The solution to the U.S. war on drugs

[Otherguy Overby]

Taxes on drugs?

Okay, they make drugs legal, and the socialists get to tax them.

Next thing, the blissninney social engineers try to control drug use by really high taxes. Sounds good to them, sounds good to prohibitionists, too, and also the criminals. If we allow a tax on drugs (other than general sales tax) we are gonna recreate the same black market we have right now.

Please do think about this...

 

[bowfin]

Otherguy Overby,

Exactly. People are suggesting tobacco as a model in this debate.

Let's see, pay someone to grow it, then tax it to the hilt to support various programs, and then spend tens of millions to try to tell everybody not to use the stuff you are paying someone else to grow and whose sale you are counting on to raise revenue.

Also liquor. Let's look at this:

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation wants ownership of the liquor licenses for Whiteclay, Nebraska (Populaton 14, and liquor sales of $4 million), so they could sell enough beer to the Indians to build an alcohol rehab hospital.

Legalizing the now illegal drugs would lead to the same sort of lunacy as the above cases of these two legal drugs.

 

[Sindawe]

Leaving the analogies, if the present law enforcement tactics aren't making a difference, then you try new methods of law enforcement, such as tightening the borders, cracking down on the money source. That would be the users, take them out of circulation by imprisonment or rehab.

Now there is SPLENDID idea. Lets put MORE people in prison or under some means of government control than we have so far in the War On some Drugs. After all, its worked SO well to to date, giving the U.S. the largest prison population on the freaking planet*, that we just need MORE of the SAME! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

* Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2925973.stm

Here's an idea. Lets put EVERYBODY in prison, and instantly solve all our crime and drug problems. Surely drugs never get into our prisons, do they?

Let's see, pay someone to grow it, then tax it to the hilt to support various programs, and then spend tens of millions to try to tell everybody not to use the stuff you are paying someone else to grow and whose sale you are counting on to raise revenue.

Well, then don't use public funds to pay people to produce the stuff, stop trying to be a national nanny and telling people what they should not be doing and don't put a freaking tax on free trade.

 

[Crosshair]

I say let the states take care of it. With 50 different drug policies it sould not take long to find what works best.

If hemp where legal we could be growing it on land that is currently useless for any other crop. (My uncle has plenty of saline soil land that is basicly useless.) Use it as a fuel source. I could grow it in my backyard. Remember, you used to be able to pay your taxes in hemp. (Yes that was years ago, but still.)

BTW, a person can make a killing smuggling cigarettes to New York. They could cut their crime rate drasticly if they just lowed the tax. But no, they want the money, they don't care about the crime.

 

[LAK]

Some reasons why legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack).

Like what? Like prescription painkillers?

Is removing criminal penalties for possession and use going to have all the people that stay away from these things flocking to buy and use them? I doubt it.

2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)

Like Ritalin and Prozac for instance. The prescription drugs most of these school shooters and other walking problems waiting to happen are on. There are millions of people on these things.

3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)

Yep; like Ritalin and Prozac - etc.

4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.

This is nonsense. Were thousands of people flooding the hospitals and dying on the streets prior to their prohibition and the "war on drugs"?

A very good analogy to this is the lack of any speed limits on many sections of highway in Germany. Years ago a survey by the ADAC showed that the average speed driven on these roads though averaged around 70 mph. And they still have a lower per capita death rate than here in the land of "55".

In Scotland a recent report shows that at least 50 elementary school children are addicted to heroin. That's: "that we know of". Not just sometime-users; full blown addicts. How many elementary students were addicted to heroin before it became a controlled substance?

Despite the fact that many substances are currently "illegal"; there is no trouble getting them by anyone that wants them. With the exception of people who have required regualar testing because of their employment contracts, the only deterrent is "getting caught". And that ranks very low, if non-existant among the reasons why people who do not try or use them.

5. Driving would become more dangerous.

History does not bear this out. Whether horse, ship, train, plane or automobile drivers. And this really goes back to #4.

6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.

Why should we be worried about what companies are willing to do or not do when discussing the prohibition of certain controlled substances? Who cares?

Frivilous litigation should be the focus of the Legislatures - and the impeachment of judges who do not summarily dismiss them as soon as they are presented. This is a government problem, not a "drug" problem.
--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Like what? Like prescription painkillers?

Like Ritalin and Prozac for instance. The prescription drugs most of these school shooters and other walking problems waiting to happen are on. There are millions of people on these things.

To put it more directly:

Perscription pain killers (morphine, oxycontin, etc) = heroin

Ritalin = cocaine

If you take oxycontin and inject it, it has all the same effects (mental effects, addiction) as injected heroin. If you take a ritalin, grind it up and snort it, it has all the same effects as cocaine. The only thing different is that one is legal and sold by drug companies, and the other is not, and their users have different administration habbits.

