Is the war on drugs really worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone starts off posing a question about drugs and when someone indicates support, then all the "interesting" comparisons come out.
Click to expand...

Are you really so myopic? Is your tunnel vision truly of such a strikingly small aperture that you cannot see how much of this is interconnected? If not for the war on drugs, do you honestly believe that there would still be legislators attempting to pass a federal law to require a prescription for Sudafed?!

If not for the drug war, do you honestly think that the antis would have been able to rant and rave about how dangerous "assault weapons" are?

And nevermind obvious attempts at first amendment curtailments, such as the US' attempt to extradite Marc Emery, and the DEA's admission that they took him down primarily for openly funding and advocating the legalization of pot:

Today's arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and the founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the US and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement... Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.
Click to expand...
-DEA chief Karen Tandy, as quoted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday Aug. 5 2005 in a column written by Joel Connelly.


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

FPrice, you've constructed a really swell strawman argument there.

At most, I've seen people advocating FDA oversight, but that hardly constitutes federal production and distribution. And even if the FDA were 80% incompetent, I don't see where they have the power to set up traffic checkpoints, execute no-knock raids, and use asset forfeiture laws.
 
Quoting Graystar:

>> Ancient China was one, there were several others. I'll see if I can find some links to info on them.

Basically, everyone became a druggie, nothing got done, they got overran by barbarians. <<

Oh dear. That may *possibly* qualify as about the most ignorant thing anybody's said on this board...if you don't count the blathers of gun control proponents who come knocking once in a while.

OK. Pay attention, class is in session.

China's civilization going back 3,000 years was based on irrigation agriculture. That meant that whoever controlled the water controlled the people. What it eventually produced was a level of top-down government control over such a long period of time, it caused stagnation between the classes, the rise of an entrenched bureacracy (the "mandarin class"), extreme levels of weapons control laws and eventually a codification of this feudal society into the religious systems (Confucious, Taoism, later forms of Buddism related to Japanese Zen which actually started in China).

They eventually ran into a problem: when you have huge land masses, you cannot possibly defend against rampaging barbarians on fast horses coming out of Mongolia unless you have "citizen's militias" *everywhere*. And the nation's top-down heirarchy and utterly disarmed peasant/merchant classes prevented that.

Drugs had NOTHING to do with it.

Later, once the British established trade, opium from north India (what we now call Pakistan) and surrounding areas had an effect. But that was long after China's glory days had come to an end - the pattern of top-down heirarchy had prevented technological advancement and by the 17th century they were already no match for the Europeans...by the late 18th and 19th when opium was a moderate problem they were deep into stagnation.

Drugs become an issue in a culture only LATE in it's collapse, when totalitarianism of any of several flavors robs the nation of it's vitality. In large part, the "war on drugs" is LITERALLY part of the cause of the drug epidemic as it feeds the totalitarian urge ANY government has.

Drugs are a symptom. Out of control government power is ALWAYS the root cause of a society's collapse.
 
personally living in the neighborhood i am the war on drugs is going to be going on for a good while.It seems as if all of the sellers are getting better at getting past the cops.I see fewer of them getting caught.On the issue of the police being militarized i think it could lead to a good deal of destruction.Like alot of people say if the military ever hit the streets it would be pure hell.
 
Make everything Legal. Anything that is legal still has laws.

Stop money flow to the terrorist by producing the drugs our selves.
Make the drugs pure and good, as to not poison us and add unsafe substitutions.
Offer all substances at every drug store.

Create laws that make it illegal to do the drugs outside your home, or in very limited placed period. Prosecute and put to work all violators instantly. Their will be no tolerance. Make a new group of slaves to work the streets under shotgun M16 armed guards.

By doing this business would put up policies to enact random testing from everyone at anytime, to the point where daily on site blood testing occurs, with just a drop of blood like a blood sugar tester. Any one testing positive for any substance would be put on the personal file for life.

Basically making it illegal to drugs and work.

Hopefully most non drug users wont have any problems since we dont do drugs anyway.
 
That's the sort of "reasoning" that starts us yelling "JBT!"; You kick somebody's door in in the middle of the night, they OUGHT to "act in a threatening manner". They OUGHT to f'ing blow you away! That is, and always has been, the problem with no-knock searches: They create situations in which citizens are within their RIGHTS to use lethal force against police!
Click to expand...
Interesting rant you have going there, but you don't even have the basic facts straight. This was NOT a no-knock warrant service, it was a knock and announce.

Also, warrants must be served. When someone refuses entry the police are still coming in.

Add to that if this had actually been a no-knock he'd probably still be alive because he wouldn't have had the time to react violently.

