Drug War
- Thread starter 762x39mm
- Start date
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Welcome to The Firing Line, 762.
Try using our search feature. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about most of the membership's views on the war on drugs.
Try using our search feature. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about most of the membership's views on the war on drugs.
That may be, tcsd1236, but your analysis is identical to the ones the gungrabbers use to justify their prohibitions on us.
Mind-altering drugs, (even the legal kind) are not so hot in my opinion. This, by itself would tend to justify the War on Drug Users. But it ignores the damage done by the federal, state, county and municipal police agencies and courts. The rights that are violated, the Bill of Rights in tatters.
All you have to do is compare the WoD to the War on Alcohol in the 1920s. It lead to a massive underground culture, empowered gangs, corrupted police, politicians and judges, caused a rise in crime, a rise in police brutality, and the nations first major gun legislation (1934 NFA).
This is called a cost-benefit analysis.
Rick
Mind-altering drugs, (even the legal kind) are not so hot in my opinion. This, by itself would tend to justify the War on Drug Users. But it ignores the damage done by the federal, state, county and municipal police agencies and courts. The rights that are violated, the Bill of Rights in tatters.
All you have to do is compare the WoD to the War on Alcohol in the 1920s. It lead to a massive underground culture, empowered gangs, corrupted police, politicians and judges, caused a rise in crime, a rise in police brutality, and the nations first major gun legislation (1934 NFA).
This is called a cost-benefit analysis.
Rick
If I wanted to argue drugs, I'd hang out at the drug forum at http://www.officer.com
I usually avoid that area .
RickD, we cannot simply roll over and say we'll ignore the drug problem because we might damage the BoR ; that is shortsighted at best.
I usually avoid that area .
RickD, we cannot simply roll over and say we'll ignore the drug problem because we might damage the BoR ; that is shortsighted at best.
I personally think that the War on Drugs has done about 4.5623x10^34334 more damage to the US than it has prevented. How many thousands of people are locked up simple because they had a joint on them???
Has this war on drugs stopped, or even lessened the flow of drugs into the US??? NO!!! Has it lessed the use of drugs??? NO!!! In fact I think it is easier to get drugs now than before the war on drugs started.
Has this war on drugs stopped, or even lessened the flow of drugs into the US??? NO!!! Has it lessed the use of drugs??? NO!!! In fact I think it is easier to get drugs now than before the war on drugs started.
It must have been horrible in 1915 when there were no drug laws (marijuana in 1935). Fact is, it was just fine.
Your statement admits that the WoD is damaging the BoR. We must not allow that to happen. This is why I will continue to fight against the war on drugs.
Let's look at the balance sheet. Recently a federal drug guy admitted on a local talk radio show that the DEA, Customs, Border Patrol, and State and Local LE-agencies intercept between 5-7% of the drugs that get into this country. That means 95% get in.
For that "benefit" we have an illicit drug trade crime rate that did not exist before, we have constant pressure to erode more rights, both from Congress, State legislatures and the Courts (do you know how many court cases say the cops can do this new thing or that new thing because of the war on drugs? Not to mention an estimated $80Billion dollars spent per year at all levels of government to interdict, arrest, prosecute, and house people who use or sell drugs.
Every time I see someone on COPS get hauled away for having marijuana on them, I look over at my wife and say, "Gee, I feel safer now."
Let me repeat. We have a historical model for the WoD. It is called "Prohibition" and happened 80 years ago. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Rick
Fighting to protect our rights from the incursion of do-gooders.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement upon human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt
"The United States Can Not Be So Fixed On Our Desire To Preserve The Rights Of Ordinary Americans"
William Jefferson Clinton, March 1, 1993
"That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"
[Edited by RickD on 02-01-2001 at 03:51 PM]
Ok, it's freezing here in Reno right now, so I could use some flames....
Now, I agree. Drugs suck. Big wind. However, they should be legal. Lots of reasons.
1. It will reduce (not eliminate) crime created by the trafficking trade.
2. If some dumba$$ OD's, that's one less moron in the world. Sorry, but to me that's no loss. And yes, I HAVE lost family members that way. I was upset, but had to admit it was their own damned fault, they got what they deserved. Population control, you know. Get rid of the deadwood to make room for new life.
3. The government (why they didn't think of this sooner, I'll never know) could regulate it, tax it, and bring in millions every year, instead of spending billions.
