternatives
It's an island with a small number of ports and airports that are easier to monitor?
The US state uses drug money to fund covert operations, so we're never "winning" the war. See reporting by Gary Webb in the 1980s (Dark Alliance, later admitted by the CIA years after his suicide) or the amazing conversion of Afghanistan into the #1 opium hub under U.S. occupation (with pretty photos of U.S. soldiers guarding poppy fields).
The problem with the "war on drugs" is that it treats "supply" as the problem.
It's always been about blaming drug cartels, smugglers, distributors etc. Drug possession is the crime, drug use is the crime, drug supply is the crime.
The theory seems to be that if only drugs were not available, people would not use them.
All evidence points the other way. Drugs satisfy, but do not create [1] the need. In the absence of illicit drugs alcohol, prescription meds etc flourish.
It seems to me that there's a missing understanding of why people want to take drugs. Is it just addiction? (If so, why not spend those billions on addiction relief?) Is it boredom? Desperation? Something else?
To win the "war on drugs" its important to understand "demand" not just supply. Without demand supply is meaningless. Whereas Cutting supply means nothing. All you do is promote other suppliers, other ways to achieve the same effect.
I'm not against policing the borders for drugs. But watching "border patrol", and seeing endless (justifiably) self-satisfied officers finding drugs, wondering "so what?". Clearly drugs are freely available (despite this bust). Clearly demand is unabated.
To me the key question at the heart of yhe war seems completely unmentioned;
"Why are people using drugs?"
[1] yes, I'm aware not all drugs are the same. Once hooked on heroin you need more heroin. This doesn't negate my root point.
It's always been about blaming drug cartels, smugglers, distributors etc. Drug possession is the crime, drug use is the crime, drug supply is the crime.
The theory seems to be that if only drugs were not available, people would not use them.
All evidence points the other way. Drugs satisfy, but do not create [1] the need. In the absence of illicit drugs alcohol, prescription meds etc flourish.
It seems to me that there's a missing understanding of why people want to take drugs. Is it just addiction? (If so, why not spend those billions on addiction relief?) Is it boredom? Desperation? Something else?
To win the "war on drugs" its important to understand "demand" not just supply. Without demand supply is meaningless. Whereas Cutting supply means nothing. All you do is promote other suppliers, other ways to achieve the same effect.
I'm not against policing the borders for drugs. But watching "border patrol", and seeing endless (justifiably) self-satisfied officers finding drugs, wondering "so what?". Clearly drugs are freely available (despite this bust). Clearly demand is unabated.
To me the key question at the heart of yhe war seems completely unmentioned;
"Why are people using drugs?"
[1] yes, I'm aware not all drugs are the same. Once hooked on heroin you need more heroin. This doesn't negate my root point.
>>Once hooked on heroin you need more heroin
No, you need your daily dosage you are used to. I was an addict for a short time and then went to rehab and never did it since 10 years. And yes, like you said, the demand is there. Every day and must be satisfied. Over here in europe, we have substitution clinics and doctors where you are given polamidon or subutex(dont know whats its called somewhere else) to get you from the streets and injecting doubtable mixtures and catch hepatitis and aids. But not all people qualify for that, so they still have to go to the streets. As an addict myself, i can say, it was dire living conditions, unemployment, the wrong friends and some more factors. Sure it was fun the first times, i used to consume alcohol, which is especially totally legal in bavaria(Oktoberfest) i use to live. Then, the streets are washed with drugs, people making a huge amount of money from it and replacing a decent job and income with drug dealing. But, there is help. I undergone rehab, now living a good life, can afford an exlusive hobby and got married. People that will use drugs are born every second on this earth ball. Times are changing, not every time for the better. We have crisis, wars and other shit while an elite group of people getting richer the same second every day and celebrating their success with cocaine that makes you think you were given the nobel prize at the same time you won the lottery. Especially coke is the drug of the wealthy and successful people, thats why the demand is high and everyone wants his bit of the cake....
No, you need your daily dosage you are used to. I was an addict for a short time and then went to rehab and never did it since 10 years. And yes, like you said, the demand is there. Every day and must be satisfied. Over here in europe, we have substitution clinics and doctors where you are given polamidon or subutex(dont know whats its called somewhere else) to get you from the streets and injecting doubtable mixtures and catch hepatitis and aids. But not all people qualify for that, so they still have to go to the streets. As an addict myself, i can say, it was dire living conditions, unemployment, the wrong friends and some more factors. Sure it was fun the first times, i used to consume alcohol, which is especially totally legal in bavaria(Oktoberfest) i use to live. Then, the streets are washed with drugs, people making a huge amount of money from it and replacing a decent job and income with drug dealing. But, there is help. I undergone rehab, now living a good life, can afford an exlusive hobby and got married. People that will use drugs are born every second on this earth ball. Times are changing, not every time for the better. We have crisis, wars and other shit while an elite group of people getting richer the same second every day and celebrating their success with cocaine that makes you think you were given the nobel prize at the same time you won the lottery. Especially coke is the drug of the wealthy and successful people, thats why the demand is high and everyone wants his bit of the cake....
> The problem with the "war on drugs" is that it treats "supply" as the problem.
Well, that's because supply _is_ the actual problem.
The real issue is that our government isn't attacking the supply side hard enough. Believe me, if we wanted dealers and cartels to "go away permanently", we could make it happen.
