The war on drugs ..

[wez]

I don't wanna divert the Maddy post, and this topic really deserves it's own thread..

 

 

The war on drugs was the worst decision the US government ever made in it's entire existence. It is destroying our nation from the inside out. We need a serious overhaul. I thought this was a free country? Not as free as Amsterdam apparently..

 

What are your thoughts on the Ronnie (big government) Reagan, just say no, drug war? Seems the liquer and pharmacuetical companies don't want everyone to "just say no"..

[wez]

Personally, I don't think anyone should ever go to prison for drugs unless another crime was involved, which, I don't think would happen if the illegality of certain drugs were removed. It's the illegality itself that fuels these violent underworlds of crimes against persons and property. Didn't we learn that in the 1920's?

[eddo]

hell, if we make everything legal, no one would ever be in jail.

 

That's much easier than just following the laws...

[snafu]

You beat me to it wez. I was in the prosses of saying something in the Maddy thread, before I had to get up and do some work that, that thread should be split in two.

[wez]

hell, if we make everything legal, no one would ever be in jail.

 

That's much easier than just following the laws...

 

 

No ones gonna force you to do drugs.. Why should Marijuana be illegal? To make it worth money and create a market is the reason I think.... People don't need fancy smancy factories and distribution networks of commerce to grow a plant and dry it out. It would become virtually worthless, as far as monetary value is concerned..

[snafu]

hell, if we make everything legal, no one would ever be in jail.

 

That's much easier than just following the laws...

 

I really used to think that but I've seen how some drugs can be so destructive. I think it was TJ that said they aren't victimless crimes. And I tend to agree. However locking up the users for long sentences arent' helping anything. Hospitalization and intervention would help a whole lot more. Pot shouldn't even be encluded.

[eddo]

and for the record, I don't have any issue with someone doing drugs (legal and/or illegal) in their home, on their own time. Wanna kill your braincells? Well, their your braincells. Have at it. Wanna drink yourself to death? again, it's your life, have at it.

 

 

Where I have the issue is when that crosses the line and people neglect their children, or get behind the wheel, or in someway negativley affect someone else by their desire to get drunk or high.

 

We as Americans have proven time and time again that we are to stupid to be able to control ourselves when we are under the influence.

 

How to fix it? I'm really not sure.

[eddo]

I really used to think that but I've seen how some drugs can be so destructive. I think it was TJ that said they aren't victimless crimes. And I tend to agree. However locking up the users for long sentences arent' helping anything. Hospitalization and intervention would help a whole lot more. Pot shouldn't even be encluded.

 

Safu, I was referring to everything- killing, stealing, raping, drugs, etc. - make it all legal if our goal is more to keep people out of jail that it is to promote a society that protects those that cannot protect themselves.

[wez]

Safu, I was referring to everything- killing, stealing, raping, drugs, etc. - make it all legal if our goal is more to keep people out of jail that it is to promote a society that protects those that cannot protect themselves.

 

Why is it all or nothing? Lets make everything illegal. It's easy to control people when you set them up to be a "criminal".

[snafu]

Safu, I was referring to everything- killing, stealing, raping, drugs, etc. - make it all legal if our goal is more to keep people out of jail that it is to promote a society that protects those that cannot protect themselves.

 

I would hope you were being facetious.

I was only referring to drugs.

[wez]

and for the record, I don't have any issue with someone doing drugs (legal and/or illegal) in their home, on their own time. Wanna kill your braincells? Well, their your braincells. Have at it. Wanna drink yourself to death? again, it's your life, have at it.

 

 

Where I have the issue is when that crosses the line and people neglect their children, or get behind the wheel, or in someway negativley affect someone else by their desire to get drunk or high.

 

We as Americans have proven time and time again that we are to stupid to be able to control ourselves when we are under the influence.

 

How to fix it? I'm really not sure.

 

I agree eddo, definetely consequenses for harming another be it a child or wiping out a family drunk driving.. As there are now. But all the other crap, harming everyone. That's the thing, these laws don't stop people from becoming under the influence in the first place.

[eddo]

That's the thing, these laws don't stop people from becoming under the influence in the first place.

 

So we should just give up and make it ok?

 

I don't buy that. I feel that, and I may be wrong, there are people that don't get high because they know it is illegal. There are always going to be those that disagree with the legality of drugs, and do it anyway, but I think there are some that abide by the laws.

 

Making it legal would only increase the use & the abuse, and thus the harming of others that I mentioned earlier would increase.

 

I don't think that is the answer.