4. More stable "products" made by regulated companies, instead of a batch of unknown out of some college chemistry students bathroom. This would reduce the number of deaths due to "Gee, it must have been some REALLY strong S#!t.!"
Now, flame away, flame away. I'm still cold!
Now, I agree. Drugs suck. Big wind. However, they should be legal. Lots of reasons.
1. It will reduce (not eliminate) crime created by the trafficking trade.
2. If some dumba$$ OD's, that's one less moron in the world. Sorry, but to me that's no loss. And yes, I HAVE lost family members that way. I was upset, but had to admit it was their own damned fault, they got what they deserved. Population control, you know. Get rid of the deadwood to make room for new life.
3. The government (why they didn't think of this sooner, I'll never know) could regulate it, tax it, and bring in millions every year, instead of spending billions.
4. More stable "products" made by regulated companies, instead of a batch of unknown out of some college chemistry students bathroom. This would reduce the number of deaths due to "Gee, it must have been some REALLY strong S#!t.!"
Now, flame away, flame away. I'm still cold!
Okay, I'll commemorate my 600th post by offering my $.02. For openers, here is a great fiction book about the drug war Rising Phoenix. It's a real page turner.
I say legalize and regulate. There might be a spike in initial usage, which could be written off to experimentation. I think it would revert quickly. Enact laws similar to drunk driving laws that penalize being "high" in public, or driving under the influence, diverting offenders to treatment for initial offenses. Let pharmaceutical companies sell drugs via pharmacies or state-regulated liquor stores like we have here in Oregon. A side benefit of regulation is that quality controls will exist, eliminating unpredictable variations in content. Nobody under 21 is allowed to purchase them. Strictly control prices to make illegal sales unprofitable, therefore drying up foreign supply. Lower prices mean less crime because addicts can afford their habit.
Now focus on demand. Focus our tax dollars on treatment and prevention. Work like hell to make sure kids don't get them - but adults (here's the libertarian in me) can screw their lives up all they want to. The same people who currently do drugs will continue to do so, and nothing will stop that unless the will to change comes from within.
In short, kill the profit motive and educate our kids. That's as close as I can come to solving an unsolvable problem. My ideas might be full of holes, but it's all I can come up with when I balance the scope of the problem against the loss of liberty that drug prohibition enforcement inflicts on our great nation.
My perspective might seem pretty interesting considering I currently work for a drug company, am on the verge of re-entering the corrections field, and have lost a sister and a first-cousin to drug overdoses. I am currently watching a nephew and a niece throw their lives away with this crap. Point is, laws don't stop them, and neither does my genuine concern for their health.
I say legalize and regulate. There might be a spike in initial usage, which could be written off to experimentation. I think it would revert quickly. Enact laws similar to drunk driving laws that penalize being "high" in public, or driving under the influence, diverting offenders to treatment for initial offenses. Let pharmaceutical companies sell drugs via pharmacies or state-regulated liquor stores like we have here in Oregon. A side benefit of regulation is that quality controls will exist, eliminating unpredictable variations in content. Nobody under 21 is allowed to purchase them. Strictly control prices to make illegal sales unprofitable, therefore drying up foreign supply. Lower prices mean less crime because addicts can afford their habit.
Now focus on demand. Focus our tax dollars on treatment and prevention. Work like hell to make sure kids don't get them - but adults (here's the libertarian in me) can screw their lives up all they want to. The same people who currently do drugs will continue to do so, and nothing will stop that unless the will to change comes from within.
In short, kill the profit motive and educate our kids. That's as close as I can come to solving an unsolvable problem. My ideas might be full of holes, but it's all I can come up with when I balance the scope of the problem against the loss of liberty that drug prohibition enforcement inflicts on our great nation.
My perspective might seem pretty interesting considering I currently work for a drug company, am on the verge of re-entering the corrections field, and have lost a sister and a first-cousin to drug overdoses. I am currently watching a nephew and a niece throw their lives away with this crap. Point is, laws don't stop them, and neither does my genuine concern for their health.
I would like to add one perpesctive no one EVER seems to mention when they say we need to 'lock up all those druggies'.
The fact is, in a lockdown prison, where your every movement is supposed to be controlled, YOU CAN GET YOUR DRUGS OF CHOICE, IF YOU HAVE THE $$$. I have an acquaintence that went to jail for just that reason, the WOD. He got out in less than one year, due to overcrowding and the fact that he was a 'model' non-violent prisoner.
