War on Drugs (cont'd)...

  • Thread starter Thread starter RH
  • Start date Start date
R

RH

New member
I have many comments to make, however I'll just ask one question of you libertarians who want to legalize everything - explain to me how this will eliminate or even reduce gang violence, drive-by's, etc, etc. ???
Regulate it, tax it, great - you've just increased the price, and introduced the black market into the equation of your now legalized substances. Once you defer resources away from interdiction, do you really think the Columbian cartels (Coke, Pot) or the outlaw bikers (meth) or every other bathtub chemist out there is going to line up at the local tax office to pay up ?!?! Gimme a break ! You think CVS is going to put the Crips out of business ? C'mon now ! The only reason bootlegging of alcohol is not very prevalent is that you can't do it cheaper or better at home. Mass production has led to a consistent, quality, affordable product, tax or no tax.

As an added bonus, we'll see the GOV'T turn around and sue Merck in 20 yrs. because their pot gives people lung cancer.
 
Making drugs illegal causes violence because it creates a black market.

In a black market, there is no way to enforce a contract except violence. In a legal market one may go to court.

If drugs were merely decriminalized, this problem might or might not go away, since the supply chain would still be outside the law. But it might help. The market for drugs which can be easily grown (like marijuana) would probably be something like the informal market for home-grown vegetables is now. Narcotics are so nasty that they may be another case entirely.

I think this question shows the split between the libertarian folks at TFL and the conservatives.
 
RH,

Turnabout is fair play.

You ask, "I have many comments to make, however I'll just ask one question of you libertarians who want to legalize everything - explain to me how this will eliminate or even reduce gang violence, drive-by's, etc, etc. ???"

At least 85% of all drugs shipped to the U.S. are getting through.
- Is *that* reducing or increasing gang violence?
- Is *that* adversely affecting our rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RH:
Regulate it, tax it, great - you've just increased the price, and introduced the black market into the equation of your now legalized substances[/quote]

Actually, RH, there would be no "introducing" of the black market -- illegal drugs are _already_ distributed through a violent black market much like the one through which alcohol was distributed during the '20s. Making the product legal would do away with the need for the black market.

And there's no reason to think that price would increase -- the actual production costs of drugs are pretty low, and if these products were legal, you'd see the manufacturers follow the same process followed by the makers of every other legal product: Try to capture market share by keeping quality high, price low, or balancing the two.

And if CVS can make the drugs better and distribute them cheaper than the Crips could, how could they NOT drive the Crips out of business? I don't think brand loyalty is that strong among crackheads.
 
I'll try. The WOD has become an end in itself, with a huge infrastructure of cops, military, prison administrators, prosecutors, and government types very interested in keeping it going regardless of its effectiveness, or cost to the Bill of Rights.

Legalizing (some) drugs and decriminalizing the rest would effective remove the profit motive from organized crime, and from the inner city gangs that have turned many cities into war zones. It's only reasonable to expect that gang turf battles, the cause of much of the crime, would completely cease. As far as the individual addict goes, if he can go down to the drug store and buy (or be given) his daily requirement, he's not going to need to break into your house or mug you to afford his fix.

I really don't see a down side to ending the WOD. The cops can go back to putting dangerous people inside, the military can go back to defending us from the Red Chinese, and many, many poor bastards, caught with a baggie of pot, can go home to their jobs and families.

Our horrible forfeture laws would become irrelevent. The courts and prisons could focus on the truly dangerous, and have a place to put them. We, as a nation, have already proven that it's impossible to legeslate morality. I can't believe that we're still trying to do it.

Einstein defined insanity as: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.

db
 
Okay, let me throw a wrench into the works:

Several studies have concluded that the drug trade has actually reduced gang violence over the last 10 years. I know that this doesn't help the argument for well armed and well trained LE, but it seems to have some basis in logic.

When the intra-gang drug wars first started and LE took a heavy handed appraoch (eg- LA's CRASH program), many gangs realized that peaceful co-existence was a better choice than fighting each other and the cops at the same time. The prevailing theory in many cities now is that there is plent of money to go around, so why should we fight.... hence the overall reduction in things like drive-by shootings and homicides in general in almost every major city over the last 10 years....

If the drug trade were made legal, and CVS did take over, that would put thousands of bitter, disenfranchised, well armed people on the street with no money to distract them from the idea of shooting a guy over the color of his hat.

