US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

Quote: "United States has the war in Iraq as a priority, and long after, on the list of forgotten things is War on Drugs, although huge amounts of money have been assigned to this cause," My opponent has shown undeniably that my resolution US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective is indeed true. He has shown, that the United States has chosen a war other than the War on Drugs to pursue. Never mind that it in fact is the War on Terror it is a confirmation that the United States is not working toward an effective means toward the War on Drugs. Also approx 500 billion over the years for the Iraq war compared to 4 trillion on the War on Drugs in 2008-US drug policy obviously has priority. I would recommend you research. http://www.wired.com... Quote: "Drug dealing has reached to a high scale and now it cannot be stopped, only downgrade it to a lower scale, but, that's also hard to do" Let it be noted that my opponent has indeed confirmed further that pinpointing the "supply" side of the drug war is ineffective. It is by decreasing demand by weeding out violent criminals, and providing economic opportunities of growth whereas a community can find profit in more legitimate professions that is effective to treat the Drug War. This proves the exact point I am trying to say, to you the audience. We should be very grateful for my opponent to come to full agreement with me regarding the subject. Let me emphasize further what my evidence has indeed shown through my statistics on the War on Drugs. The two most efficient programs were Weed & Seed which cost 32 million in 2008, around $967 thousand per 1% result of a total of 33% DEA spent 2.8 billion in 2008 over $108 million per 1% of results while effectively only getting 26% of results. So essentially the US spends inefficiently $108 million by tackling the supply side of the War on Drugs as opposed the demand side- the buyers being given economic opportunity and poor neighborhoods having violent criminals taken out while those that seek treatment-require less funds to tackle the War on Drugs spending only $967,000 to get the same 1% of result measured by government assessment of the US Office of Management and Budget. Quote "The United States has done it's best against War on Drugs. The International Narcotics Control has shown that the drug dealing has not been that high in 2008, as it has been in 2007, so, as I mentioned above, the actions that the United States have done in 2008 were effective, observing that the drug dealing has had a lower rate in 2008." I would restate that the Us has not done its best, if it had it would have tackled the more -demand side of the drug war. Those that are given economic opportunities, violent crime falls, people are no longer pushed to pursue selling drugs as their means of income Drug free communities cut down the demand side of drugs and less was brought to the areas where drugs were usually a regular visitor. And also let me emphasize that my opponent has not taken the resolution to heart.... I am not debating if International policy is ineffective- I am debating if US policy is ineffective. Let me remind my audience however that just because you intervene on one supply area does not mean it ceases. Its the 'balloon effect" you put pressure on one area and it switches to another. However if you tackle the demand side, you keep the air from shifting within it. http://grassley.senate.gov... http://www.boston.com... ("Grassley, who is the chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, said he suspected that the figures were being manipulated to "provide a rosier but not necessarily more accurate picture of the current situation." As Walsh shows in great detail in the report, ONDCP suppresses the cocaine price and purity numbers that hurt it politically and trumpets those that support its claims. "This is more of the same from ONDCP; it's not surprising at all, although it's very disappointing," said Robinson. "What we showed in our book is that they selectively choose and present statistics that support their case and they ignore or downplay statistics that don't support their case, and that's what this report shows them doing as well," Drug producers have also learned to rescue, replant, fortify, and move coca bushes. Satellite imaging over the last six years has revealed a 'balloon effect," in which illicit crops are squeezed out of one region and new bushes pop up elsewhere The UN's Calvani says eradication alone will never win the drug war. Governments must 'eradicate illicit crops from the minds of the people" by simultaneously helping farmers earn a living from other crops.") efficient: Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. One of the measurements for this debate is efficiency which involves a minimum of expense and unnecessary effort. this goes to show that the Warlike tactics of the War on Drugs is ineffective and is shown not to work. The United States continues to use methods which has shown to do little as compared to treating the demands at home. Therefore there ineffectiveness reflects our failure as a country to treat the War on Drugs as what it actually is: a cancer that threatens to consume society as we know it. Also one last thing my dear opponent I meant literally illegal drugs such as cocaine or meth not prescription drugs. Morphine is not an illegal substance. Some people use illegal drugs to self medicate for their undiagnosed mental illness. Thus reflecting a greater urgency to treat the War on Drugs as a disease, and not a war. As lack of economic opportunities, violent neighborhoods, and mental illness undiagnosed creates the incentive for people to self-medicate seeking to create an imagination to which they can escape their miserable lives.