Wow, a group with some common sense about the War on Drugs..
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
While you're at it, check out their promotional video.
Good stuff. I like that one of the speakers makes it very clear that ending prohibition won't solve our drug problem...it will just help with our crime and violence problems. Then education can be used to solve the drug problem, much the way it has been used to curtail smoking.
Also liked some of the common sense ideas in there, such as declaring a War on Drugs...the only way to win such a thing, of course, being to end the existence of drugs. Which anybody with half a brain would realize will never, ever happen. And that all you do by making them illegal is to allow dealers to decided when, where, and to whom drugs will be sold rather than the government having any control over it. When was the last time you saw somebody dealing alcohol to kids at a junior high? Or cigarettes? That's because these items are not generally profitable enough to make them worth the risk associated with getting caught...drugs, because they are illegal, are.
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and nobody has ever presented me we any compelling arguments as to why it should possibly work out any better with drugs. These guys aren't the first cops/ex-cops I've heard admit this, either.
Good stuff. I like that one of the speakers makes it very clear that ending prohibition won't solve our drug problem...it will just help with our crime and violence problems. Then education can be used to solve the drug problem, much the way it has been used to curtail smoking.
Also liked some of the common sense ideas in there, such as declaring a War on Drugs...the only way to win such a thing, of course, being to end the existence of drugs. Which anybody with half a brain would realize will never, ever happen. And that all you do by making them illegal is to allow dealers to decided when, where, and to whom drugs will be sold rather than the government having any control over it. When was the last time you saw somebody dealing alcohol to kids at a junior high? Or cigarettes? That's because these items are not generally profitable enough to make them worth the risk associated with getting caught...drugs, because they are illegal, are.
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and nobody has ever presented me we any compelling arguments as to why it should possibly work out any better with drugs. These guys aren't the first cops/ex-cops I've heard admit this, either.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
I've mentioned it before and by golly, I'll mention it again. Everyone go read the book "Ain't nobody's business if you do, The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society" by Peter McWilliams. He spells out in detail (almsost 800 pages) the many cons of placing people in jail when they have harmed no one else's person or property. I've been thinking of leaving the book on the desk of a local district attorney or police chief...Probably won't make a difference, but it might.
He puts a chapter into each of a many great points, including the constitutionality of our prohibition, effects, effects of legal bad things (cigarettes, which completely destroys any pretense of our current prohibition laws being for 'our own good'. If they were, booze & ciggs would be the first to go.), the effects of placing so many 'consensual criminals' in jail, and many many more good articulate points.
"Ain't nobody's business if you do, The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society" by Peter McWilliams.
Get it, read it, then leave it with a judge/DA/police officer.
And Juan, not only did the early prohibition NOT work, it made people have a widespread disrespect of the law and it's enforcers ("heck, i'm already breaking the law, what's a little more...")
He puts a chapter into each of a many great points, including the constitutionality of our prohibition, effects, effects of legal bad things (cigarettes, which completely destroys any pretense of our current prohibition laws being for 'our own good'. If they were, booze & ciggs would be the first to go.), the effects of placing so many 'consensual criminals' in jail, and many many more good articulate points.
"Ain't nobody's business if you do, The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society" by Peter McWilliams.
Get it, read it, then leave it with a judge/DA/police officer.
And Juan, not only did the early prohibition NOT work, it made people have a widespread disrespect of the law and it's enforcers ("heck, i'm already breaking the law, what's a little more...")
MidnightRambler
New member
I'm amazed the government has not ended prohibition and instead made drugs legal and taxed the stuffing out of them. Cocaine and marijuana were originally outlawed on racial grounds to begin with. Alcohol is one of the most addictive drugs on the planet, the Feds even admit it. Yet it is legal.
I think alot of gangs would be stopped or slowed down dramatically if drugs were legalized and regulated. Prostitution too, and gambling in areas where it is illegal. What two people do consensually with their own money or their own bodies is their business.
I think alot of gangs would be stopped or slowed down dramatically if drugs were legalized and regulated. Prostitution too, and gambling in areas where it is illegal. What two people do consensually with their own money or their own bodies is their business.
Destructo6
New member
And how would that reduce crime? The same organizations that now smuggle illegal drugs would quickly figure out that untaxed drugs are similarly lucrative.
How did the ratification of the 21st Amendment end the smuggling of alcohol? Will it end all drug smuggling? Of course not. You can still get untaxed cigarettes and 'shine. But you don't have people killing each other over it.
I don't know who said it but "crime is a price you pay for a free society".
This was a good find, two thumbs up from me Wildcard.
Expounding on Esquire M Busterbury...