You know what he told me after he got out? Best drugs he ever did came from behind prison walls.
So, everyone who thinks prison is the answer. What's the question? You just want those who use drugs to be 'out of sight'? Is that what you want? Are you willing to put upwards of 10% of our population in jail? That would be about 30 MILLION PEOPLE! Aside from the fact that we currently don't have the space, even if we did,it would cost the rest of the country some where in the neighborhood of about 1 TRILLIN DOLLARS A YEAR to do that (it cost about $35,000 - $40,000 a year per inmate to house, feed and clothe them). And about the only thing you will have accomplished is to bankrupt our society for several reasons.
1. You just put about 30 million people in jail who are otherwise responsible, TAX PAYING Americans.
2. The Gross Domestic Product of this country CAN'T SURVIVE almost 1 Trillion dollars to make those who think the WOD is a good thing, feel better.
3. You haven't even factored in the cost of all those prisons that would have to be built AND STAFFED, which would be the impossible part. We have a hard enough time getting prison guards for keeping about 2.5 million people in jail as it is now.
4. After they finally lock up the last drug user, then the DEA agents can all join the ATF and come after our guns. Which is EXACTLY what happened after prohibition was ended. Instead of laying off all those agents after the War on Alcohol was lost, they just transferred them over to start looking for drug users. Check your historical records if you doubt this.
So, go ahead and lock up all those people. Then they can come after the 100 million of us who owns guns. And guess what? Unlike the drug users, I can guarantee you WE won't get to play with our TOYS OF CHOICE inside prison walls!
Would all of you willing to spend us into an economic quagmire that would give us ZERO increase in quality of life for anyone, ESPECIALLY those of us who DON'T use drugs, please raise your hands.
I don't care about the moral dilema here. Lets just discuss the economic factors. Like, how much money could the Federal, State and local governments bring in if they just legalized ALL DRUGS and then TAX the snot out of them. I bet there would even be enough money left over to handle the increase in 'drug addicts' that all those who support the WOD say will happen. Does that viewpoint remind you of anything? Say like, 'The streets will run red with blood, with civilians killing each other over parking space desputes, if we allow 'normal citizens' to carry concealed weapons!' Does any of that ring a bell??? HMMM???
The fact is, in a lockdown prison, where your every movement is supposed to be controlled, YOU CAN GET YOUR DRUGS OF CHOICE, IF YOU HAVE THE $$$. I have an acquaintence that went to jail for just that reason, the WOD. He got out in less than one year, due to overcrowding and the fact that he was a 'model' non-violent prisoner.
You know what he told me after he got out? Best drugs he ever did came from behind prison walls.
So, everyone who thinks prison is the answer. What's the question? You just want those who use drugs to be 'out of sight'? Is that what you want? Are you willing to put upwards of 10% of our population in jail? That would be about 30 MILLION PEOPLE! Aside from the fact that we currently don't have the space, even if we did,it would cost the rest of the country some where in the neighborhood of about 1 TRILLIN DOLLARS A YEAR to do that (it cost about $35,000 - $40,000 a year per inmate to house, feed and clothe them). And about the only thing you will have accomplished is to bankrupt our society for several reasons.
1. You just put about 30 million people in jail who are otherwise responsible, TAX PAYING Americans.
2. The Gross Domestic Product of this country CAN'T SURVIVE almost 1 Trillion dollars to make those who think the WOD is a good thing, feel better.
3. You haven't even factored in the cost of all those prisons that would have to be built AND STAFFED, which would be the impossible part. We have a hard enough time getting prison guards for keeping about 2.5 million people in jail as it is now.
4. After they finally lock up the last drug user, then the DEA agents can all join the ATF and come after our guns. Which is EXACTLY what happened after prohibition was ended. Instead of laying off all those agents after the War on Alcohol was lost, they just transferred them over to start looking for drug users. Check your historical records if you doubt this.
So, go ahead and lock up all those people. Then they can come after the 100 million of us who owns guns. And guess what? Unlike the drug users, I can guarantee you WE won't get to play with our TOYS OF CHOICE inside prison walls!
Would all of you willing to spend us into an economic quagmire that would give us ZERO increase in quality of life for anyone, ESPECIALLY those of us who DON'T use drugs, please raise your hands.