However, feel free to continue ignoring reality and return to your regularly scheduled rant.
 
Yes, and I suppose that the balaclava-clad, subgun-toting SWAT Team members were executing a no-knock raid in order to give him a wall calendar with pictures of cute widdle puppies and kitties, all while having a spot o' tea and pontificating on the intricate natural beauty of rainbows.
Click to expand...
Once again, it was not a no-knock warrant, and once again, the amount of drugs, or even the crime involved doesn't matter. He presented the officers with a threat of death or serious bodily injury. That is the only reason they responded with lethal force. The argument he was killed over the pot is as ridiculous as saying that if you're mugged and shoot the armed mugger that you killed him over the contents of your wallet. Both arguments are ridiculous.
 
DMF,


Please refer to an earlier post of mine on a different subject(link included in that post) in which a PD officer testified under oath in court that ALL of the warrants his team served were served in a no-knock fashion whether authorized or not. Also note that they had to get a SECOND warrant served only hours after the first, because they didn't find any drugs the first time. 2 ounces of pot was found supposedly in plain sight the second time. Summation= they f'd up and went back to plant evidence for CYA. This is what the war on drugs has become. JBT appologists such as yourself only serve as a prime example of why we need much greater restrictions on law enforcement.

I.C.
 
War on Drugs Worth it?? NO!

History has shown that a prohibition does NOT work, and only helps to create a criminal element in society. It was tried with alcohol, and failed what makes one think it would work with drugs? The evidence shows that the war on drugs is a complete failure, other than costing many billions of dollars, and putting 1000's in their grave. (not to mention the people that are in jail for mere possession of some drugs)
 
War on Drugs worth it?


No!

Prohibition created criminals out otherwise good citizens. It also created armed gangs competing to control a black market of booze which was in high demand and wouldn't exist if it were legal. Enforcement actions encroached on individual liberties. History now shows it was a failed policy.

The WoD or new Prohibition if you will, has created criminals out of otherwise good citizens. It has created armed gangs competing for control of a black market of drugs that are in high demand. The black market wouldn't exist if they were legal. Enforcement actions encroach on individual liberties. History is showing it's a failed policy. I wonder when the .gov is going to notice. :banghead:

The bottom line is the bottom line. There is too much money being made by both sides to end it. :fire:
 
Also, warrants must be served. When someone refuses entry the police are still coming in.
Click to expand...
As it should be. Some of us are only questioning the tactics used to do so. There are situations where immediate entry must be achieved, such as where some crazed loony has a gun held to a hostage's head, or something similarly urgent, but to prevent a few drugs from being flushed is not sufficient cause to kill someone. You cannot say that it was justified by the presentation of a weapon because the government agents in many of these situations do not have clean hands in the matter. Breaking into a home, weapons drawn, makes one subject to being shot, and justifiably so if a warrant was not first presented in a peaceful manner for review. After that, if the person refuses to come out, wait him out. There is only so much food in a house, and you could cut the water supply and electricity off. They'll come out eventually. None of this is worth becoming a police state over.

I understand that, being a policeman, you probably don't have the perspective to appreciate how most people react to police state tactics, but most folks don't like it. Would rather live under liberty. A police state might make your job easier, but it creates a living hell for the rest of us. That's why some people get so hot under the collar when you say the things you do in defense of these kinds of tactics.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
I've known a few people (some very well) who have used illegal drugs recreationally, and their lives are not ruined. In fact, one of them has kept the same job for well over a decade, and pulls in almost 80k a year. The key in your comment though, is the misery they can produce. I've seen the downside of alcohol, gambling, and other addictions. I've also seen people have a beer and play a game of poker without their lives falling apart. A LOT of things can produce misery by overuse and addiction. In fact, anything can. But until I see you and the rest singing the woes of alcohol/gambling/over-eating/sex/every other potential addiction too, the "concern" of drug-banners will ring hollow with me.
 
I've known a few people (some very well) who have used illegal drugs recreationally, and their lives are not ruined. In fact, one of them has kept the same job for well over a decade, and pulls in almost 80k a year. The key in your comment though, is the misery they can produce. I've seen the downside of alcohol, gambling, and other addictions. I've also seen people have a beer and play a game of poker without their lives falling apart. A LOT of things can produce misery by overuse and addiction. In fact, anything can. But until I see you and the rest singing the woes of alcohol/gambling/over-eating/sex/every other potential addiction too, the "concern" of drug-banners will ring hollow with me.
Click to expand...
Very true. There is a down side to liberty, but that does not mean that liberty should be done away with because the absence of liberty is even worse, and by a lot. As for people who do recreational drugs, I've known plenty too. I have personally never used them, and even resist using prescribed medication, because just don't like the idea of such substances in my system. That said, however, I went to high school with plenty of kids who did all kinds of drugs. Most of them have done just fine in life, and one of them who was almost always high in high school is now making millions a year as a commodities trader. The enforcement of drug laws is FAR more destructive to users and the rest of society than the drugs themselves. I think, therefore, we need to repeal the Constitutional Amendment that authorized the War on Drugs. Which Amendment was it again?
 