 

the laws are there for a reason, and I have never met a pot smoker that didn't know what he was doing was illegal. Do the crime, be prepared to do the time- again- that's your personal choice, but you know the possible consequences going into it.

[wez]

So we should just give up and make it ok?

 

I don't buy that. I feel that, and I may be wrong, there are people that don't get high because they know it is illegal. There are always going to be those that disagree with the legality of drugs, and do it anyway, but I think there are some that abide by the laws.

 

Making it legal would only increase the use & the abuse, and thus the harming of others that I mentioned earlier would increase.

 

I don't think that is the answer.

 

the laws are there for a reason, and I have never met a pot smoker that didn't know what he was doing was illegal. Do the crime, be prepared to do the time- again- that's your personal choice, but you know the possible consequences going into it.

 

Since alcohol by a mile is the largest culprit, shouldn't that be illegal then according to the theory?

[Jhony5]

You beat me to it wez. I was in the prosses of saying something in the Maddy thread, before I had to get up and do some work that, that thread should be split in two.

 

Yep. Me and TJ have gone off on a far away tangent in that thread.

 

 

Making it legal would only increase the use & the abuse, and thus the harming of others that I mentioned earlier would increase.

How do you know this? Drugs are very prevalent. Anyone whom wishes to do drugs can by all means do them. Sure a few stragglers might try pot if it was legal, because it is legal. But all in all I think those of us whom want to seek pharmacia will do so regardless of laws against it.

 

The conventional approach to the war on drugs was (Pre-1980's) to attack the big time suppliers, the kingpins and foreign traffickers. Ya know, the guys that were making millions. This proved to be too difficult. The Regan administration had an epiphany; Instead of cutting of the supply, cut off the buyer. Why chop the plant down at the roots when it requires far less effort to cut it down piece by piece from the top?

 

Because the "plant" grows back. The small times guys go to jail for a week, they get out and they do drugs again. The answer? Stiffer penalties. Take everything they own, their children and their freedom for even small offenses. This will solve the problem, right?

 

The supply is not affected this way. The sh t keeps coming, the users keep coming. But when the smoke clears, what we have is a quarter million, otherwise law abiding citizens, sitting in prison for pot.

 

The war on drugs is dysfunctional. The longer it goes on, the worse the drug problem gets. The worse the drug problem gets, the stiffer they make the penalties. The stiffer the penalty, the more stark to negative connotations become. But the drugs keep coming. The people keep using them.

[wez]

Yep. Me and TJ have gone off on a far away tangent in that thread.

 

 

How do you know this? Drugs are very prevalent. Anyone whom wishes to do drugs can by all means do them. Sure a few stragglers might try pot if it was legal, because it is legal. But all in all I think those of us whom want to seek pharmacia will do so regardless of laws against it.

 

The conventional approach to the war on drugs was (Pre-1980's) to attack the big time suppliers, the kingpins and foreign traffickers. Ya know, the guys that were making millions. This proved to be too difficult. The Regan administration had an epiphany; Instead of cutting of the supply, cut off the buyer. Why chop the plant down at the roots when it requires far less effort to cut it down piece by piece from the top?

 

Because the "plant" grows back. The small times guys go to jail for a week, they get out and they do drugs again. The answer? Stiffer penalties. Take everything they own, their children and their freedom for even small offenses. This will solve the problem, right?

 

The supply is not affected this way. The sh t keeps coming, the users keep coming. But when the smoke clears, what we have is a quarter million, otherwise law abiding citizens, sitting in prison for pot.

 

The war on drugs is dysfunctional. The longer it goes on, the worse the drug problem gets. The worse the drug problem gets, the stiffer they make the penalties. The stiffer the penalty, the more stark to negative connotations become. But the drugs keep coming. The people keep using them.

 

Again, totally agree Johny.. I think what eddo says is the exact opposite.. the laws create, if not more use, certainly more abuse, and all the other underworld that goes on to boot..

[eddo]

Since alcohol by a mile is the largest culprit, shouldn't that be illegal then according to the theory?

 

Actually, yes, alcohol absolutely fits into that category. as does anything that chemically impairs your mind.

 

 

 

How do you know this?

 

Honestly I don't. That was all my opinion, but take a look at alcohol. Booze is legal, and therefore available just about everywhere. More people drink than smoke pot (when I have heard many say that alcohol is more damaging physically to the body and more addictive than pot) and I think it is because it is more available, and has the "It's ok because it's legal" label attached to it.

 

Again, this is my opinion.

