To: bamahead; Bokababe; dcwusmc
posted on 05/16/2011 8:25:54 PM PDT
(Live Free or Die)
The “War on Drugs” fits the classic description of insanity - IT’S NOT WORKING.
Much like the minimum wage, virtually all data available on drug prohibition points to the utter ineffectiveness of our policies. The primary difference is that prohibition of drugs has been far more damaging to this country than prohibition of market determined base wage levels. Whether measured in dollars or livesthe War on Drugs continues to be a great and unnecessary tragedy.
I absolutely agree. But I still won't vote for Paul the Elder.
posted on 05/16/2011 8:36:26 PM PDT
(Georgia is God's Country.----------In the same way Rush is balance, I am consensus.)
I agree that drug laws should reside only at the state level with the exception that the Feds can enforce a federal law at the international borders and ports of entry.
And, at some point we have to pass state laws that forbid no-knock home entry unless there is reason to believe there is imminent danger to someone in the house...besides from the local $.10 SWAT team with a b*ner to shoot somebody.
posted on 05/16/2011 8:39:45 PM PDT
(War Criminal #18)
(Reaching for the popcorn)
posted on 05/16/2011 8:40:02 PM PDT
by Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
I can’t think of anybody who abstains from drugs because they are illegal. And, if they legalize them tomorrow, I won’t become a drug crazed addict.
posted on 05/16/2011 9:00:00 PM PDT
The War on Drugs is just another example of a permanent problem: Delusions and follies.
Obama is a citizen.
People cling to these irrational beliefs, despite the absence of any supporting data, out of nothing more than lack of intellectual curiosity or fear of ridicule.
posted on 05/16/2011 9:17:55 PM PDT
by Arthur McGowan
(In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
Most of the funding for Nixon's “War on Drugs” was allocated for addiction treatment and public education—aimed primarily at elementary school students. About 25 percent of the funding went to enforcement and interdiction. Today that ratio is reversed with the U.S. funding military style “eradication wars” around the world. The “War” provides a large amount of funding for local, state and federal police forces whose interests are served by perpetuating the “emergency.”
posted on 05/16/2011 9:23:07 PM PDT
by Brad from Tennessee
(A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
It’s all about the money folks, just follow the money trail. There is just too much of it at stake, all of it free, clear and un-taxable. No one or no nation in the Western Hemisphere wants to give up on that.
posted on 05/17/2011 9:28:15 AM PDT
(Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
Most people cant imagine an America without the War on Drugs. Without federal drug laws many believe substance abuse would be rampant, families would be destroyed and the nations youth would be strung out across our streets.
Swap "drugs" for "guns" and you get the VPC/Brady Bunch arguments in a nutshell.
Both are equally wrong.
posted on 05/17/2011 9:35:57 AM PDT
by Dead Corpse
(explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
To: rabscuttle385; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ..
posted on 05/17/2011 4:06:11 PM PDT
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
I don't have anything to do with drugs and recommend everybody on the planet do the same; every drug problem in the world would vanish within five days if the whole world were to do that...
Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to
- "No-knock" raids, which are a clear violation of the fourth amendment and of the common law principle of a man's home being his "castle". In fact technically a homeowner who were to shoot and kill one or more government agents in the process of conducting a "no knock" raid would be entirely within his or her rights.
- The incarceration of large numbers of people who would otherwise never have had contact with prison systems. For many this amounts to a career training program for serious crime.
- Gang wars, drive-by shootings and the like.
- Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.
It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:
The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.
Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.
Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.
"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."
The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.
A rational set of drug laws would:
- Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
- Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
- Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.
- Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.
Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson