PsychoSword
Moderator
You can't win a war declared against an inanimate object. You can't win the War On some Drugs. It's simply an excuse to take more of our rights away from us, nothing more.
How do we measure winning the war on drugs?.......
- Thread starter too many choices!?
- Start date
I will have to agree that the war cannot be won. If your "enemy" in the war has grown bigger and wealthier in the last 40 or 50 years, I would say we have already lost.
And Lilysdad, although I can see your effort and devotion to the war and it's rules is sincere, I think the rules are the problem. Our drug laws focus on a symptom of the problem, the drugs. While I don't doubt that 85 percent of the people you catch use some drugs, I also suspect that the same 85 percent smoke legal tobbaco and drink. The mistake is assuming that the drugs, tobbaco, or booze cause the crime. Drugs (all 3) are surely bad for you, but locking somebody up for using them is also bad for their lives. Jailing them doesn't cure anything.
I'm sure you will say that they steal to get money to buy the drugs, but that (the stealing) wouldn't be a problem if the drugs were legal. I suspect you have heard all this before, but we have already lost the war, lets admit it.
And Lilysdad, although I can see your effort and devotion to the war and it's rules is sincere, I think the rules are the problem. Our drug laws focus on a symptom of the problem, the drugs. While I don't doubt that 85 percent of the people you catch use some drugs, I also suspect that the same 85 percent smoke legal tobbaco and drink. The mistake is assuming that the drugs, tobbaco, or booze cause the crime. Drugs (all 3) are surely bad for you, but locking somebody up for using them is also bad for their lives. Jailing them doesn't cure anything.
I'm sure you will say that they steal to get money to buy the drugs, but that (the stealing) wouldn't be a problem if the drugs were legal. I suspect you have heard all this before, but we have already lost the war, lets admit it.
MeekAndMild
New member
We have to remember it isn't really a war on drugs. It is a war to redistribute wealth to the lawyer class. We measure our victories by how many assistant district attorneys go from driving Fords to sporting Hummers and Jaguars. We tally our body count by how many politicians can afford 14 room homes next to the golf course. So yes, we are winning it.
I fight every day to get druggies off the streets. In our rehab program we average 30-40 a day and we have another twenty in residential treatment and a half dozen or so in detox at any given time. Our local police average busting up one or two meth labs a month, three or four low level crack dealers a day and two or three major distributors a year. I have gone from spending 90% of my work time on the mentally ill and 10% substance abusers to about 60%/40% which means that the other mentally ill just don't get services.
If I was running a drug war I'd legalize and tax the drugs, stop all free public services (welfare) for users and make it a misdemeanor punishable by $10 fine for killing dealers. $15 if you hang their bodies from a lamp post.
I fight every day to get druggies off the streets. In our rehab program we average 30-40 a day and we have another twenty in residential treatment and a half dozen or so in detox at any given time. Our local police average busting up one or two meth labs a month, three or four low level crack dealers a day and two or three major distributors a year. I have gone from spending 90% of my work time on the mentally ill and 10% substance abusers to about 60%/40% which means that the other mentally ill just don't get services.
If I was running a drug war I'd legalize and tax the drugs, stop all free public services (welfare) for users and make it a misdemeanor punishable by $10 fine for killing dealers. $15 if you hang their bodies from a lamp post.
Last edited:
too many choices!?
New member
will someone comment on my statement please......
about how we are all on some drug or another and the gov. wants us to be but it does not want us using that which it calls ilicit......Why is weed illicit anyway? I see no major difference between it alcohol and cigerettes?
The gov. makes alot of money classifying things as drugs that really aren't like some food additives.... 
about how we are all on some drug or another and the gov. wants us to be but it does not want us using that which it calls ilicit......Why is weed illicit anyway? I see no major difference between it alcohol and cigerettes?
The gov. makes alot of money classifying things as drugs that really aren't like some food additives.... too many choices!?
New member
Meekandmild
I bow before the luminous glow that is your King Solomon like post
This is right on the money...... 
I bow before the luminous glow that is your King Solomon like post
This is right on the money...... MeekAndMild
New member
too many,
Thanks for the compliment. In answer to your question "Why is weed illicit anyway?" One reason it is illicit is probably because a lot of people through the years have been really impressed by the amotivational syndrome it causes. Too many dopers turn into couch potatos and too few turn into great artists and musicians. Popular myth says the opposite, but that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Thanks for the compliment. In answer to your question "Why is weed illicit anyway?" One reason it is illicit is probably because a lot of people through the years have been really impressed by the amotivational syndrome it causes. Too many dopers turn into couch potatos and too few turn into great artists and musicians. Popular myth says the opposite, but that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
M&M
PLEASE go read Jack Herer's book "The Emperor Wears no Clothes", it's a real eye opener.
