Having MORE of them will not be an improvement.
How much longer do you want to support failed laws and expenditures in the billions for the same bad results?
They are not "failed." You call them "failed" because of unrealistic expectations given the constraints. As I have pointed out before, asserting that 2% usage by the population is a "failure" ignores the fact that 98% of the population isn't using drugs. Usage has been held down to 2% for a hundred years. Without opposition, drug usage would have continued to rise year after year.
Holding it down to a low number is a success given the tools they have to work with. Now the costs are getting out of control, but that has little to do with the mission and a *LOT* to do with the fact that all government costs are getting out of control. If you think Drug interdiction costs have gone crazy, you should look at entitlement costs.
Heres a hint. Prohibition does not stop people from using drugs, it makes gangsters rich, and it wastes law enforcement time and money.
Prohibition does indeed stop people from using drugs. China demonstrated that conclusively by doing the converse. Gangsters are only getting rich because we tolerate this level of activity. If we made it a point to kill drug dealers, they wouldn't be getting rich because they wouldn't stay in such a risky business.
While your sad stories about people being hurt by drugs are compelling, it is illogical to say that those stories justify the war on drugs.
Individually they don't. Taken collectively they do. We have real historical examples of the alternative. That world is worse than this one.
Drug dealers already make it a point to kill competing drug dealers, yet they do stay in this risky business - and when one falls he is quickly replaced.
Who said there would be more.
I’m out. Keep doing what we’re doing, it’s working so well.