Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is the war on drugs really worth it?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by kbr80, Aug 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kbr80

    kbr80 member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    553
    Location:
    AR
    Is the war on drugs really worth it? The Sunrise story has been on THR a few times, locked down due to JBT remarks. All cops are not JBT's, true, a small percentage are bad, just like a small percentage of citizens are bad. I am posting the latest articles on this incident. Not much information is being provided from BOTH sides. IMO, the tactics the SWAT team used were pure crap. This man did not need to die. Think about it, this could be anyone of us, 6:15AM, dead asleep, bam, door crashes in, people yelling and screaming, we reach for our weapon, we meet the lord. All of that for: being suspected of dealing, wrong information from an informant, no knock/knock warrant conducted at WRONG address. These things happen. Is a small amount of pot worth killing someone over, worth denying basic rights over?

    http://www.local10.com/news/4821009/detail.html

    http://www.local10.com/news/4834333/detail.html

    DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO AN US vs THEM RANT.
    DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO A JBT BASHING RANT.

    PLEASE discuss the aspet of the War On Drugs and how it is eroding our rights. The war on drugs has militarized our Police Forces, to me, that is not a good thing.

    For what it is worth, I see this as a good shoot, from the standpoint that the guy went for a weapon, SWAT responded. My arguement here is, I dont think SWAT needed to be there, I dont like the tactics they used, or the reasoning for having SWAT there in the first place.
     
  2. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    In a word?

    No.
     
  3. FPrice

    FPrice Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,380
    Location:
    People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    In a word.

    Yes.

    But that should not be construed to excuse deaths due to negligence.
     
  4. R12GS

    R12GS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    123
    I had a hard enough time going to school on drugs, no way would I fight a war on them.
     
  5. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Evidently though, it can certainly be construed as a legitimate excuse to infringe on my rights as well as the civil rights of every other individual in this nation who chooses not to engage in the use of illicit substances.
     
  6. FPrice

    FPrice Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,380
    Location:
    People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    Only in the minds of those who see it as such.
     
  7. Daniel T

    Daniel T Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    There has been 0 net positive effect from the War on Some Drugs. None. Absolutely none.

    For all this blather about how drugs tear families apart and all the untold suffering, yadda yadda, etc, etc, IT STILL ALL EXISTS. NOTHING HAS GOTTEN BETTER.

    Time for a change.

    A definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
     
  8. ksnecktieman

    ksnecktieman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Junction City, Kansas
    The war on drugs needs the same level of repeal that alcohol got at the end of prohibition. I include ALL drugs in that, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, pennicillin,prozac, morphine, steroids.
    If someone wants to use recreational drugs, that is their business. We should legalize them. Offer education about them, and the government should produce them, and sell them at a slight profit. If we remove the massive profit potential of selling drugs we will remove the dealers from our grade schools, and high schools. The only reason they are there is to create a new generation of addicts to ensure their continued astronomical profits.
    If I want to take antibiotics when I get infection in a cut, it also is my business. I do not need a doctor to tell me what an infected cut looks like.
    Thirty dollars worth of heartworm medicine for my dog, and I have to pay a vet fifty dollars to tell me to give them to him.

    Repeal all of them. End this expensive war, we are losing it anyway. Just like the government lost the war prohibiting alcohol.
     
  9. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    The war on drugs will be victorious when the end-user no longer uses, or at least moderates, his or her use of drugs. The war is finally against one's own weakness. It is a war for reason and personal freedom--the same predicates necessary for a strong and free society. To seek Control From Outside rather than inner strength is a fool's errand--and an exorbitantly expensive one that bankrupts the treasury as it bankrupts thes soul and the polity both. Besides, the gods gave man wine so he would not go mad from mortality--we will never totally eradicate the need for escapism, but we can create a world where such escapism doesn't become all-consuming.

    I favor policies that take the money out of the drug trade. That is essential. All is corrupted by the vast financial empire built on drugs and the activities that appear to orbit around it.
     
  10. Mk VII

    Mk VII Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,045
    Location:
    England
    it's reckless and profligate use of antibiotics like this that is breeding bacteria that are resistant to all of the well-known antibiotics and an increasing number of the new ones.
     
  11. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    So, you're saying I'm free to go buy Sudafed over the counter in Nebraska without filling out paperwork?

    Or that I'm free to get a refillable prescription of Ritalin?

    Or that I'll never be raided by a SWAT team who screws up an address?

    Or that my property cannot be taken and charged under asset forfeiture laws?

    Or that I'm free to legally buy a sound suppressor or any other implement that has been restricted because it is "the choice of drug-dealers?"