Another poster asked, "what would it take to end the war on drugs, from a legal point of view?" This is actually the easiest part. The FDA would simply re-schedule heroin, cocaine and canabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 or 3. This would be done administratively; neither congress nor the president would not need to act for this to happen. The FDA would also need to create labeling for these things. The labeling for heroin would probably be something like "for treatment of chronic heroin addiction".

Also, manufacturing and liability would be no problem. These things are easy to manufacture. They have no more liability problems than a lot of other things. They would almost certainly be manufactured by companies which have no other business. Distribution would be through special channels, maybe even state-controled channels like the liquor stores in some states.

It's practical. It can happen. We just have to get past the problem of what to do with half a million suddenly-unemployed cops, prison guards, DEA agents, etc, who are in the middle of their careers and have no real-world skills that private sector employers need.

 

[Manedwolf]

Nor does it recognize rape or murder or bestiality, yet those are illegal.

Aw, c'mon...that's Law 101. Crimes that have a victim vs victimless "crimes"...

Raping, stealing, etc...all violate the rights of another. Drinking alcohol is not grabbing someone else and forcing THEM to drink against their will...it's you, making a concious decision as an individual, to have a drink.

Wanting to allow the government to tell you what you can do to yourself is NOT anything to do with liberty-minded values, I think. From thus comes helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc...

 

[bowfin]

Now there is SPLENDID idea. Lets put MORE people in prison or under some means of government control than we have so far in the War On some Drugs. After all, its worked SO well to to date, giving the U.S. the largest prison population on the freaking planet*, that we just need MORE of the SAME! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Have you ever seen a crackhead or a meth user? I mean up close every day, day after day, close enough to see how their life goes? They already are in a prison, one about the size of little square of tinfoil, and no chance of parole or pardon. It is a life sentence, and what a life it is.

Take away their freedom? Ever see a guy so tired from smoking an entire 8 ball of meth in a weekend that he sits down and tries for an hour and a half to get back up but can't? He might as well have been chained to that chair.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Ever have someone run up to you screaming he cut off his hands in the punch press he was running, crying and spitting, but he really didn't, he was running a machine that was turned off for the last hour. If I was doing that to the guy, it would be torture.

At least in prison you have someone to cook your meals and remind you to eat. If you pass out and bash your head against the concrete, someone picks you up. They have a dentist pull your rotten teeth (Yeah, the most appealing part of meth, your teeth rot and break off) before you get a sinus infection bad enough to kill you.

Heavens to Betsy, let's not jail them. Let's let them go on with their life as described above. That way, we will be TOLERANT. We'll let them roam the streets, waste away, and do whatever crimes against themselves and others until they are used up. Has THAT worked so well so far? Has it? I have a 12 year old kid come into my office every day, after school. He used to pray that his mom would go to prison so he wouldn't have to worry about her. Go tell him he was wrong.

If anyone of you ever knew someone who had a serious addiction, you would choose prison for him in a heartbeat.

Sorry fellas, I live in a county with the highest drug use in the state, mostly meth. I can't back any of your plans or theories, you know the old saying about draining swamps when being butt deep in alligators.

Selling the idea of using hard drugs in moderation is like telling someone they can jump off a cliff and be okay, as long as they use gravity in moderation.

 

[Derby FALs]

Have you ever seen a crackhead or a meth user? I mean up close every day, day after day, close enough to see how their life goes? They already are in a prison, one about the size of little square of tinfoil, and no chance of parole or pardon. It is a life sentence, and what a life it is.

Take away their freedom? Ever see a guy so tired from smoking an entire 8 ball of meth in a weekend that he sits down and tries for an hour and a half to get back up but can't? He might as well have been chained to that chair.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Ever have someone run up to you screaming he cut off his hands in the punch press he was running, crying and spitting, but he really didn't, he was running a machine that was turned off for the last hour. If I was doing that to the guy, it would be torture.

At least in prison you have someone to cook your meals and remind you to eat. If you pass out and bash your head against the concrete, someone picks you up. They have a dentist pull your rotten teeth (Yeah, the most appealing part of meth, your teeth rot and break off) before you get a sinus infection bad enough to kill you.

Heavens to Betsy, let's not jail them. Let's let them go on with their life as described above. That way, we will be TOLERANT. We'll let them roam the streets, waste away, and do whatever crimes against themselves and others until they are used up. Has THAT worked so well so far? Has it? I have a 12 year old kid come into my office every day, after school. He used to pray that his mom would go to prison so he wouldn't have to worry about her. Go tell him he was wrong.

If anyone of you ever knew someone who had a serious addiction, you would choose prison for him in a heartbeat.

Sorry fellas, I live in a county with the highest drug use in the state, mostly meth. I can't back any of your plans or theories, you know the old saying about draining swamps when being butt deep in alligators.