It seems to me that if drug distribution networks are more concerned with expanding their clientle base (gang turf wars) then with law enforcement, then the law enforcement hasn't really been effective.

I'd tell them to withdraw from this engagment before the losses are too great, but I fear we are past that point.
 
The price of civilization is repression. Repression begets neurosis. Neurosis begets the need for escape. So be it. The desire for moral perfection is itself a neurotic addiction. The goal should be to keep our need for "release" within sane bounds.

The war on drugs is like a mad dog trying to bite its own tail.

Take the money out of the process, through some form of legalization/de-criminalization, and the worst of the problem will vanish. Of course, the drug dealers and the money launderers and mordidaistas (this includes a lot of big financial institutions) won't like the idea too much.
 
War On Drugs..short rant, I'll try to be brief..

My eldest son, now a Army cop, sorta, when he was in High School here in Dallas came home and told me about something that had happened at school. Not just that day, but it was an ongoing situtation. Other kids in the school, Thomas Jefferson High School, were offered 'free' drugs , my son included. He told me..I contacted, in person, the principal of TJ High School..The principal was indifferent...would contact the School Board..would get back to me..a week later, they didn't..I contacted the principal again..no pro-active measures were taken..Or would be taken..Seems that local school boards, at least here in Dallas, are more concerned with political issues, rather than an aggressive attempt to control drugs on campus.....

Think about it a moment, here is a kid who was aware of drugs being distributed on campus, tells his parents, parents go to to the school administrator, supposedly the info is passes onto the School Board, AND nothing happens.

I think the ,supposedly, 'War On Drugs' as long is it is a political issue rather than a determined assault, would be best described as an occasional 'minor skirmish as opposed to a 'War'.

salty.

Your opposing comments are welcome. If this thred gets 'locked', I'll be happy to talk with you via pm.

sd.
 
WoD

I have seen friends and family mess themselves up badly on
drugs, including alcohol, which is a drug. I have also seen
the failure of alcohol prohibition: my county was dry to 1968.
Honestly, the War on Drugs fails in the same sense as the
War on Demon Rum. Most people though equate making drugs
legal with approving drugs and drug abuse, although it is not.
I disapprove of the auto eroticism using asphyxiation but I
doubt if I would support a federal War on AEUA. Nancy Reagan
had it right: drug abuse won't stop til people just say no and
quit. On the other hand, I don't want the government as an aider
and abetter in promoting drugs either. The government gave us
$500 hammers and $600 toilet seats. Give the government a
problem and they manage it into a permanent situation.

My big gripe with the war on drugs is that by being declared a
War it is an excemption to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that
forbids the use of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens on
U.S. soil. Citing the War on Drugs, the U.S marshal service got
spy satellite time and national guard aircraft for surveillance on
the Weaver family, by a false claim the Weavers were growing
marijuana. The military training at Ft. Hood Texas for the
ATF raid on the Branch Davidian outside Waco was obtained
by a false claim that the BD had a meth lab. Since the antiwar
and civil rights riots of the 1960s there has been too much
militarization of law enforcement, evidenced by the proliferation
of SWAT and SOG tactics. The WoD has contributed to that.
The result is overkill against minor offenders and totally innocent
people get caught in the cogs of the machine.
 
Found this online a short time ago.
==========================
A primer on Drug War panic for morons in journalism

OK, I've lived nearly half my biblical span--I know exactly how this works now. IF A RECREATIONAL DRUG:

promotes drowsiness or lassitude: you can frighten people about it by warning that legalizing it will create impaired drivers, impaired pilots, impaired helmsmen of Viking ships, etc.

prevents drowsiness or lassitude: you can frighten people about it by warning that prolonged use induces lack of sleep and hence psychosis.

is expensive: you can frighten people about it by arguing that the crippling costs of addiction ruin human lives.

is cheap: you can frighten people about it by emphasizing its "availability" to the young and the impoverished.

is physiologically addictive: you can frighten people about it by describing in detail the Goya-ish horrors of detox.

