War on Drugs

[ELT]

I'm all for ending the expensive war no drugs.

BUT, If drugs were legalized, they better at least ban marijuana and any airborne drugs from being done in public, because myself as a non-druggie and non-smoker do not want to inhale other people's nasty habit. I'm glad they are already starting to ban cigarettes in public (not sure if that's the right way, they should make it more segregated at least though). Not everyone that goes into a bar or club wants to smoke. Some people just go out to pick up chicks or in my case I play in a band, so it makes me money. Does that mean I should have no say in whether I suck in dirty air? If not ban it in public, at least have a seperate are you can go, TOTALLY inclosed by glass, where you can go and smoke your dope, or either go outside away from the crowd. I know smokers think it's cracking down on their freedom, but it's harming people who are actually health concious and actually listen when researchers say second hand smoke causes cancer. I don't want that for sure.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

BUT, If drugs were legalized, they better at least ban marijuana and any airborne drugs from being done in public, because myself as a non-druggie and non-smoker do not want to inhale other people's nasty habit.

I agree that drug use should be regulated (at the local level) to prevent just that, but when it concerns bars and clubs it should be the decision of the owner.

 

[ELT]

I agree that drug use should be regulated (at the local level) to prevent just that, but when it concerns bars and clubs it should be the decision of the owner.

Yes, you do have a point. I agree it should not be forced upon anyone from higher government (maybe city is fine though), because a majority of bar owners obviously would want to have the fewest restrictions possible under law, because they wouldn't want to lose business to competiors who may choose to not have restrictions, so it may not work leaving it up to them.

 

[Claire]

We continue to pretend "addiction" is a moral failure, and it is normal behaviour. I have a mulberry tree in my back yard, when the fruit ripens a few birds come pick at it. When it ferments, I have drunken birds all over my yard. If one of those birds should get so hooked on the wine, it will die of its disease. If a human develops the disease of addiction, they COULD either be left to die of their disease or aided by loving and understanding people around them. Instead, we make them criminals and force them to hide the problem until they hit "rock bottom." That is the mentality of our system, "you can't help an addict until they hit rock bottom." The only thing more heartless than declaring "war" on a set of sick people is having the healthcare community jump on board with the nonsense.

 

[ELT]

We continue to pretend "addiction" is a moral failure, and it is normal behaviour. I have a mulberry tree in my back yard, when the fruit ripens a few birds come pick at it. When it ferments, I have drunken birds all over my yard. If one of those birds should get so hooked on the wine, it will die of its disease. If a human develops the disease of addiction, they COULD either be left to die of their disease or aided by loving and understanding people around them. Instead, we make them criminals and force them to hide the problem until they hit "rock bottom." That is the mentality of our system, "you can't help an addict until they hit rock bottom." The only thing more heartless than declaring "war" on a set of sick people is having the healthcare community jump on board with the nonsense.

Drugs are a highly addictive thing and lots of addicts will not want to quit. No matter how much you try to help them or tell them they need to quit. That's why people sometimes need to lose it all and hit rock bottom to understand they MUST change and quit. Sometimes it's the only way. They are not criminals, they have a physical and mental addiction. They are weak. They only become criminals because they are breaking the drug "laws".

 

[QuesoPantera]

How is legalization the better option?

Here's why. in the 1920's before any drug legislation was ever passed, studies showed that the percentage of the population addicted to drugs was 1.3 percent. Throughout the most tough drug administrations, even Nixon, the percentage of the population addicted to drugs was roughly 1.3 percent. Today, roughly 1.3 percent of the population is addicted to drugs.

We as a country have subversively allowed the black market for drugs (a true free-market economy) to thrive. We then impose a tax on "offenders." The mostly white, wealthier offenders with lawyers process this tax through the court system. The poor and largely minority classes who can't afford private representation often just get sent to jail, where they languish in a culture of crime and violence only to be released with negative reenforcement instead of positive, productive rehabilitation. Invariably many of them use again and go through the cycle for many iterations.

It is not a system that promotes healthy living, as it would like to imply. It turns a civil problem into a criminal one and processes it in a way that offers no true recourse for the original problem.

The largest problem I see is that the government has no business judging what you do in private when it does not violate the rights of another. The thesis is that drugs lead to crime, and stopping drugs will reduce crime. The classic argument to the goes something like this "well, people desperate to get their drugs are going to rob people." You know what, yeah, they will. But people steal for any number of reasons, including poverty and desperation. Should those be criminalized? Then there's the ever inflammatory statement of "the drug trade causes violence in the community," which, I stand to admit, is inherently true. But look back at the 1920's, when we so wisely enacted alcohol prohibition. The demand never went away, and the crooks like Al Capone became more powerful than ever. People were killed constantly over the illegal alcohol trade. When a popular substance is outlawed, all we essentially do is step out of the way and let the black market control everything from production to distribution. These are often people of a lesser conscience who rule their industry through fear and intimidation. When contract disputes can no longer be brought to court (and in the eyes of the law - "I'll give you $20 for a gram" is essentially an oral contract), they are settled with guns.