Selling the idea of using hard drugs in moderation is like telling someone they can jump off a cliff and be okay, as long as they use gravity in moderation.

It is nice that you feel so much of their pain but very few users will ever be willing to change and only about 15% of those will be able to do it. None will try until they become sufficiently horrified at what they have become.

 

[Art Eatman]

Better to have some meth-heads around than to not have a Bill of Rights. And that's where we've been headed, via the WOD.

Still my opinion...

, Art

 

[neoncowboy]

Not to mention that methamphetamine is a direct result of the war on drugs.

Addict after addict I talked to in Hawaii (where meth is a huge problem) talked about the good old days when pot was plentiful and affordable...thanks to gobs of federal funding to eradicate marijuana...it's $200 per 1/4 oz now.

So, druggie kids being what they are, they look for an alternative buzz that doesn't cost so much. Which leads them to meth. Which leads them to the disgusting life that bowfin pointed out.

I'm pretty confident that if there were cheaper, better drugs readily available...nobody would choose to use meth.

 

[Pafrmu]

There aint no such thing!!!

I'm back.

There are no such things as victimless crimes.

Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?

Dealers in physically addicting substances have an unfair advantage over their customers. All they have to do is get someone to try the drug and then they have a customer for life. This should be illegal.

The argument that the laws do not prevent drug use is no argument. No law prevents a crime. It may get someone to think about it but it does not prevent it.

The slippery slope arguments are weak also. The same logic would say that legalizing things is a slippery slope to anarchy. Sorry but liberty is like being perched on a mountain top. If we slip down one side we end in tyranny, if we slip down the other we end in anarchy. The trick is getting a balance.

 

[Sindawe]

We just have to get past the problem of what to do with half a million suddenly-unemployed cops, prison guards, DEA agents, etc, who are in the middle of their careers and have no real-world skills that private sector employers need.

Seems to me that I recall we have a bit of a southern border control problem, with large sections of said border being unguarded and marked with only a few rust strands of wire.

In fact, thats how this whole thread started. Hmmmm... Napkin calculation time.

500,000 agents/1330 miles = 375 agents per mile/2 (12 hour shifts) = 187 agents per shift per mile/5280 ft in a mile = one agent every 28 feet. I suspect that might make it tad difficult to sneak across for ANY reason.

Better to have some meth-heads around than to not have a Bill of Rights. And that's where we've been headed, via the WOD.

+1 Yes, some folks are gonna trash their lives with chemical excess, and thats a darn shame. But the reality of it is that Liberty is NOT a neat and tidy exercise full of pink light and blue bunnies. It is a tumultuous, noisy, messy affair. Sometimes its down right unpleasant, but its FAR less unpleasant than the alternative. Which is what we are getting a taste of right now with the WOsD.

Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?

Well, for a short time I worked with a paint huffer, and for a longer time a few dudes that would smoke ganja after work who happened to get caught.. I guess that makes ME a victim. SOMEBODY needs to compensate ME!

Truthfully, the only way I EVERY suffered as a result of the above mentioned fellows was loosing two well trained, competent staff (the ganja smokers) as the result of an assinine policy, and having to pick up the extra load until we could get new people in and trained. Those who MADE the policy suffered not a bit. The paint huffer did not last a month IIRC.

 

[Manedwolf]

At least in prison you have someone to cook your meals and remind you to eat. If you pass out and bash your head against the concrete, someone picks you up. They have a dentist pull your rotten teeth (Yeah, the most appealing part of meth, your teeth rot and break off) before you get a sinus infection bad enough to kill you.

Heavens to Betsy, let's not jail them. Let's let them go on with their life as described above. That way, we will be TOLERANT.

No. We just won't be subsidizing a welfare program to feed and house those who choose to destroy themselves, rather than using the same funding to help people who are TRYING to make something of their lives.

It might sound cruel, but it's the truth. All that money to feed and clothe and house people who are intent on self-destruction, while there's not enough funds to help people who are truly trying to raise themselves up from poverty through hard work and determination. That money would be better spent on state-of-the-art educational resources for the latter, to let them help themselves.

Totally life-trashed drug users made a concious decision to take that first hit. And in a free society, if you are free to make choices, you must deal with the consequences. I'd rather use funding to help out people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control, not people who "did it to themselves".

The question used for donor organ decisions is a good analogy. You have one liver. Do you choose to award it to someone who has a fatal genetic defect with their liver that wasn't their fault, or do you award it to a lifelong drinker who made the choice to drink and destroyed their own otherwise-healthy liver?

I'd go for the first case, myself. People need to learn personal responsibility, harsh as it is.

 

[45Frank]

The drug problem in this country is organized and controlled by the Goverment.
Simply take 55 gallon drums fill it with drug of choice (different every day)and install it on every major corner in every major city.
With that you give each person there own bodybag. Story over.
Only the highest quality stuff no cheap Sh__.