[Jhony5]

The war on drugs. The title says alot toward the best way to deal with the drug problem in America. Anyone whom tells you that cocaine, heroine and meth should be legal, don't know what they're talking about. These drugs turn people into monsters. One day you have a bright college student, the next you have a monster that just robbed a gas station of $47 with a claw hammer. Fact is, some drugs are far worse than others. Of course I speak of marijuana.

 

So, its a war, right? And what is a critical error one could make while waging war? To spread ones resources to thin in an effort to conquer.

 

We could see much relativity when referencing this man;

 

[attach=full]1298[/attach]

 

Napoleon Bonaparte. He was winning his war. Then he spread himself too thin and was defeated.

 

We see this same military errors today with Iraq. In an effort to fight terrorism, we spread ourselves too thin and thus we became ineffectual, and the problem is resurgent in respect to the initial success.

 

If we legalize less dangerous and deadly drugs (Marijuana) than we can focus our resources on a more finite point. But the stubbornness to not back down. The ignorance spawned from a lack of concession. The answer is starring them in the face if they are ever willing to rethink the war plan.

 

Harsh penalties aren't the answer. The answer was correct from the start. Attack the supply. But in order to have the manpower and resources to do so, we must make concessions. The logical concession would be to focus on the drugs that actually damage society overtly.

[snafu]

...Anyone whom tells you that cocaine, heroine and meth should be legal, don't know what they're talking about. These drugs turn people into monsters. One day you have a bright college student, the next you have a monster that just robbed a gas station of $47 with a claw hammer. Fact is, some drugs are far worse than others. Of course I speak of marijuana....

 

 

This fact not fiction.

[ImWithStupid]

I'm going to have to almost completely agree with jhony here. There are drugs that deserve to be illegal i.e. crack, powder cocaine, heroin, meth, MDMA (extacy), GHB, PCP, etc... Marijuana isn't one of them though.

 

As for the narcotics and cocaines and designer drugs these have a history of destroying lives, going back hundreds of years. There were the opium dens in the US 150 years ago that were no better then today's crack houses.

 

I truly believe that far more problems are caused, more damage done and more lives destroyed from alcohol abuse, than anything marijuana can touch.

 

The best thing that could happen to the supposed, "War On Drugs" would be to make marijuana legal, with regulations similar to alcohol production. This would allow healthy competition by competing companies to lower the price considerably and then place a tax on marijuana that goes directly to Federal, State and Local law enforcement efforts to combat the damaging drugs like the ones I've mentioned above. Use this to fund the drug task forces efforts since all the federal money that used to go this way is being blown on BS "Homeland Security" crap that isn't making a difference.

 

This would also do more then take a chuck from the cartels. Many of the immigrants that come over using coyote/cartel escorts pay their way by humping in a pack full of drugs. It could possibly slow down the illegal immigration a bit until the feds can pull their heads out of their asses and build a proper fence on the border.

[timesjoke]

I would really like to know wht has happened to the backbone of man (figurative, women too).

 

We have a problem that is difficult and it seems like a lot of people just want to quit.

 

We saw in Iraq that all sorts of people said it was impossible to slow the violence and we should run away with our tails between our legs, thank God Bush did not listen to the cowards and we are now seeing a great turn in Iraq.

 

 

There is a thing clled responsibility, somehow modern times have erased the notion from the minds and hearts of much of the population and has replaced it with cowardice and greed, oh, and a lot of selfishness.

 

 

The "war on drugs" is not an actual war, it is a concept that drugs are harmful to society as a whole and should not be allowed to take it over. All mind altering drugs (including booze) is extremely harmful to society. It creates a segment of society that is dependant on chemicals to feel good. Without these chemicals, those that do not use them are miserable, depressed, and much, much worse.

 

The children of these drug users suffer the real damage and pay the real price of their parents irresponsibility, they grow up in homes without supervision and end up running the streets with nothing to do but get into trouble.

 

Certainly, there is a very tiny segment of society that could possibly have the mental prowess to resist completely being addicted, But, we do not have a magic wand to show us who can, or cannot handle these substances.

 

 

There is no "harmless" drug, and there is no victimless crime. Anyone who tries to say this is just fooling themselves.

 

I see no reason to provide another legal means of messing up one's mind. If someone wants to do such a thing, fine, do it, but do not ask society to support your desire to get stoned.

 

 

If you want to truly end the drug trade, put the military at all borders and search "everything" that comes into the Country, sure lots of people would scream, but it would end the problem in a few months after the stored supplies were used up.