 

[QuesoPantera]

I agree it should not be forced upon anyone from higher government (maybe city is fine though)

That's really the ideal way to do it, but we're a nation of whiners and sensationalists. I think if we abolished the drug war, the states should be first in line to have a say. States like California and New York may have very little problem legalizing some soft drugs, but we have to respect states like Alabama or Kansas who would overwhelmingly state "Not here. Not one city or town." Let's say Tuscaloosa legalizes pot. People would march from all over the state to "save" them. Now if Berkeley did it, most Californians would shrug and say "well, that's Berkeley all right."

Ultimately the wishes of the state are what the constitution guarantees.

 

[i2ambler]

Has anyone seen the medial marijuana question asked to Obama on youtube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI

Notice how he has to actually talk to someone, and put an earpiece in before being able to answer. Holy crap, wtf is that mess?

 

[hartke]

I'm fine with states deciding on the substance, I don't much care for the Federal Interjection of it, with regards to drugs.

But a complete and utter decriminalization of drugs seems more than a little dangerous. I live in Washington State, coming from Oregon with methamphetamine is a serious problem, and not just because its illegal the drug itself is very dangerous.

So is there a philosophical problem with some states saying no way to any of the drugs out there? If it's regulated at the state it seems to be a state's issue.

Morally does the Federal Government have any right to assign regulation concerns of say firearms to California (restrictive) versus Oregon (unrestrictive)? I dislike it, and wouldn't want to travel there because of it but the state is regulating it's own concern.

Same deal with drugs isn't it? Some will and some won't. How many states were dry before prohibition?

 

[independent thinker]

How will ending the war on drugs and legalizing them be better for the country? I haven't looked into the issue much, but I do know that one benefit will be saving money by not cracking down on dope dealers, etc.

But how will it help people in the ghetto? If anything, they will be encouraged to smoke more crack because they don't have to worry about getting busted. It'll also help the street pharmacists because they'll be able to legally peddle their wares.

How is legalization the better option?

First, billions would be saved by not trying to keep stuff out. Supply and demand informs us that so long as people want something, someone will supply it.

Second, by not incarcerating people for non-violent possession-related charges we reduce prison populations and further decrease costs.

Third, just because you decriminalize drugs doesn't mean it becomes a free for all. We don't let just anyone sell alcohol. There are laws to enforce quality of the product, who can sell it and where it can be sold. The same would be true for other drugs. DUI laws, for instance, would still be in effect.

Fourth, just like alcohol, we would levy taxes on it.

Fifth, and this one probably most directly addresses your question about people in poor neighborhoods, when a product is illegal you create a black market and grossly inflate prices. People will KILL to sell a black market product because of the insane markup. Stop banning the product and the black market dries up and the violence drops.

Sixth, the idea that gobs of new people will suddenly run out and use crack doesn't make sense. Sure, some people will, but most people will not.

Seventh, with all the money saved and raised, we could fund rehab centers, education, begin to pay down the debt...and a much much more.

 

[FreedomAndLaw]

I'm all for ending the expensive war no drugs.

BUT, If drugs were legalized, they better at least ban marijuana and any airborne drugs from being done in public

What about those who choose to eat cannabis, or better yet drink it? I agree the public shouldn't have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke of any substance though.

I think if legalized the majority of people who choose to continue usage would move on to methods such as Bhang (vs eating) or vaporizers (vs smoking) as they are healthier, more conservative and much more potent than smoking.

Drugs are a highly addictive thing and lots of addicts will not want to quit. No matter how much you try to help them or tell them they need to quit. That's why people sometimes need to lose it all and hit rock bottom to understand they MUST change and quit. Sometimes it's the only way. They are not criminals, they have a physical and mental addiction. They are weak. They only become criminals because they are breaking the drug "laws".

Almost if not all of the psychedelics are not physically or psychologically addictive. Cannabis is not physically addictive also.

Alex Jones is interviewing someone about the war on drugs NOW as we speak. go to his website and listen in..

Dr. Dennis McKenna interviewed by Art Bell - subject war on drugs : http://youtube.com/watch?v=NoSvvzm93Bk

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Alex Jones is interviewing someone about the war on drugs NOW as we speak. go to his website and listen in..

 

[snaFU]

alex jones is an idiot who cares.