isn't physiologically addictive: you can frighten people about it by warning of the nerve-shattering psychological "crash" that invariably follows heavy use.

occurs in nature: you can frighten people about it by warning that manufacturers will steal energy from neighbours and utility companies to grow it.

must be synthesized chemically: you can frighten people about it by talking about the poisons, waste products, and/or dodgy thermodynamics involved.

is easy to make: you can frighten people into believing that their neighbours might secretly have a truckload of it in their basement.

is difficult to make: you can frighten people about it by warning them that only organized crime is sophisticated enough to organize its production. (N.B.: the same product can simultaneously be described as easy and difficult to make if the general public doesn't know any better.)

is novel: you can frighten people about it by simply stating that the long-term effects of use are unknown.

has a long history: you can frighten people about it by finding the most stupid and risky possible method of ingesting it--which will inevitably have its partisans amongst idiots looking for something to be addicted to.

gets you really high: you can frighten people about it by emphasizing its power and allure.

doesn't actually get you all that high: you can frighten people about it by emphasizing the despair and generally lousy lifestyles of the people desperate enough to take it.

can be made readily in your home country: oh ????, it's turning our kids into drug manufacturers!

must be imported from a different climate: oh ????, look at all these evil foreigners who are profiting from our misery and boredom!

is used chiefly by the well-to-do: you can frighten people about it by describing it as "trendy" and pointing to celebrity lives ruined by it.

is used chiefly by lower-class scum: you can frighten people about it by merely pointing in the general direction of said lower-class scum. (Hint: phrases like "poor man's cocaine" come in handy here.)

is often used as an ingredient in, or companion to, other drugs: you can frighten people about it by talking about all the other bad stuff users are taking.

is never used as an ingredient in, or companion to, other drugs: you still have the option of describing it as a "gateway" leading to worse substances (don't worry about contradicting yourself by admitting tacitly, for the moment, that there are worse substances).

carries a danger of overdose: you can frighten people about it by discussing the danger of overdose.

does not carry a danger of overdose: you can frighten people about it by emphasizing the effects of chronic use, since no one is terrified into quitting by the risk of immediate death.

Special note for semi-clever contrarians: you can not only practice the use of this guide by writing an imaginary scare story about licit drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine--you can actually go ahead and write that piece and sell it, thus breaking new ground in a totally innovative manner! Have fun!

Source: http://www.colbycosh.com/#dwmj
===========================

Sounds like the play book for our government and its mouthpieces.
 
don't worry- you cna win the wars on drugs jsut like you can get everyone to give up their guns.

gun control works splendidly , so will drug control.

just look at the UK- they were able to get rid of guns and drugs!

(oh there aRE still TONS of drugs in UK, and planty of guns too?!?)
never mind.
 
Would the war on drugs be okay if users were immune from prosecution and if growing or making ones own supply (of MJ) was no proof of intent to sell it?

Would it be okay if supplies of hard drugs were deliberately and unpredictably contaminated by law enforcement, enough to put a user in a hospital...the idea being to make users think twice about purchase or use or for them to improvise in ensuring purity?

At what point are libertarians satisfied? Are we talking about freedom to obtain and use drugs or freedom to use drugs only in a way that involves no one else for supply? There are a number of contexts, some which could draw judgments different than others. For example, I see nothing wrong with growing and using ones own supply of marijuana. What I think would be quite different and wrong, maybe criminal, is pushing the stuff on someone else (free). You could smoke a joint, but don't pass it. If one doesn't like that idea, then I think there is more going on here in a cultural or simply social sense, a questionable influence on others.
 
I think it isn't worth it (the war). There's not enough LEO's, for one thing, and for another, it seems as though people would rather just sweep the whole thing under the rug and let it handle itself; in other words, they aren't willing to pony up the cash that would result in more LEO's for a better job. Even so, drugs would still be there. Why not just legalize everything, and tax the hell out of it? That way, the .gov would be earning money, not spending it (and maybe even get more regulation and more enforcement than things sit now). And, they'd know who has it, where it is, etc--just like almost everything else the populace does/owns :mad: . At least, that's my take, right or wrong.
 
RealGun, I see no reason why the laws concerning drugs shouldn't be exactly the same as those concerning alcohol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Drug War Police Tactics Endanger Innocent Citizens
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Ferrari308
F
F
  • Locked
Wrong Door
Replies
1
Views
625
Aguila Blanca
A
C
  • Locked
WSJ on "no-knocks"
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
50 Freak
5
M
  • Locked
No-Knock Warrants
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
from 12 April Cato Dauily Dispatch, an interesting read
Replies
1
Views
319
Leatherneck
L
Back
Top