 

 

This method would also cure the illegals problem at the borders, big bonus.

[ImWithStupid]

I would really like to know wht has happened to the backbone of man (figurative, women too).

 

We have a problem that is difficult and it seems like a lot of people just want to quit.

 

We saw in Iraq that all sorts of people said it was impossible to slow the violence and we should run away with our tails between our legs, thank God Bush did not listen to the cowards and we are now seeing a great turn in Iraq.

 

 

There is a thing clled responsibility, somehow modern times have erased the notion from the minds and hearts of much of the population and has replaced it with cowardice and greed, oh, and a lot of selfishness.

 

 

The "war on drugs" is not an actual war, it is a concept that drugs are harmful to society as a whole and should not be allowed to take it over. All mind altering drugs (including booze) is extremely harmful to society. It creates a segment of society that is dependant on chemicals to feel good. Without these chemicals, those that do not use them are miserable, depressed, and much, much worse.

 

The children of these drug users suffer the real damage and pay the real price of their parents irresponsibility, they grow up in homes without supervision and end up running the streets with nothing to do but get into trouble.

 

Certainly, there is a very tiny segment of society that could possibly have the mental prowess to resist completely being addicted, But, we do not have a magic wand to show us who can, or cannot handle these substances.

 

 

There is no "harmless" drug, and there is no victimless crime. Anyone who tries to say this is just fooling themselves.

 

I see no reason to provide another legal means of messing up one's mind. If someone wants to do such a thing, fine, do it, but do not ask society to support your desire to get stoned.

 

 

If you want to truly end the drug trade, put the military at all borders and search "everything" that comes into the Country, sure lots of people would scream, but it would end the problem in a few months after the stored supplies were used up.

 

 

This method would also cure the illegals problem at the borders, big bonus.

 

Then why don't you push for prohibition on alcohol? This has nothing to do with giving up on anything. It's about being practical, both fiscally and as a society. The only reason that marijuana was ever made illegal, was racially motivated.

 

A. Initial State Legislation 1914-1931

As indicated above, the Harrison Act, a regulatory measure in the garb of a taxing statute, left many gaps unfilled in the effort to prohibit illegal or nonmedical use of opiates and cocaine. Although Commissioner Anslinger of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics stated in 1932 that few states had responded to the Harrison Act,1 most states had in fact enacted or reenacted narcotics laws in the period from 1914 to 1931.2 In so doing, twenty-one states had also restricted the sale of marijuana as part of their general narcotics articles, one state had prohibited its use for any purpose, and four states had outlawed its cultivation.3 Our objective in this section is to determine why these states chose to include cannabis in their lists of prohibited drugs.

The first consideration was the increasing public awareness of the narcotics problem. As noted above, the Harrison Act engendered a shift in public perception of the narcotics addict. With ever-increasing frequency and venom, he was portrayed in the public media as the criminal "dope fiend." This hysteria, coupled with the actual increases in drug-related criminal conduct due to the closing of the clinics,4 was the basis for a good many of the post-Harrison Act narcotic statutes.5 Other forces such as lurid accounts in the media,6 publications of private narcotics associations 7 and the effective separation of the addict and his problems from the medical profession8 all pressed legislatures into action to deal more effectively with what was perceived as a growing narcotics problem.

Despite the increasing public interest in the narcotics problem during this period, we can find no evidence of public concern for, or understanding of, marijuana, even in those states that banned it along with the opiates and cocaine. Observers in the middle and late 1930's agreed that marijuana was at that time a very new phenomenon on the national scene.9 The perplexing question remains-why did some states include marijuana in their prohibitive legislation a decade before it achieved any notice whatsoever from the general public and the overwhelming majority of legislators?

From a survey of contemporary newspaper and periodical commentary we have concluded that there were three major influences. The most prominent was racial prejudice. During this period, marijuana legislation was generally a regional phenomenon present in the southern and western states. Use of the drug was primarily limited to Mexican-Americans who were immigrating in increased numbers to those states. These movements were well noted in the press accounts of passage of marijuana legislation. A second factor was the assumption that marijuana, which was presumed to be an addictive drug, would be utilized as a substitute for narcotics and alcohol then prohibited by national policy. This factor was particularly significant in the New York law, the forerunner of nationwide anti-marijuana legislation. Finally, there is some evidence that coverage of the drug by the Geneva Conventions in 1925 was publicized in this country and may have had some influence.

The Genesis of Marijuana Prohibition

 

The tax revenue could fund the fight against the truly harmful substances, that destroy lives and kill people on a daily basis.