The Peter McWilliams author, I read up on his biography, and the man died choking on his own vomit when he was forced to have to take Marinol instead of marijuana to help cope with AIDS and cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams
I feel so bad for the fact that his own government basically killed him because of something that was helping him cope with medical conditions.
Epyon
The Peter McWilliams author, I read up on his biography, and the man died choking on his own vomit when he was forced to have to take Marinol instead of marijuana to help cope with AIDS and cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams
I feel so bad for the fact that his own government basically killed him because of something that was helping him cope with medical conditions.
Epyon
R.D.Wheeler
New member
crime reduction
Prohibition brought about the rise of bootleggers(manufacturers) and the mob(distributors). When it was repealed the larger bootleggers applied for licensing and became legit with the government taking the former position of the mob in the form of taxation and licensing. The small bootleggers were eventually run out of business through mass production and busting of illegal stills. With fines, imprisonment, and limited production, bootlegging is not worth the risk .
If "drugs" were legalized and regulated just like the other two (alcohol and tobacco) :
1. Farmers who are starving for a new cash crop would suddenly find new life.
2. It would no longer be profitable to smuggle illegal drugs into the US.
3. The price of the drugs would be greatly reduced, thus reducing the volume of crimes perpetrated for their purchase. Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a guy holding up a 7-11 for a pack of smokes and a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20?
4. Drug cartels would be pushed out of business by the government.
5. Gangs, who depend on drug money would have to turn to other sources of income. Sadly this would be a problem, but no more so than it is already.
6. Drug deals gone bad would be a thing of the past, as it would be like going into the local ABC store and getting your fix.
Those are just a few off the top of my head.
With proper education and rehabilitation facilities in place it would probably be less of a burden on society than it is now.
I do not do drugs or smoke, I barely drink (less than a case of beer a year). These are not the rantings of a pot smoking druggie, but if that is your thing, who am I to stand in the way of anyone's pursuit of happiness.
Just my opinion, which is worth nothing to anyone but me.
Robbie
Prohibition brought about the rise of bootleggers(manufacturers) and the mob(distributors). When it was repealed the larger bootleggers applied for licensing and became legit with the government taking the former position of the mob in the form of taxation and licensing. The small bootleggers were eventually run out of business through mass production and busting of illegal stills. With fines, imprisonment, and limited production, bootlegging is not worth the risk .
If "drugs" were legalized and regulated just like the other two (alcohol and tobacco) :
1. Farmers who are starving for a new cash crop would suddenly find new life.
2. It would no longer be profitable to smuggle illegal drugs into the US.
3. The price of the drugs would be greatly reduced, thus reducing the volume of crimes perpetrated for their purchase. Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a guy holding up a 7-11 for a pack of smokes and a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20?
4. Drug cartels would be pushed out of business by the government.
5. Gangs, who depend on drug money would have to turn to other sources of income. Sadly this would be a problem, but no more so than it is already.
6. Drug deals gone bad would be a thing of the past, as it would be like going into the local ABC store and getting your fix.
Those are just a few off the top of my head.
With proper education and rehabilitation facilities in place it would probably be less of a burden on society than it is now.
I do not do drugs or smoke, I barely drink (less than a case of beer a year). These are not the rantings of a pot smoking druggie, but if that is your thing, who am I to stand in the way of anyone's pursuit of happiness.
Just my opinion, which is worth nothing to anyone but me.
Robbie
MeekAndMild
New member
Esquire M Busterbury, in your opinion as a lawyer do you think that if the criminal drug laws were repealed would the civil committment laws be strong enough to get the druggies confined, detoxed and put into rehab before they became "an overt danger to self or others"? IMH(and totally untutored)O the problem with decriminalization is that the deinstitutionalization movement has gone so far as to make it nearly impossible to protect the mentally ill, much less the addicts.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Here's a novel idea-Tax it within reason (or even not at all!
). Without the insane profit margin it would stop faster than republican aid for poor black people.Well since it's cheaper to put an addict in rehab than in jail, Sure! How about we just leave people to themselves. If they start harming the person or property of another, jump in like with any REAL crime. Have you been watching the old black & white "marijuana madness" films from the 50's again? (don't smoke that doobie or you'll go postal on some white virgins!) Most addicts I know are a danger to their couches and the local am/pm's food section. PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. Education works. And even if it doesn't, while we have the right to drink ourselves stupid, so we should have the right to smoke, shoot, snort, etc... Until we venture outside our homes and start messing with OTHER PEOPLE it should be a FREE society. I'm imagining Benjamin Franklin tying off his arm with a syringe in his mouth (that'd make a great t-shirt!) with the words "Constitutional" underneath. By FORCING your sense of moral rightousness upon others you've become worse than any bible thumper. (So much for separation of what moral/religious zealots want from what I want...)
Epyon, that's really tragic.