    Or that I'm free to stop paying that portion of my taxes used to pursue the WoD?

    Gee. Silly me.

    In the end, the worst substance abuser in this country is Uncle Sam, and his insatiable appetite for the green.
     
  12. kbr80

    kbr80 member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    553
    Location:
    AR
    :what:


    Well said.
     
  13. Big Bad Wolf

    Big Bad Wolf Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    93
    Location:
    West of the Mississippi
    No it is not worth it.

    I suspect if all drugs became legal tomorrow by the end of the month crime would be at all time lows and death from drugs would diminish a lot as well. Why bother cooking Crystal Meth or sniffing paint cans when you can legally buy pharmaceutical grade pot, coke, and ecstasy? Let's not forget that pharmaceutical grade drugs would cut down on the deaths caused by backroom baked poison laced drugs people are buying now.
     
  14. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    The WOD is now one of our top threats to our freedom and has to stop ASAP.

    The only threat I know of on the same scale is bad electronic voting machines.
     
  15. FPrice

    FPrice Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,380
    Location:
    People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    (sigh)...

    This is why I tend NOT to want to get involved in silly discussions like this. Someone starts off posing a question about drugs and when someone indicates support, then all the "interesting" comparisons come out.

    Antibiotics.

    Taxes and government greed.

    Sound suppressors.

    Electronic voting machines.

    And more than a few more.

    Perhaps one of the more amusing suggestions is that the government take over the responsibility for producing and distributing all "recreational" drugs.

    Guys, if you can't trust the government to run everything else you say it screws up, why would you want it to take over this area of your lives????

    Most of you you support the use of so-called "recreational drugs" probably have not seen enough of the misery and tragedy they can produce.

    I'll let you guys clap each other on the back and brag about you have protected your freedom. Go out and celebrate.
     
  16. hifi

    hifi member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    318
    The opposing viewpoint that I always find amusing are those that say we should legalize and tax it. Doesn't the government already have their greedy little fingers into enough? Just legalize it.
     
  17. White Horseradish

    White Horseradish Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,352
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Please do not make wild-ass assumptions.

    What do you know of what I've seen? I have seen all kinds of misery and tragedy. Some of it I have even lived through. Nevertheless, I say it is not worth it.

    It's an utter failure. We've been at it for 30 years. Can you tell me what good has come from it?
     
  18. hifi

    hifi member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    318
    This sounds to me more like the opinion of someone who watches too many movies than actually thinks about the problem. Too many cop shows where drugs and guns are the enemy.

    An inanimate object by itself in incapable of 'causing' anything.
     
  19. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Depends who you ask.

    No. If youre a poor and unskilled person trying to make a quick buck, then no. The drug trade is a trap for the poor, uneducated or lazy. It is enormously profitable and somewhat risky, so it makes an excellent lure for society's less desirable members.

    Yes. If youre in the pharamaceutical industry, the war on drugs is an enormously powerful tool to prevent people from going outside the industry for medication. The most telling sign is that harmless drugs with known pharmaceutical benefits like MDMA or marijuana are schedule 1 (no known medical uses possible) while very bad drugs (highly addictive with few pharmaceutical uses) like PCP, heroin, cocaine and morphine can be prescribed by doctors. You did not misread. This is the law. Revenue protection.

    Yes. If youre in law enforcement, the war on drugs is a great way to get federal funds. We spend billions this way each year.

    Yes. If youre a prison guard, the war on drugs provides endless employement.

    Yes. If you are a shareholder in a corporation that runs a prison, the prisoners provide valuable labor for bargain basement prices.

    Yes. If you are in a city with large populations of poor black males, the war on drugs provides an adequate pretense to round them up and generally treat them like non-citizens.

    Yes. If you are a foreign government with a "terrible drug problem" it is a great way to make money from the US taxpayer AND from the drug trade.

    No. If you are not one of the interested parties, you suffer through the erosion of the 4th amendment and from generally more militaristic police work that puts you in great danger whenever someone decides to falsly accuse you of being a drug dealer or the cops simply get the wrong address.

    Where do you fall in all of this?
     
  20. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    FPrice: you're making a HUGE assumption that the illegal status of the various drugs is affecting their demand.

    You have NO data to base that on. In fact, the data that does exist says otherwise: the end of prohibition caused a drop in alcohol sales as it was no longer "cool and illegal and a political protest".

    Look, I owned ferrets in California. They were illegal. I didn't care, I knew the law was wrong. I was hardly alone - pet supply places in California do a huge business in ferret food, hammocks, triangular litter pans, books, dietary supplements, ferret shampoo, etc...Petco calculated their Northern California sales in a recent year at $1.25mil - that's one chain in the less populated half of the state!