------------------
-Essayons
 
I don't know Rob, drug dealers are entrepenuers. They've already got the hook-ups and distribution down pat. I'm sure they'd just open up shop. Boy, this could really open up a new area in the country's economic base and unemployment would be at an all-time low... either that or they could use their social security checks to buy the drugs at their new, cheap price and stay too high to ever want to kill again.
 
Drugs are illegal because we have a "police industry" that wants it that way. I am not talking about cops, but rather the equipment, training, detecting industry. Making them legal would save so much money that we would need less cops and less cars and equipment.

Make em legal. At least marijuana and heroin. Let the addicts go to the county hospital with the 50 cents it takes to get a clean hit with (very important for ALL of us) a CLEAN needle. Make em go to a counseling thingy when they sign up and show em movies of how bad the crap is but then let em have it for cost. At a hospital. I would rather pay for the cost of a nurse administering dope to an idiot than pay for all the lost property, ruined families, killings that make guns look bad, sirens in the night, and a jillion talented dogs at the border and all the other stupid things we do now to "control" (YA HA HAH AHHAH) drugs.

Face it. There is too much money being made in BOTH drug dealing AND drug interdiction for any sensible program of getting clean dope to dummies to be adopted.
 
My grandpa used to make his own wine in the basement during prohibition.

Now I buy fine wines at the store.

Marijuana is a tremendous cash crop in several states.

In fact, the war on drugs is a classic case of tax resistance.

In fact, we could probably produce all the stuff we need on megafarms and sink South America economically.

Years, ago I read that US companies trademarked all the names they need to produce legal dope.
 
Gee, Glenn, doesn't it bother you to have had a grandfather who was a felon? ;)

In truth, most of us age 45+ or so heard similar stories from our parents re: Prohibition. But, that was different, right? ;)

[Now I'm going to hear about the long history of alcohol in 'our' culture, how it is bad as well, how we should stop other dangerous drugs if we can, that we just need to spend a bit more money and a few more lives, ... damn shame, IMHO. What a waste.]

Regards from AZ
 
People who use psychoactive, psychedelic, and other mind altering substances prefer schizophrenia to reality. This "alternate reality" became the paradigm of the cultural iconographers in the media, in conjunction with manipulative psychopaths in political power and deluded academics living in a subjunctive universe. They came to prevalence in the Sixties, and their political and cultural impact increased exponentially over the next forty years.

This deranged view of life is now the prevailing force. It explains the toleration of totalitarianism and a multitude of other issues.
It is what is responsible for a President who runs around the Oval Office with his pants down playing with himself, getting sexual stimulation the very moment he's ordering troops into a war zone, defended by insane protests that this is his "private business," and that people who don't like this are mean spirited anti-marijuana fanatics. Sick political forces form natural alliances with each other, essentially saying, "You protect my mental illness and I'll protect yours."

Briefly, drug-addled people are the natural allies and political cannon fodder for statists who require everyone to live in a psychotic level of denial of reality to get away with the evil things that they do.

How can we get rid of drug popularity in the USA? I don't know, but should some parent attack a crack house with a submachine gun and a haversack full of hand grenades, I hope that folks raise a mint in his or her defense.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 01, 2000).]
 
Psychoactive substances have been used as far back as we have records. There is evidence in prehistory of use.

Animals seek out psychoactive substances.
In fact, they will prefer certain drugs over food.

You are laying a political agenda against basic neurobiology and using terms in a manner not related to their actual technical definitions.

Glenn - A deluded academic living in a subjunctive universe.

Now someone tell me what that is.

I wish people knew what they were talking about before invoking jargon.

Jeff - you don't know the half of it about the checkered history of my family.
 
I stand by my statement that people who like to get high prefer schizophrenia to reality. The popularization of "drug-culture" values, Carlos Casteneda "alternate realities" and their like, overwhelmed the hard morality and rationality which defined America, and is now the dominant political force. This explains the progressively insane nature of American society. Civilizations noted for their drug consumption or hedonism either stay in the stone age, like the Jivaro, get wiped out, like pre-Columbian Mexicans (now there's a fine example of "civilization" :rolleyes: )
or implode, like Rome.
As to "deluded academics living in subjunctive universe," c'mon, Glenn, you know exactly what I mean. Just read Pete Singer.