(edited) I started thinking about the Franklin comment and whether or not I was going too far with that image...but then I started to think about the phrase- Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...EXCEPT when someone else disagrees or deems the rest of us not capable of regulating OUR OWN LIVES. In addition to life, liberty & pursuit, there should be "the freedom to make (and learn from) mistakes" (again, as long as you're not disturbing or harming ANOTHER'S PERSON OR PROPERTY. Isn't that a great CONSTITUTIONAL basis for law??)
Here! Here! (Hear! Hear! ?)
Tax (the livin' snot out of) it! But not so high as to create a black market. Then use the revenue from the taxes to pay for the cost of rehab. Ditto for alcohol and cigs. Of course the fly in this ointment is the Pols who'll just use the money for something else.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Overtaxing has CREATED a black market for cigarettes, try again. I don't feel the taxes on my 10 dollar twelve-pack of bud to be insane while 6+ dollars for a 2 dollar pack of cigarettes IS insane. How about we take the money saved from having less people in the court systems and jail and put that to good use? And don't forget the millions of people who will start having legitimate tax paying jobs. Can you imagine if your local police could free up upwards of 40% of their time & resources dealing with REAL crime instead of running around worrying about what people are doing to themselves? (Can you also imagine living in a world where child molestors get more time than drug users/dealers?? Heavens to betsy, the very IDEA.)
MeekAndMild
New member
Most of the time civil committments are pursued by parents/spouses/children of afflicted persons, unless a concerned citizen gets tired of watching a particular person defecating on the sidewalk in front of his store.
You probably just know the ones who don't commit suicide. The dead ones don't talk very much.
No, people have the right to ask for civil committment of family members who are danger to self/others or who have shown significant deterioration in personal behavior. This has been pretty well established for the last hundred years at least.
Those were pretty harsh words considering this is a public board with no coersion involved and you have no clue as to my sense of morality. However from your purely theoretical answer I get the idea you haven't acted as a guardian ad litem nor plaintiff's civil committment attorney in a very long while, so just carry on. I have no wish to disturb you.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Rumer has it that more people defecate/urinate on storefront sidewalks due to alcoholism, vagrancy, or both. What are you defining as 'civil commitments'? Calling the police on them? Please elaborate.
People have commited suicide probably soon after learning to walk upright. But thank you for looking out for my own welfare. And btw, I've known more people to commit suicide due to crazy spouses, when can we outlaw marriage?
If I place my spouse in danger, she has the right to call for help. If I stop showing interest and prefer to sit on the couch or stay out at the local tavern with my friends, she can get out and leave me. She does NOT have the right to hold my hand and force the 'right' choices upon me as she sees fit. She's my ole lady, not my mother.
By agreeing that someone should rot in jail when they haven't disturbed ANYONE ELSE, you're condoning a sense of morality on another that doesn't agree with it. And who ever stated that I was any sort of attorney? I'm a college student slacker/father of one little booger who I would come down on like the wrath of god if I ever caught him doing the things I've done in MY house. Once he's moved out, I can't do anything except express my severe dissapointment and impart any pertinent words of wisdom that might apply. So too should our government. (Hopefully I will have educated him adequately so that he won't decide to make my mistakes, but If he does, may he learn from them as I have and move on.) As adult we should be treated with our own sense of sovereignity and left the H alone. Anyone who thinks that I should be 'messed with' or disciplined should move to california and leave the rest of us alone.
Prohibition of anything whether it be: 1.) Boomsticks 2.) Getting your freak on. 3.) Booze 4.) Chems is going to merely allow for a wider black market. It's like Abstinence only sex ed, in that it merely tells a kid "NO!". It doesn't explain that having constant sex with multiple partners will create a plethora of disease and that using protection and sticking to the same partner will reduce the risk of pregnancy/STD's or that sex is not an absolute evil thing and within responsible use can be perfectly natural and healthy.
What a person does to their body (and each others as long as it's consentual and of legal age) is their business. Now, I think cops, surgeons, pilots, etc. should be restricted from drug use (or maybe be randomly tested to see if they are getting hammered on the job, maybe even evaluatiosn to ensure they haven't smoked themselves retarded while they're wielding a scalpel, gun, or what have you) seeing as their jobs involve life and death decisions. Some janitor or art teacher is a different story. And Esquire is right, the junkies I've seen tend to be a danger only to themselves than others. While there are cases where this is not true, it's an exception, not a rule for the most part.
