Posted on 06/12/2011 5:07:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
The worst things about the war on drugs it that it swells the size of government, limits individual freedom and infantilizes the public.
We had a war on drugs known as prohibition and all that did was give rise to a permanent criminal class, destroy respect for the rule of law and turn previously law abiding citizens into criminals.
What surprises me is that people I know who - unlike me - like to do a little blow once in while are adamently opposed to relaxing drug laws. They are, apparently, afraid that the coloreds will get all hopped on weed and rape their daughters.
“I, for one, don’t want to have to walk by a bunch of loaded up junkies or pot heads when I shop at the local mall.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Understandable but then I don’t like walking by a bunch of bone head liberal Obamatron fools either. Which is more dangerous? I doubt that you could get a group of potheads worked up enough to go out and hang a Republican, I’m not so sure about the liberal idiots.
Hey, that's a good idea. Let's kill everyone who smokes a little weed. Never happen though as it would wipe out the black population.
Bingo
Morality will never return to this country. Instead of outlawing drugs we should outlaw liberal thinking.
Who or what is to blame for the drugs in the first place? Will the problem simply go away by stopping the flow of drugs coming across the border? Or is the problem really the result of the Society that demands them?
Take away the source in one place and another one opens up somewhere else. Making Drugs legal, or ending the War on Drugs is in no way, the answer to the problem. It mainly indicates that our society as a whole is in DEEP, DEEP trouble in which drug use is only a symptom of a much larger and deadlier disease.
Drug laws were passed at the same time as alcohol prohibition. The only difference is that there was not the heavy public lobby for relegalization of drugs that existed for alcohol.
When people are sent to prison for more time than murder for the crime of selling drugs, this is not justice.
Don’t think the WOT hasn’t garnered large profits for those involved. If it’s government mandated, it tends to get pretty sleazy.
On what? Marijuana? That's silly.
Not true - cocaine and morphine dependency were HUGE problems in the late 19th and early 20th century.
There was no prison/industrial complex in 1870. There were no drug raids or no-knock raids. There were no entire countries being destabilized by drug cartels as Mexico is today. Crime was generally disorganized, nobody had to steal to buy drugs, and whatever percentage of the population may have been being rendered non-functional by drugs was certainly less than is rendered non-functional today by drugs or the demoKKKrat party or whatever.
Best of course would be to keep the really hard stuff illegal but you could legalize it all and be better off than we are now.
Yeah. Potheads aren't a big worry. Junkies, oxy-gobblers, meth-monsters. I've seen them all and they aren't the kind of people I would want my kids or grandkids exposed to. Morality and inhibition are the first things they ignore, I think. (Although I will admit the sober crowd seems to have lost that as well).
It's a dilemma.
Meth is so powerful because it is easy to make and distribute and requires only local production without importing or transporting.
Making any drugs like these legal is a guarantee that an entire society will emerge that lives off the government, is dependent and cannot function like drug free people. Denmark is a prime example of that rule.
No. Drug prohibition came first - during Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. (Excluding Pot - that wasn’t criminalized until the 1930s).
At the time, it was considered a success. (Which made people think alcohol prohibition was feasible).
Obviously the war on drugs, as currently configured, has problems. All I’m saying is that we can’t legalize the use of hard drugs - unless we’re OK with huge numbers of citizens - figure one in four or one in five - becoming addicted to them. When that happens, we’ll be in the hole modern day Iran is in - our best and brightest will go to college overseas, and stay there; our worst will embrace lunatic politics.
Also, while prohibition created the modern mafia, the mafia didn’t go away with prohibition. It found new sources of revenue.
You can’t use hard drugs and safely operate heavy machinery. You can’t use hard drugs and perform difficult analytic work - at least, most people can’t.
Changing the way we fight the war on drugs is an option; not fighting the was on drugs isn’t.
How about alcohol prohibition, why don’t we bring that back? And how about tabacco? That kills more folks a year than drugs do. Why are drugs bad and booze is ok?
‘’The coloreds!?!”’ Whoa! Holy 1950s! Damn dude, PC YOU AIN”T!
Actually the first drugs laws were The Harrison Narcotic Control Act of 1914.
People who drink responsibly do okay. Alcoholics, generally, do not.
I don't know of anyone who pokes heroin or meth that is able to do it responsibly.
You have it exactly reversed. Opium was legal in England before 1868, and banned in China.
Not to mention three successive presidents.
If you shut down the Mexican border, the drugs will merely come in by some other route, like say container ships. Or perhaps those home-made submarines.
There’s no end to ingenuity when there’s money to be made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.