2010-03-18
Winning the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism
The war on drugs is a lot like the war on terrorism. There are always going to be idiots out there who will stop at nothing to screw up their minds and blow people up. No matter what we do, there will always be drug users and there will always be terrorists. That isn't to say that neither war cannot be won and should not be fought (as Libertarians and many Democrats will tell you). I've said we should fight the war on drugs like the war on terror since 2001. Instead, we need to drastically change our method for fighting these wars in the 21st century and our perception of the enemy.
The most common distinction already understood by most people who care is that these are wars without front lines. Our enemies, the terrorists and drug users and pushers, rarely take stands to defend their turf and not only use and blow up stuff in what are considered "hot spots" but also in neighborhoods not typically associated with extremism or drug abuse.
The other thing to consider is that these are not "common criminals." Like terrorists, drug users come from a variety of different backgrounds and social classes. Like drug users, terrorists find their way to terrorism through a variety of motives. Whereas drugs are often used to solve conflicts taking place within one's self, terrorism is used to solve conflicts taking place within one's community. Both, however, are seeking to correct something that is wrong - internally or externally. In both cases, terrorists and drug users are making the situation worse, often times without realizing it.
What I find interesting is how differently we handle prisoners of these wars. Terrorists are held indefinitely by the United States, yet drug users are held only temporarily under short term prison sentences. The reason I find this interesting is because Saudi Arabia, India, Russia, and Britain (among others) have all released captured terrorists and they have gone on to live peaceful lives as productive members of their communities. This is because a terrorist is not necessarily beyond reason and can, in fact, be convinced that there are better ways to solve the injustices of his world -OR- the injustice can actually be solved, thus removing the temptation to resort to violence.
Drug users, on the other hand, aren't so lucky. Addicts become addicts because the drugs they use have created a permanent, irreversible chemical imbalance in their brains. You can convince the addict that drugs are bad for him or her, but when released from custody, there will ALWAYS be an intense temptation to use again.
So essentially, the policies we have regarding the duration of the incarceration of drug prisoners and terrorists is completely backwards.
Now, there are some terrorists and some drug criminals that need to be held indefinitely. Anyone involved in the production, transportation, or sale of drugs (the supply side) needs to be held in prison until the day that they die. Similarly, leaders and recruiters of terrorist organizations need to also be held for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, the drug suppliers and terrorist leaders need to be held in institutions where they will have no contact or interaction with the outside in order to avoid the passing on of trade secrets or other information that would give those on the outside any more information than they already have (a.k.a. who not to trust).
Not all terrorists and drug criminals should be held indefinitely, however. This is already an incredible drain on tax payers and if the policy were to be extended to drug users as well as terrorists; over the course of 80 years, it would cost so much money that it'd be hard to justify it anymore.
That's why drug users, as well as some terrorists, should be placed in specialized facilities that work to reform a person's behavior and outlook rather than treat them as common criminals or hold them as masterminds and ideologues. The punishment for these crimes should take a "not less than x years" style, without setting a maximum. After all, if a person isn't reformed - be he a terrorist or drug user - he or she should not be released from custody to continue bringing havoc to the communities they live in and around.
The process for release is something that would have to be much more heavily researched and investigated, but it should not happen until they pose only the most minimal threat to society possible.