Their were two basic reasons why Hemp (MJ, Weed, 13, grass, dope - pick your adjective) were made illegal. First was an inventor finally figured out a threshing machine that would have redistributed a large portion of the industrial power in this country to the farmers. Here is a link to a 1938 Popular Mechanics article that heralded hemp to be a 'Billion dollar crop'. The article says "hemp can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, from dynamite to Cellophane". Hey, it was 1938.
http://www.jackherer.com/popmech.html
Second, shock of shock, it was a way to 'control' minorities. Similar to gun laws and voting laws passed during this same time period.
Since then, things have been on a downward spiral ever since.
Henry Ford made a car and the fuel it ran on by growing and processing hemp, flax and sisal seeds to show what some possible uses for these products could be.
Prior to 1900 ALL rope and sails for sailing ships were made of Hemp. The Australian company 'Dryza Bone', who makes coats, bought 'worn out sails' from merchant ships. They then made coats that lasted more than fifty years. LEVI JEANS Company in SF, CA started the same way. Why do you think a '49er' only owned ONE PAIR of LEVI jeans? Because they rarely worn out.
Caegal, you are probably correct, but it doesn't answer why NO ONE can or has disproved what he says. If some one could or would, it would certainly shut him up once an for all, wouldn't you think?
LD, you probably missed my other questions:
IF the liberals seize control of this country and decide that drugs are OK but firearms are not, will you enforce that law and attempt to disarm the American public?
You know that large place where you send all those poor souls that you arrest and somebody convicts? The place where they are kept under lock and key until they have done their time? LE can't even keep drugs out of there. So please tell me HOW we are winning this again.
PLEASE go read Jack Herer's book "The Emperor Wears no Clothes", it's a real eye opener.
Their were two basic reasons why Hemp (MJ, Weed, 13, grass, dope - pick your adjective) were made illegal. First was an inventor finally figured out a threshing machine that would have redistributed a large portion of the industrial power in this country to the farmers. Here is a link to a 1938 Popular Mechanics article that heralded hemp to be a 'Billion dollar crop'. The article says "hemp can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, from dynamite to Cellophane". Hey, it was 1938.
http://www.jackherer.com/popmech.html
Second, shock of shock, it was a way to 'control' minorities. Similar to gun laws and voting laws passed during this same time period.
Since then, things have been on a downward spiral ever since.
Henry Ford made a car and the fuel it ran on by growing and processing hemp, flax and sisal seeds to show what some possible uses for these products could be.
Prior to 1900 ALL rope and sails for sailing ships were made of Hemp. The Australian company 'Dryza Bone', who makes coats, bought 'worn out sails' from merchant ships. They then made coats that lasted more than fifty years. LEVI JEANS Company in SF, CA started the same way. Why do you think a '49er' only owned ONE PAIR of LEVI jeans? Because they rarely worn out.
Caegal, you are probably correct, but it doesn't answer why NO ONE can or has disproved what he says. If some one could or would, it would certainly shut him up once an for all, wouldn't you think?
LD, you probably missed my other questions:
IF the liberals seize control of this country and decide that drugs are OK but firearms are not, will you enforce that law and attempt to disarm the American public?
You know that large place where you send all those poor souls that you arrest and somebody convicts? The place where they are kept under lock and key until they have done their time? LE can't even keep drugs out of there. So please tell me HOW we are winning this again.
I dont see this happening. If it does, it will be a federal issue, and as a municipal cop, I cannot and do not enforce federal laws.
If worse comes to worse, no I will not. I will regretfully resign my commision.
I do not, and will not, even remotely equate narcotics regulation to gun control. Two inherently different things.
The issue here is criminality. Criminals are going to be criminals, regardless of location. I would much rather them be locked up doing their poison than in my town, on my streets, endangering my family.
I have heard every feeble argument against the war on drugs, from the laughable "victimless crime" argument to those who simply say "we cant win, so why try". I, for one, see the winnings in my hometwon everyday. Everyday it gets a little better. Yes, it just moves them to a differnt locale, but if every little burough fights this like there's no tomorrow, eventually they will run out of places to stay.
Fortunately, the majority of Americans do believe in it.
Let me reiterate...........I do see a lot of major flaws in the War on Drugs. I would love to fix them all with one swoop of my wand. However, since thats not feasible, I have to work with what Ive got. Stricter sentencing, better education, more effective rehabilitation...Im sure the answer lies somewhere in there....
Let me reiterate...........I do see a lot of major flaws in the War on Drugs. I would love to fix them all with one swoop of my wand. However, since thats not feasible, I have to work with what Ive got. Stricter sentencing, better education, more effective rehabilitation...Im sure the answer lies somewhere in there....