 

[DRZinn]

Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?

The obese are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to an obese person is in some way a victim. Ever heard of Thanksgiving dinners, Valentine's chocolates, etc?

Let's ban fatty food.

 

[Sindawe]

Let's ban fatty food.

Excellent idea DocZinn. Federal mandate that mostly sedentary office workers can consume no more 1200 calories a day of healthy, low fat food, high fiber foods. No more Taco Bell, McDeath's or other junk. Just lots of fresh veggies and fruits, whole grains and whole grain breads, tofu and other soy for the protein.

Manual laborers get 1800 calories/day, with a bit of lean meats in addition to the above.

We'll have a healthy, happy population that will live a long time. Society will be all the better for it.

 

[Pafrmu]

Sarcasm Alert.

Lets instead legalize arsenic, DDT, lead based makeup, nuclear weapons, child porn, NAMBLA, and other "victimless crimes".

Its a slippery slope to anarchy.

 

[White Horseradish]

Sarcasm Alert.

Lets instead legalize arsenic, DDT, lead based makeup, nuclear weapons, child porn, NAMBLA, and other "victimless crimes".

Its a slippery slope to anarchy.

Arsenic is illegal? Nuclear weapons are illegal?(other than in that one town in Nevada) NAMBLA is illegal? Since when?

Two problems here. One, you're arguing from emotion, not reason. Two, you need better metaphors.

 

[Pafrmu]

Arsenic is illegal? Nuclear weapons are illegal?(other than in that one town in Nevada) NAMBLA is illegal? Since when?

Last time I checked. I would encourage you to try to obtain any of these to prove me otherwise.

Two problems here. One, you're arguing from emotion, not reason. Two, you need better metaphors.

What emotion are you referring to? If is the dislike of meaningless arguments based upon flawed reasoning then yes, I am arguing from emotion.

Second, what metaphors are you referring to, I believe I was engaging in hyperbole.

I think that this question has been settled. Except for a fringe minority, no political support exists to legalize drugs. It is therefore is not a real solution to the drug problem. Its like saying that s solution for world peace is for everyone to just get along. They both lack a basis in reality.

Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea? Please be clear and concise and make your points with facts and not mumbo jumbo about the 10th amendment and how it reserves to the people every this and that. Clearly the people are for banning drugs because they keep voting for representatives and senators and presidents that ban them. So get a new or better or realist argument.

 

[Sindawe]

Its a slippery slope to anarchy.

You are confusing anarchy with chaos. The two are completely different concepts.

Except for a fringe minority, no political support exists to legalize drugs. It is therefore is not a real solution to the drug problem.

Odd stance you have, seeing how nine states have passed laws that recognize the legal use of marijuana for medical needs. Additionally at least one city that I can name off the top of my head has decrimminalized the possesion of up to one ounce of the stuff by adults. That city is the "bastion" of Liberty known as Denver. Rather more than a "fringe minority".

Please be clear and concise and make your points with facts and not mumbo jumbo about the 10th amendment and how it reserves to the people every this and that.

So, the charter of this nation and our highest law of the land is just "mumbo jumbo" to you?

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea?

Sure! Start here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=182899

Clearly the people are for banning drugs because they keep voting for representatives and senators and presidents that ban them. So get a new or better or realist argument.

They are? Last time I looked there wasn't anyone running on a PROdrug platform, at least not from my area...anyone else have anyone running on a legalization ticket?

 

[Gordon Fink]

Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea?

Doing so would eliminate or vastly reduce the ancillary crimes (murder, theft, etc.) associated with the illicit drug trade. Other benefits would follow, as well, but this would be the most noticeable.

Of course, the pro-freedom among us have already explained this many times.

~G. Fink

 

[Pafrmu]

You are confusing anarchy with chaos.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy

Main Entry: cha·os
Pronunciation: 'kA-"äs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek -- more at GUM
1 obsolete : CHASM, ABYSS
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion b : a confused mass or mixture <a chaos of television antennas>
- cha·ot·ic /kA-'ä-tik/ adjective
- cha·ot·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/chaos

In case a reminder is needed. I believe that I am clearly referring to anarchy. Argue with Merriam Webster if you disagree.

The two are completely different concepts. Odd stance you have, seeing how nine states have passed laws that recognize the legal use of marijuana for medical needs.

Yet federal law supercedes local law. Don't believe me, ask the Supreme Court. Last time I checked all those states voted for their federally elected officials and those same federally elected officials voted time and time again to continue the drug war.

So, the charter of this nation and our highest law of the land is just "mumbo jumbo" to you?

No, nice way to intentionally misquote me, the only mumbo jumbo are your arguments.

 

[Pafrmu]

They are? Last time I looked there wasn't anyone running on a PROdrug platform, at least not from my area...anyone else have anyone running on a legalization ticket?

Because they would lose in a landslide.