The issue is whether or not we have the will to make this kind of thing happen.
Well, that's because supply _is_ the actual problem.
The real issue is that our government isn't attacking the supply side hard enough. Believe me, if we wanted dealers and cartels to "go away permanently", we could make it happen.
The issue is whether or not we have the will to make this kind of thing happen.
> The problem with the "war on drugs" is that it treats "supply" as the problem.
That's a relatively recent situation. Many, many users have been incarcerated in the U.S.
That's a relatively recent situation. Many, many users have been incarcerated in the U.S.
> It's always been about blaming drug cartels, smugglers, distributors etc.
As it should be.
Violent drug cartels have so much money they can raise private armies. Literally. They are known to hire actual soldiers. In my country they dominate over a quarter of our massive territory. They have created their own parallel governments, complete with laws and tribunals. They even collect taxes from their subjects. The sentence for tax evasion is death.
The only problem with the "war" on drugs is the fact it wasn't actually a war, it was just regular police work. Trump finally turned it into a war when he started ordering US ships to destroy drug boats on sight. That's how it's done.
Yes, that's how you deal with these barbarous and belligerent governments we call "drug cartels". You recognize their existence. You recognize their hostility. You recognize their barbarity, their daily human rights violations. You classify them as terrorist organizations. You actually go to war with them. You treat every single person employed by them as an enemy combatant. You order their total and unconditional surrender. You kill them if they don't comply. You nuke them out of existence if necessary.
Fail to do so and they will infiltrate and subvert every facet of society, every institution. In my country it's theorized that they control a significant amount of judges. The legal system has turned into a joke where drug traffickers are routinely released, they even give them their drug cash back. Entire movies are made about how police tends to form a peaceful coexistence equilibrium with drug traffickers, allowing it to continue.
Can you imagine what it's like to live in this narcostate shithole? Not a day goes by without news of some drug related atrocity being published. Can you imagine what it's like to try to raise a family here? Knowing that at any moment some drug gang can just decide to come to my home and spray paint a message saying I have 24 hours to get the fuck out or be killed?
The only thing that prevents these barbarians from taking over whatever country you live in is extreme violence. You have people on your side literally going to war with them on your behalf. Rejoice, for I do not.
As it should be.
Violent drug cartels have so much money they can raise private armies. Literally. They are known to hire actual soldiers. In my country they dominate over a quarter of our massive territory. They have created their own parallel governments, complete with laws and tribunals. They even collect taxes from their subjects. The sentence for tax evasion is death.
The only problem with the "war" on drugs is the fact it wasn't actually a war, it was just regular police work. Trump finally turned it into a war when he started ordering US ships to destroy drug boats on sight. That's how it's done.
Yes, that's how you deal with these barbarous and belligerent governments we call "drug cartels". You recognize their existence. You recognize their hostility. You recognize their barbarity, their daily human rights violations. You classify them as terrorist organizations. You actually go to war with them. You treat every single person employed by them as an enemy combatant. You order their total and unconditional surrender. You kill them if they don't comply. You nuke them out of existence if necessary.
Fail to do so and they will infiltrate and subvert every facet of society, every institution. In my country it's theorized that they control a significant amount of judges. The legal system has turned into a joke where drug traffickers are routinely released, they even give them their drug cash back. Entire movies are made about how police tends to form a peaceful coexistence equilibrium with drug traffickers, allowing it to continue.
Can you imagine what it's like to live in this narcostate shithole? Not a day goes by without news of some drug related atrocity being published. Can you imagine what it's like to try to raise a family here? Knowing that at any moment some drug gang can just decide to come to my home and spray paint a message saying I have 24 hours to get the fuck out or be killed?
The only thing that prevents these barbarians from taking over whatever country you live in is extreme violence. You have people on your side literally going to war with them on your behalf. Rejoice, for I do not.
The purpose of a system is what it does: in 50-plus years, the war on drugs has never decreased the supply of drugs, but it has locked up lots of dark-skinned people and given police forces money and excuses to arm themselves like warlords. I doubt anyone even really wants to win the war on drugs— winning it would be completely counterproductive to its actual goal— so it should come as no surprise that we’re not.
Do you understand what "winning" the drug war would entail?
Realistically, it would involve making anyone who was involved in importing or selling illegal drugs disappear instead of just imprisoning them for a while and then letting them out to do it again.
You got the stomach for it?
Realistically, it would involve making anyone who was involved in importing or selling illegal drugs disappear instead of just imprisoning them for a while and then letting them out to do it again.
You got the stomach for it?
Or you could just end the war by declaring drugs as legal?
Encourage farmers to grow the source plants, and the pharmaceutical companies to make the end products. Sell them in pharmacies, and maybe licensed dealers (as is done with alcohol).
War done. Tax raised. Victory is declared.
Encourage farmers to grow the source plants, and the pharmaceutical companies to make the end products. Sell them in pharmacies, and maybe licensed dealers (as is done with alcohol).
War done. Tax raised. Victory is declared.
It's not too late to legalize and regulate.
[deleted]
> Divers weld “parasite” pods of cocaine onto the hulls of ships so often that in Cartagena port watchmen are paid to sit in a tiny boat about 50 metres offshore all day and night to look for telltale bubbles. (To keep this lonely job they must pass a polygraph test every six months.)
Good to know only the really good liars keep their jobs.
Good to know only the really good liars keep their jobs.