Well, in my opinion, it has to be in the latter two. Mandatory sentencing for minimal posession of weed is the exact opposite of 'rehabilitation' in my mind. With the prison atmosphere we take a social/recreational use and rehabilitate them into a waste of taxpayer time and money for several years. All the gateway hype has been debunked, and Amsterdam has illustrated just how poisonous the stuff is.
It just seems to be a continuation of two trends, the govt can never accept being wrong, and the 'moral majority' can't accept it. The most glaring point is the fact that no studies are consistantly referenced when in connection to the damage caused by pot. Plenty on alcohol, none on pot..
meh..
I don't even have an issue with pursuing most major drugs, as well as pot dealers, growers and traffickers.. But thats only after they legalize marijuana and treat it just like alchohol.
Tax it. Regulate it. Create laws against inappropriate use. These are things I'm OK with. People are going to use it, there's no major reason NOT to use it (coz, again, look to booze and tobacco), you may as well enjoy its benefits to the gubmint, open up prison space to real criminals, and let people like you get on with protecting us from real criminals.
Tax it. Regulate it. Create laws against inappropriate use. These are things I'm OK with. People are going to use it, there's no major reason NOT to use it (coz, again, look to booze and tobacco), you may as well enjoy its benefits to the gubmint, open up prison space to real criminals, and let people like you get on with protecting us from real criminals.
My brother and I argued about this one for about an hour last week. My opinion is that 'intoxication' should be based upon reaction time, not toxicant levels in the blood. It shouldn't matter if I'm high on allergy meds, alcohol, lack of sleep, or old age. If my reaction time is too low, I shouldn't be driving. Penalization due to different causes is social engineering, not protection.
A good example is the idiot arrested in Europe with a .9 blood alcohol. Cops didn't believe their instruments until the hospital confirmed it, because the guy was still holding a reasonable conversation with them. (.4 is usually deadly)
too many choices!?
New member
lilysdad
You guys must have some really potent pot if it makes people more dangerous than alcohol......please answer this.....As an officer how many times have you had to fight a drunk person? Solely under the influence of alcohol? How abbout someone that is solely under the influence of pot? My money is on the pot head being more mellow(again observations based on the tv show "cops") and the drunk resorting to violence more often than the pothead......
You guys must have some really potent pot if it makes people more dangerous than alcohol......please answer this.....As an officer how many times have you had to fight a drunk person? Solely under the influence of alcohol? How abbout someone that is solely under the influence of pot? My money is on the pot head being more mellow(again observations based on the tv show "cops") and the drunk resorting to violence more often than the pothead......
too many choices!?
New member
I would love to see a scientific comparison done.....
Alcohol impairment vs marijuana ....I guess the problem would be different tolerence levels and trying to match the amounts of impairment? Since a number of factors effect how much alcohol/how quickly it takes a person to "get drunk" it would be kind of difficult to compare the levels with no marijuana gauge to judge by.......
Ps I also believe this is about the gov. not wanting to admit it is wrong....
Frankly I believe the gov. owes us an apology for the entire 20th century
prohibition,1934nfa which many say has racist undertones(i am starting to agree),1986 gopa, and these screwed up drug laws wich also have racist under tones............As much as I hate to say it up until just recently (in some parts it has not changed) many gov. agencies and positions were held by racists with agendas( So when African Americans refered to "The Man" keeping them down, in some instances they were correct.....
Alcohol impairment vs marijuana ....I guess the problem would be different tolerence levels and trying to match the amounts of impairment? Since a number of factors effect how much alcohol/how quickly it takes a person to "get drunk" it would be kind of difficult to compare the levels with no marijuana gauge to judge by.......
Ps I also believe this is about the gov. not wanting to admit it is wrong....
Frankly I believe the gov. owes us an apology for the entire 20th century
prohibition,1934nfa which many say has racist undertones(i am starting to agree),1986 gopa, and these screwed up drug laws wich also have racist under tones............As much as I hate to say it up until just recently (in some parts it has not changed) many gov. agencies and positions were held by racists with agendas( So when African Americans refered to "The Man" keeping them down, in some instances they were correct.....
LD,
You just DODGED an answer. All you say is "THAT'S FINE WITH ME", but you don't answer the question. Which is:
The prison system cannot keep drugs from 'criminals' (your words) when they keep them locked up 24/7/365. So tell me again how this equates to winning the war outside the walls of prison? You lost it inside, you lost it outside.
Simple enough, you just CAN'T admit it, apparently even to yourself.
You just DODGED an answer. All you say is "THAT'S FINE WITH ME", but you don't answer the question. Which is:
The prison system cannot keep drugs from 'criminals' (your words) when they keep them locked up 24/7/365. So tell me again how this equates to winning the war outside the walls of prison? You lost it inside, you lost it outside.
Simple enough, you just CAN'T admit it, apparently even to yourself.