 

[QuesoPantera]

DUI laws, for instance, would still be in effect.

I think this is a very under-analyzed notion, and probably one of the largest obstacles to lifting prohibitions.

Enforcing DUI laws for drunk drivers is easy. Patrol units all have Breathalyzers which can show the blood concentration of alcohol in seconds. There's no field test for detecting marijuna among other things. If a driver is pulled over and smells of marijuana, yet none is found in his vehicle, in the eyes of the law this officer has not witnessed a crime and has no right to arrest him. After all, there exists no law that says it is a crime to smell like marijuana. Officers with respect for the law will let these people go. Though we all know that many out there, I would venture to guess most even, will detain you as long as possible to try and find a valid reason to place you under arrest, and then to take your blood or urine from you. It's a classic "guilty until proven innocent" scenario.

I believe Michigan recently passed a law stating that if you are tested and found to have smoked marijuana in the last 24 hours before being cited by the officer, you go to jail. Problem is, it only impairs you for a period of 2 - 4 hours. If someone passed you a joint at a party last night, and you're driving the next day, DUI time, buddy.

DUI laws need to be revisited and reviewed periodically, like everything else.

 

[QuesoPantera]

alex jones is an idiot who cares.

Put yourself above the one liners if you're going to make a detracting statement, and back it up.

Alex Jones may be very smart. He may be very influential. He may be a very concerned, from the heart guy who just wants better for all of us. But he's kryptonite. I do not approve of his outspoken endorsement of Dr. Paul because he holds certain beliefs - whether they are true or not true is irrelevant - that are almost unanimously offensive to Americans. It's mere mention pisses people off. If the people demand a new investigation on 9/11, that's fine we'll deal with it later. You can sure as hell bet you won't get anywhere with the current regime. Whether you like it or not, this is the prime target to take down this campaign. There are people out there who believe what the media says and draw the conclusion that Dr. Paul is in league with these people. It's an invitation to disaster and as sad as it is I don't think we should prop up his work in this forum because it can be used against us later. Remember, we can be seen by anyone here.

 

[benhaskins]

u can find parallels in the war on terror. our government has made it priority #1 to fight this war but at what cost ?

-eliminate personal freedom ?
-risk lives ?
-spend trillions and trillions of our money to accomplish this

maybe a more sound approach would be to invesigate why this is going on and focus on a way to eliminate the problems of hatred toward our government around the world.

striving for peace and friendship seems more sensible than fighting a perpetual war. however, that is just my opinion that peace is the best solution.

 

[dougkeenan]

Isn't there already a field test for sobriety?

 

[QuesoPantera]

striving for peace and friendship seems more sensible than fighting a perpetual war. however

I like the connection. It seems to me that whenever an idea or concept or tactic comes along that threatens the citizens, they ask for the government's help. The government then declares war. War on Terror. War on Poverty. War on Drugs.

Here's what this does - it uses a word, the most powerful word you can use to describe one's opposition to something. The people then stand and applaud - "wow, our leader is really serious about this drug problem!" The approval ratings now jump. But this isn't a war at all in its implementation. It's an intertwining system of new (unconstitutional) legislation and enforcement that is overfunded, underperforms, and ruins lives. Per Capita Drug addiction statistics have not moved an inch since we declared war, and now we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world. Isn't a war supposed to have an exit strategy?

 

[benhaskins]

the problem i have faced is when u bring up legalization people react with panic and fear and its hard to get beyond the wall that has been built up in their minds. they will assume u want to legalize/decriminalize drugs to encourage use.

sometimes with harder drugs i like to use the arguement of people making a choice based on its legality. for instance, "i would like to try heroin but it is illegal therefore i will not use it."

deep down i think the government likes these drugs being illegal because it can be used as a tool to target a segment of society the government doesn't like and exploit them.

 

[independent thinker]

I think this is a very under-analyzed notion, and probably one of the largest obstacles to lifting prohibitions.

Enforcing DUI laws for drunk drivers is easy. Patrol units all have Breathalyzers which can show the blood concentration of alcohol in seconds. There's no field test for detecting marijuna among other things. ....DUI laws need to be revisited and reviewed periodically, like everything else.

All excellent points. I agree revisions would need to be made to DUI laws, but that is do-able. What is not do-able is winning a war on drugs. Won't happen. Period. But we CAN decriminalize the stuff, regulate the shit out of it, tax it, limit distribution...all just like alcohol. We CAN find ways to test for most substances. We can objectively learn how long each substance effects cognative ability and reaction time...and perhaps, even how to tell how long it has been since that last hit.

The main point here, is that the problems of prohibition FAR outway the problems of the drugs themselves. This is the bottom line. This is why liberty should prevail in this matter.