    The druggies feel the same way. In some instances they're actually correct - pot at a minimum does less harm than alcohol, certainly "less harm to others" because it hardly ever turns people violent. Booze is famous for it.

    In another example, the difference in cocaine sentencing for crack vs. powder has a distinctly racist overtone to it. Inner city blacks have long figured this out and are WAY pissed off about it.

    Now. If the actual level of use is NOT being curtailed by illegality, then the only effect of the "war on drugs" is to introduce it's horrible *negative* effects. And as God is my witness that's a LONG list:

    * Meth labs blowing up and/or spewing super-toxic crapola.

    * Pot plantations in rural areas and parks/forests staffed by armed maniacs.

    * The inner city drug wars (and the hyper-arming of the gangs).

    * The consitution being repeatedly pissed all over.

    * Cops driven to kill and in some cases murder for the various siezure possibilities.

    * The violence in the cross-border smuggling process.

    Any ONE of the above would be a good reason to legalize. Taken together?

    It's insanity to keep going the way we are.
     
  21. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
    Yeah, but the situation you describe is NOT what happened. They were not at the wrong address, the info wasn't bad, and he wasn't startled and suddenly reaching for a gun. From the second report you posted: "Officers said when they told Diotaiuto to stop, he instead ran to his bedroom. They said they thought he had a weapon and may have pointed a gun at them, so they opened fire, killing him."

    He wasn't startled and grabbing for his gun, he ran from a SWAT team, and acted in a threatening manner.

    So that brings us to this:
    He was not killed over a small amount of pot, he was killed because he presented a threat of death or serious bodily injury, and the officers used the proper force necessary to stop the threat. Doesn't matter if it's 2oz of pot, 200 pounds of pot, a stash of kiddie porn, or a "dirty" bomb. If the suspect complies the results will be peaceful, suspect actions may force the cops to use force, and if the actions are a threat of serious bodily injury or death, the the action the suspect forces is lethal force.

    As for the "militarization of the police" nonsense, I suggest you study the history of law enforcement in this country. If you really study LE history in the US, you will see that LE is now more reasonable in the approach to protecting rights, and less likely to use force, especially lethal force, on suspects.
     
  22. beemerb

    beemerb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    AZ
    No

    We tried it with booze and it didn't work and now with drugs. It will not work any better.
    Bob
     
  23. Graystar

    Graystar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    History shows that rampant drug use brings down civilizations, so it’s worth it because the cost of not fighting drugs is higher.
     
  24. grampster
    • Contributing Member

    grampster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    11,024
    Location:
    Wilderness of West Michigan
    Mr. March's comments are well spoken. He is not alone in what he says. Bill Buckley's magazine, National Review, the February 12, 1996 issue, devoted the entire contents to a discussion about the absolute failure of the "War on Drugs". There were several highly intellectual and well recognize folks who contributed to that issue. There were many facts presented that you just don't hear about regarding this drug war fiasco, mainly because of the corruption that the "War" has spawned throughout the entire status quo governmental system starting at the local level all the way to the top and thoughout the business world as well.

    The "War on Drugs" may be the single largest continuing elephant in the room that tears us apart and wastes billions of dollars as well as trampling on the rights of innocent people. Witness the fact the SCOTUS declared constitutional the "taking" of private property when one is merely arrested and not ever found guilty of any crime. Get found not guilty? Try and get your property back. It's likely the local PD sold it and bought some toys to play with before your trial. Hell, if you carry too much cash around, you run the risk of having that stolen from you. If you don't think that this government crime can't devolve into other areas, ask the lady in Detroit that had an auto that was registered solely in her name, confiscated and sold, with the money going the the police department when her husband got caught trying to pick up a hooker. The courts upheld this theft.
     
  25. longrifleman

    longrifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    western Missouri
    Here is one of the major problems with this ongoing debate. I don't favor anyone using destructive mind altering chemicals but think the War on (some) Drugs has been and will continue to be a failure. Unfortunately, the drug warriors can't seem to accept that a great many people oppose the War for reasons other than personal use. I'm not completely sure why, but I would be interested in hearing other's opinions on this.

    My understanding of the official reasons for supporting the War on (some) Drugs seems to come down to two main reasons. Protecting people from themselves and punishing people as an example to discourage other's from using drugs. If there are other reasons I would like to have the supporters explain them. (An unofficial reason is the Puritan anger with people feeling good.)

    If these are the goals, I think the War fails to achieve them, so why continue with the same tactics?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page