 

I don't use marijuana myself, but I know that I would much rather deal with a stoner then and drunk any day.

 

You don't hear of anyone getting stoned and beating their wives, or starting crap in public places. Unless you call laughing too much, starting crap?

 

Oh yea, by the way, those aspirin you took out of convenience. If the drug aspirin was discovered today, it would be a controlled substance. Mostly due to the side effects.

[wez]

I would really like to know wht has happened to the backbone of man (figurative, women too).

 

We have a problem that is difficult and it seems like a lot of people just want to quit.

 

We saw in Iraq that all sorts of people said it was impossible to slow the violence and we should run away with our tails between our legs, thank God Bush did not listen to the cowards and we are now seeing a great turn in Iraq.

 

 

There is a thing clled responsibility, somehow modern times have erased the notion from the minds and hearts of much of the population and has replaced it with cowardice and greed, oh, and a lot of selfishness.

 

 

The "war on drugs" is not an actual war, it is a concept that drugs are harmful to society as a whole and should not be allowed to take it over. All mind altering drugs (including booze) is extremely harmful to society. It creates a segment of society that is dependant on chemicals to feel good. Without these chemicals, those that do not use them are miserable, depressed, and much, much worse.

 

The children of these drug users suffer the real damage and pay the real price of their parents irresponsibility, they grow up in homes without supervision and end up running the streets with nothing to do but get into trouble.

 

Certainly, there is a very tiny segment of society that could possibly have the mental prowess to resist completely being addicted, But, we do not have a magic wand to show us who can, or cannot handle these substances.

 

 

There is no "harmless" drug, and there is no victimless crime. Anyone who tries to say this is just fooling themselves.

 

I see no reason to provide another legal means of messing up one's mind. If someone wants to do such a thing, fine, do it, but do not ask society to support your desire to get stoned.

 

 

If you want to truly end the drug trade, put the military at all borders and search "everything" that comes into the Country, sure lots of people would scream, but it would end the problem in a few months after the stored supplies were used up.

 

 

This method would also cure the illegals problem at the borders, big bonus.

 

You seriously scare me sometimes dude.. Your last name isn't Rockefeller, is it?

[Anna Perenna]

Didn't we learn that in the 1920's?

 

Excellent point.

 

I'm all for, at the very least, decriminalisation, especially of Marijuana. If someone wants to grow plants in their backyard, they should be allowed to. It's a plant. The most common human reaction to this plant is relaxation, accompanied by giggling and hunger. It's also a fantastic pain killer and it's the only thing that works on the particular pain a couple of my friends experience once a month.

 

Australia is a comparatively laidback country when it comes to marijuana, and it doesn't seem to be hurting the country any. Same with all the similarly laidback countries in Europe.

 

As for other drugs, I've sampled cocaine & ecstasy and both have been great experiences. I'd like to see the controlled manufacture and distribution of these drugs, because they've been on the market for decades now and it really doesn't look like they are going to 'go away' any time soon.

 

I'm not going to comment on the effects of heroin, meth etc because I've never been there and I don't feel qualified to make a suggestion. But perhaps if other drugs were easier to come by, people would feel less inclined to try to get their hands on the harder, nastier stuff - who knows?

 

All we do know is that the 'war on drugs' approach isn't working, so it's probably time to try something else.

[timesjoke]

You seriously scare me sometimes dude.. Your last name isn't Rockefeller, is it?

There is no failure except in no longer trying. ~Elbert Hubbard

 

Supposing you have tried and failed again and again. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. ~Mary Pickford

 

 

The only time you don't fail is the last time you try anything - and it works. ~William Strong

 

 

 

It is you quitters that scare me.

 

America was not forged by those that gave up when they found difficult times, it was forged by those that had the backbone to suffer through the difficult times and succeed.

 

 

 

 

The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try to do nothing and succeed. ~Lloyd Jones

[ImWithStupid]

There is no failure except in no longer trying. ~Elbert Hubbard

 

Supposing you have tried and failed again and again. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. ~Mary Pickford

 

 

The only time you don't fail is the last time you try anything - and it works. ~William Strong

 

 

 

It is you quitters that scare me.

 

America was not forged by those that gave up when they found difficult times, it was forged by those that had the backbone to suffer through the difficult times and succeed.

 

 

 

 

The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try to do nothing and succeed. ~Lloyd Jones

 

Well that was a complete and utter non-reply.

 

Here's a quote for you.

 

?Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.? ~ Albert Einstein