Dopers may as well be asleep. The fusion of their conscious and subconscious mind, which they aver is a superior state of awareness, makes them people who belong in a locked psychiatric ward. It is frightening to think that they are walking the streets.

BTW, tackdriver, I'm an English teacher with an MA in Literary Torture. ;)



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 02, 2000).]
 
glenn remarked, his projenitor made wine in his basement during prohibition.

jeff asked if it bothered glenn his ancestor was a felon?

point one it never was illegal federaly to make some(50 gal per year or less) for personal use.

point two ,prohibition was a crock.
here in harrisburg PA the big still was on the main street in steelton(a suburb)
with a sign out front
"this still under the protection of the steelton,highspire,harrisburg,dauphin county and PA state police."

the still did not get busted untill 1932.
the tresury agents did it.

my dad had a delivery route from that still
(just like a milk man)and the whole family
helped rebottle from the 5 gallon bottles from the still down to gallons and smaller.

oh my, my family all were felons(unconvicted). why?
because my grandmom was a widow with 9 kids in the house,plus her aged mother. darn tootin' the family went for any cash they could make. eating was not garranteed back then.

rms/pa
 
Just my 2cents worth. When my dad was dying of cancer I think marijuana would have been better than morphine. All he could do was sleep or hurt. Morphine doesn't give you much appetite. And second did you know that the US gets more crude oil from Columbia than Kuwait. Something to ponder.
 
The Swiss legalized drugs in a city to see if it could work. It failed miserably! Parks became hell holes, disease went rampent among drug community, homelessness increased, and families destroyed. Some teens and young adults that were living in these parks never came home. No one knows if they left, changed identity, or are still alive. Overall living conditions and quality of life in the entire community declined. They ended that experiment non too soon.

If you narrow your focus to gangs and violence legalizing drugs could be beneficial. When you look at the big picture, the negative impact on quality of life for every one, its a big mistake.

Shok
 
Shok, you make some good points. However I do not have any confidence that society as a whole is capable of deciding what's best for each individual. In other words, some percentage of any population is going to engage in self-destruction, no matter what the rest of us would prefer. All addictions are kinds of self-destruction and, as such, are the responsability of the people (and families) involved. Who are we to dictate what anybody can eat - as long as his actions affect only himself.

That's the point about drug legalization: actions now defined as victimless crimes could be made legal. As long as nobody but the addict is injured, where's society's compelling interest in keeping them sober or straight? We do it with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods. What's different about pot (or even heroin)?

Ignore the FACT the the WOD is an abject failure by any rational yardstick. Ignore the arguments about reducing crime and restoring the Bill of Rights and the Posse Comitatus act. If stoners keep to themselves, why should we care if they stay stoned. Punish them if they commit crimes, but leave them alone otherwise.

db


[This message has been edited by Dave B (edited June 02, 2000).]
 
Munroe Williams: "People who use psychoactive, psychedelic, and other mind altering substances prefer schizophrenia to reality."

Have a beer, man.

The "war against drugs" is nothing more than window dressing. People with no hope of a better tomorrow are going to want relief from reality--it's human (and animal, as pointed out above) nature. You might as well pass a law against masturbation, for all the good this "war" (fought mostly against other Americans) is doing to combat drug use.

It's completely irrational to place someone growing pot in their backyard in the same group as someone penalized for selling crack to schoolkids.

My .02.
 
Some here are falling for the same crap as gun banning. Ban guns, we'll have no shootings!!

Gun bans aren't bad because the criminals won't give up their dope, it's a violation of individual rights.

But as to effects on society - in that Swiss study, is it possible that all the dope-heads flocked to that town?

You can't prohibit people from destroying themselves, ultimately it's too easy.

You know what killed the mafia in the US? The END OF PROHIBITON. They used to own police forces and judges - now they're a joke and they have to keep a lower profile. So did they stay in businesses? What makes you think the modern day gangs would?

Columbian drug cartels? With dope legal, they'd make more money selling sugar. Actually, they'd be hosed as without the artificially inflated costs of their products they're too stoopid to be able to compete with REAL chemical/pharmaceutical companies.

About the violent gang members - what scares me the most is - with drugs legal - turf wars irrelevant, and consequently drive-bys purposeless - what would they do to pass the time?


Battler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top