I don't care about the moral dilema here. Lets just discuss the economic factors. Like, how much money could the Federal, State and local governments bring in if they just legalized ALL DRUGS and then TAX the snot out of them. I bet there would even be enough money left over to handle the increase in 'drug addicts' that all those who support the WOD say will happen. Does that viewpoint remind you of anything? Say like, 'The streets will run red with blood, with civilians killing each other over parking space desputes, if we allow 'normal citizens' to carry concealed weapons!' Does any of that ring a bell??? HMMM???
Asking for drugs to be "regulated" rather than just legalized altogether would set up a bureaucracy where people who don't like other people doing drugs would be in charge of allowing other people to do drugs.
Let's to another comparison. The 1911 Sullivan Law strictly regulated firearms in New York. Over time, it became harder and harder to get guns (and or carry permits). You see, the people who run the place don't want you to get guns. As a result, the throw up as many obstacles as they can.
The result? Black market.
Rick
Let's to another comparison. The 1911 Sullivan Law strictly regulated firearms in New York. Over time, it became harder and harder to get guns (and or carry permits). You see, the people who run the place don't want you to get guns. As a result, the throw up as many obstacles as they can.
The result? Black market.
Rick
I am against drugs and drug usage. I am also strongly opposed to the War on Drugs by whatever name they call it. Prohibition is a great model. Before, a relatively peaceful United States decided that people shouldn't drink. They realized that the Constitution didn't give the Federal Government any authority to regulate alcohol consumption, so with respect for that sacred document, they amended it to allow the regulation of alcohol.
Flash forward 5 years. It is no longer a relatively peaceful United States. Folks still drink, except now it is estimated that even more people are drinking than when it was legal to do so (forbidden fruit principle). Now folks have little respect for the law, or those who enforce it. Even the good laws and good cops get no respect due to prohibition. People flaunt their drinking in the open in front of judges (who are corrupt) and cops (who also have been on the take). Finally the do-gooders realized they failed, and repeal Prohibition.
After repeal, the criminal gangs (mafia, bootleggers, Kennedy's and the like) are still thriving. It took damn near the better part of the 20th century to weaken the organizations that sprang up around prohibition. Now we have the Black gangs, Asian Gangs, and all manner of street gangs to include street wars over turf (sales territorry). Has the war on drugs worked even a little bit? Of course not. More folks do drugs now than did them in the 1930's when the first anti drug laws were passed.
You want to know what I define as being insane? When someone tries something to solve a problem and it doesn't work, yet time after time after time they continue to try the same thing that didn't work the first 100,000 times, or 70 years. I think folks are stupid to do drugs, but it is their right to be stupid. I think folks are stupid to be liberals too, but it is their right. Liberty either means something to you or it means nothing. You cannot have liberty in degrees. You either have it all or have slavery.
Flash forward 5 years. It is no longer a relatively peaceful United States. Folks still drink, except now it is estimated that even more people are drinking than when it was legal to do so (forbidden fruit principle). Now folks have little respect for the law, or those who enforce it. Even the good laws and good cops get no respect due to prohibition. People flaunt their drinking in the open in front of judges (who are corrupt) and cops (who also have been on the take). Finally the do-gooders realized they failed, and repeal Prohibition.
After repeal, the criminal gangs (mafia, bootleggers, Kennedy's and the like) are still thriving. It took damn near the better part of the 20th century to weaken the organizations that sprang up around prohibition. Now we have the Black gangs, Asian Gangs, and all manner of street gangs to include street wars over turf (sales territorry). Has the war on drugs worked even a little bit? Of course not. More folks do drugs now than did them in the 1930's when the first anti drug laws were passed.
You want to know what I define as being insane? When someone tries something to solve a problem and it doesn't work, yet time after time after time they continue to try the same thing that didn't work the first 100,000 times, or 70 years. I think folks are stupid to do drugs, but it is their right to be stupid. I think folks are stupid to be liberals too, but it is their right. Liberty either means something to you or it means nothing. You cannot have liberty in degrees. You either have it all or have slavery.
This is definitely a case where the cure is FAR worse than the disease.
On top of that, it really shouldn't be anyone's business what an adult does in the privacy of his or her home, so long as they are not violating the rights of others. I see no real difference in someone lighting up a joint and sitting down with a bottle of Jack Daniels, so long as they don't take themselves out in public and endanger others in their inebriated state.