The reason we have junkies mugging people as much as it is, is because of the fact since we declared a war on drugs, the prices/potency/addictiveness of cocaine, heroin, etc. have sky-rocketed. If we legalized pot and other drugs, we'd see a lower price, even a tax on it wouldn't be so bad, just make it so it's not profitable to have a wide-spread bootlegging operation. I personally am not a big drug user, though I have dabbled in the past with weed and pain-killers when I was younger. Hell, any teenager (except dorky trekkies and clueless goths) who say they haven't: Had sex, smoked weed, drank beer, and any other devious behavior, is lying out of their arses! Hell the last two presidents were big time partyers back in the day (and from soem of Dubya and Slick Willies speeches, I'd say that "day" was most likely yesterday).
I'm a smoker and I know it's bad for me, but it's my body. What I put into, on around through and/or in the vicinity of it is my business as long as I'm not hurting anyone else or creating a neglectful/abusive home for my (thankfully hypothetical) kids or dependents.
Ever notice in countries where drugs and alcohol are widely available to people there's not as bad of a case of kids drinking themselves to death or ODing? Maybe it's because that will also help take away the taboo appeal drinking has. How many of you guys remember that when you hit 21 (or for some of you old timers 18), drinking wasn't as "cool" as it used to be? Prohibiting something makes it seem romantic and exciting. After all, why do you think Han looks way cooler than Luke's whiney arse?
What a person does to their body (and each others as long as it's consentual and of legal age) is their business. Now, I think cops, surgeons, pilots, etc. should be restricted from drug use (or maybe be randomly tested to see if they are getting hammered on the job, maybe even evaluatiosn to ensure they haven't smoked themselves retarded while they're wielding a scalpel, gun, or what have you) seeing as their jobs involve life and death decisions. Some janitor or art teacher is a different story. And Esquire is right, the junkies I've seen tend to be a danger only to themselves than others. While there are cases where this is not true, it's an exception, not a rule for the most part.
The reason we have junkies mugging people as much as it is, is because of the fact since we declared a war on drugs, the prices/potency/addictiveness of cocaine, heroin, etc. have sky-rocketed. If we legalized pot and other drugs, we'd see a lower price, even a tax on it wouldn't be so bad, just make it so it's not profitable to have a wide-spread bootlegging operation. I personally am not a big drug user, though I have dabbled in the past with weed and pain-killers when I was younger. Hell, any teenager (except dorky trekkies and clueless goths) who say they haven't: Had sex, smoked weed, drank beer, and any other devious behavior, is lying out of their arses! Hell the last two presidents were big time partyers back in the day (and from soem of Dubya and Slick Willies speeches, I'd say that "day" was most likely yesterday).
I'm a smoker and I know it's bad for me, but it's my body. What I put into, on around through and/or in the vicinity of it is my business as long as I'm not hurting anyone else or creating a neglectful/abusive home for my (thankfully hypothetical) kids or dependents.
Ever notice in countries where drugs and alcohol are widely available to people there's not as bad of a case of kids drinking themselves to death or ODing? Maybe it's because that will also help take away the taboo appeal drinking has. How many of you guys remember that when you hit 21 (or for some of you old timers 18), drinking wasn't as "cool" as it used to be? Prohibiting something makes it seem romantic and exciting. After all, why do you think Han looks way cooler than Luke's whiney arse?
Mike Irwin
Staff
How dare those officers violate that man's rights by gunning him down to deny him the opportunity to breath the sweet, sweet air of freedom.
MeekAndMild
New member
Like I said, carry on. My mistake, in large part due to your calling yourself 'Esquire'. I'll fix our communication problem with one brief visit to my User CP. Have a nice day.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Ah, the great american remedy... *plugs fingers in ears* NANANANANANA I can't HEEEAAAAARRRR YOOOOOOOU!
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
I was just in the shower and all I could think about is the uncontitutionality of today's drug war. I keep thinking about the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happyness". Does this not apply anymore? If I'd been arrested for simple possesion and I stood before the judge, could one prove the law unconstitutional, and set a precident? I know it's shooting a little high but IN THEORY, could the judge set a precident, even of only statewide? I imagine my first question to the judge being whether he follows the constitution and if it still protects us.
"The constitution is not neutral. Is it was designed to take the govenment off the backs of the people." Justice William O. Douglas
If that was it's purpose and it no longer serves that purpose, is it broken? Can it be fixed? Couln't it be fixed (at least statewide) with one judge?
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness is listed as one of the "unalienable rights" of man.
Unalienable. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
So what part of this is every judge in america missing? Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be the part of our government that decides and protects us from these things?
"The constitution is not neutral. Is it was designed to take the govenment off the backs of the people." Justice William O. Douglas
If that was it's purpose and it no longer serves that purpose, is it broken? Can it be fixed? Couln't it be fixed (at least statewide) with one judge?
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness is listed as one of the "unalienable rights" of man.
Unalienable. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
So what part of this is every judge in america missing? Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be the part of our government that decides and protects us from these things?