The plain fact of the matter is that some people just don't mind the government enforcing moral stances, so long as it is THEIR set of morals that are codified into law. That runs counter to the ideas of freedom and liberty on which this nation was founded.
Bottom line: Unless I am infringing on the rights of another person, the government should have no authority to take action against me.
On top of that, it really shouldn't be anyone's business what an adult does in the privacy of his or her home, so long as they are not violating the rights of others. I see no real difference in someone lighting up a joint and sitting down with a bottle of Jack Daniels, so long as they don't take themselves out in public and endanger others in their inebriated state.
The plain fact of the matter is that some people just don't mind the government enforcing moral stances, so long as it is THEIR set of morals that are codified into law. That runs counter to the ideas of freedom and liberty on which this nation was founded.
Bottom line: Unless I am infringing on the rights of another person, the government should have no authority to take action against me.
Hmmm. We needed the 18th amendment to ban alcohol. Which amendment banned marijuana?
Another thing that a prohibition on a substance causes: increase in potency.
The prohibition-era drinkers didn't much waste their time with beer (we were a nation of beer drinkers) they went for the hard stuff, liquor, whiskey, rum, gin, vodka.
Now we have the current war on drugs (when was the 9th Amendment of the Constitution amended to allow government that power?) we no longer have generic coca paste, we now have straight cocaine, and crack. Much easier to transport and more bang for the buck.
Would you like another illicit market for comparison? The London Sunday Times recently reported that since the gun bans, there are now some three-million (and growing) illegal firearms in the hands of criminals.
Anybody care to guess which type of weapons the informed English criminal is purchasing on that island nation?
Rick
[Edited by RickD on 02-01-2001 at 05:04 PM]
Another thing that a prohibition on a substance causes: increase in potency.
The prohibition-era drinkers didn't much waste their time with beer (we were a nation of beer drinkers) they went for the hard stuff, liquor, whiskey, rum, gin, vodka.
Now we have the current war on drugs (when was the 9th Amendment of the Constitution amended to allow government that power?) we no longer have generic coca paste, we now have straight cocaine, and crack. Much easier to transport and more bang for the buck.
Would you like another illicit market for comparison? The London Sunday Times recently reported that since the gun bans, there are now some three-million (and growing) illegal firearms in the hands of criminals.
Anybody care to guess which type of weapons the informed English criminal is purchasing on that island nation?
Rick
[Edited by RickD on 02-01-2001 at 05:04 PM]
I don't like drugs. I have never used chemicals for entertainment. I (realy)dissaprove of those who do.
But it is NOT the role of Government to tell people what they can not ingest.
The WOD glamorises these substances and gives FedGov more power. That's not good.
End WOD. It is far from worth it. Tax it. Deglamorise it.
Revoke these property confiscation laws, and disband DEA.
I honestly do not mean to offend our LEOs in any way.
But it is NOT the role of Government to tell people what they can not ingest.
The WOD glamorises these substances and gives FedGov more power. That's not good.
End WOD. It is far from worth it. Tax it. Deglamorise it.
Revoke these property confiscation laws, and disband DEA.
I honestly do not mean to offend our LEOs in any way.
Drug war stinks, I was going to rant on the subject ( well, I did actually ) but edited it out. We need to have some sort of personal responsability to us, you can't proactively legislate. If a person commits a crime w/ a gun he should be locked up for the crime, not the gun, in the same manner a person who commits a crime while on drugs should be locked up for the crime, not the drugs. The WOD has cost us tons of our rights, especially property rights. It is a disgusting situation where we can't even be trusted to buy pain medication from the store w/o .gov approval.
[Edited by scud on 02-01-2001 at 05:55 PM]
[Edited by scud on 02-01-2001 at 05:55 PM]
glock glockler
New member
The war on drugs is a stain on the very fabric of liberty that our nation claims to be upholding. Ask yourself one question: does someones use, abuse, or misuse of an "illicit" substance infringe on the rights of anyone? If not, then the state has no buisness making that activity illegal. There is no justifying trampling on the freedom of others, if you dont believe that, then all your talk about RKBA doesnt mean squat. We might as well let the country collapse because it isnt worth a damn with out the Bill of Rights, you uphold it or you dont, there's no middle ground