Right, let's give them even MORE power over us, and even MORE control over every aspect of our lives. It's for our own good, and besides the government needs more employees to look over us. (rolling eyes)
Posted on 01/04/2004 10:44:31 AM PST by patdor
Once we understand that the War on Drugs is an abject failure, the question arises, what can we do? What is the solution for ending the drug war?
The answer is very simple.
The core issues of crime and other social ills of the drug war come directly from the black market, not the drugs themselves. The black market is created by, and in fact encouraged by, the socio-economic effects of prohibition (called the “War On Drugs”).
As a result, the cure can only come by ending prohibition. But ending prohibition does not mean a sudden "free for all" of "legalization".
When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage). It also placed the methods of regulation for sale to the public largely in the hands of local and state governments, where it rightly belongs.
As a nation we are a very diverse culture. The values and cultural heritage of the east are different from the south and are quite different from the values of the west. The result is that federal level recreational substance laws fail in their ignorance of underlying social issues that are highly variable across the nation.
In other words, each state and locality should be afforded their own means of dealing with issues relating to drug abuse.
Thus, ending drug prohibition will be handled much like the end of alcohol prohibition - with the strict regulation and taxation of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of recreational substances.
The model of alcohol
For instance, comparative analysis of even the most pessimistic studies of marijuana show it to be safer and more benign than alcohol. Therefore it’s easy to see marijuana regulations mirroring those for beer and wine.
Hard alcohol is regulated more strictly than beer and wine, and certainly there are substances that should receive stricter regulation than marijuana. Soft drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy), Psilocybin (Mushrooms), and Peyote, would need stricter regulation - along the lines of hard alcohol, which has significant restrictions on public use and distribution.
The very hardest of recreational substances, (i.e. the drugs with the highest physiological addiction rates, such as cocaine and heroin), would be regulated and distributed only by the government and directly to users. This distribution would seriously undercut, and virtually end, the black market for these drugs. This would greatly discourage the creation of new drug addicts.
It’s important to consider this last aspect of ending prohibition most thoroughly. It is the demonized “hard drug” user that the prohibitionists point to when declaring that the drug war must be continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilliberty.about.com ...
Far enough to discourage drug abuse, Cheech.
Right, let's give them even MORE power over us, and even MORE control over every aspect of our lives. It's for our own good, and besides the government needs more employees to look over us. (rolling eyes)
If the employer has an agreement with his employees that they will remain drug-free, then the statement above is true, in that the employer is a victim of fraud or a breach of contract. In such a case, the solution is much simpler than waging a war on drugs - just fire the employees who violated the policy. In regards to co-workers or supervisors, if the company has a policy against drug use, then report them. If the company does not, then go find another job. You'll put yourself one step ahead of the game, because your employer won't be in business very long if he only employs burnouts anyway.
The re-legalization of drugs will happen right after pornography, obscenity, blasphemy, abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, promiscuity, and perversion are re-banned.
If world governments worked together on illegal drugs and aids as they are with Mad Cow, then illegal drugs and aids would not be a topic these days.
Having said that, illegal drugs are a great source for untraceable/nontaxable cash.
My guess is the illegal drug business is controlled by a hidden global cartel with the drug war as a media side show for the public, good for employment and a profit center business.
Case in point 1: Bumper year for Afghan poppies!
Afghanistan poppies with the greatest
military in the world running
the show there! Duh!!!
Case in point 2: THE RESUMÉ OF MANUEL NORIEGA!
So let's take a look how many people will be out of work if all above was illegal.
Since 1962, politicians/lawyers have adjusted our laws creating a vast gray area between good and evil.
I find it amazing that it took America 4 years to defeat the evils of WW2. However, in 35 years of the drug war, America and its allies can't defeat the evils do'ers who control the creation and distibution of illegal drugs.
Of course you do. You're too thick to know when you've been left charred and blackened.
To the stupid, anyone who disagrees with their position on legalization must be a de facto user of illegal drugs.
Intellectually, I don't consider dancing with someone who is in the equivalent of a wheelchair.
Just not sporting, you see.
A. Even the most peripheral, cosmetic review of the history of prohibition movements and legislation in the US clearly shows the racism inherent to those behind them.
B. No, I don't consider homophobia to be a form of racism.
Do you consider a sprinkler system to be a form of automobile?
Well, when you begin to 'pull your weight' on this site MAYBE you can be entitled to an attitude like that.
Till then reward us with silence - okay?
How much illegal liquor is brought in the country now?
It's all about profit margin. When drugs are legalized the drug lords will no longer have the high profits they now enjoy as an incentive to continue their activities.
The people who are most interested in keeping the War On Drugs alive are those who profit from it. Legalizing Marijuana or any of the stuff Congress likes to call controlled substances, would eliminate the multibillion-dollar profits and quickly reduce the market size. Users would be buying in stores licensed and taxed by the government, with the tax revenue going into rehabilitation programs.
Even worse for the drug barons, the glamour of doing something illegal would be gone for the teenagers, and there would be no reason left for the drug gangs to hire them to push the stuff in school yards and keep the list of customers multiplying. No more knife fights and gun battles for market territory. No more no-knock raids on innocent people. No more dealers standing on neighborhood street corners. No more confiscated property.
Legalizing and licensing knocks out the profits.
Politicians who support the War On Drugs are doing so for one reason only, they have a lobbyist funded by a drug baron slipping large quantities of cash into their pockets to keep the drug profits flowing. Their interest is in keeping the War On Drugs alive, well funded, and managed with the same bungling incompetence that has filled the prison system with bottom-level dealers and users, and left the big operators untroubled and the price of cocaine and heroin profitably high.
No, not in the least. When someone stupid acts accordingly by both (a) not addressing my points and (b) trying to label me something I'm not due to the inability to address these same points, I call them on it.
Well, when you begin to 'pull your weight' on this site MAYBE you can be entitled to an attitude like that.
Pull my weight? When you begin to construct arguments based on actual data and used both the complete historical record and rhetoric based in logic, perhaps you'll see the foolishness of your statement.
Till then reward us with silence - okay?
Sorry, if you spew BS, expect to get called on it.
While I'm here WHY do governmental organizations pass laws controlling the sale, distibution (or prohibition thereof) and/or use (limits such as blood alcohol limits) of various intoxicating substances -
a) just for the hell of it
b) to collect tax revenue
c) unfettered sale and distibution has been found to cause a problem among SOME portions of the populace (the 'stupid', those unable to regulate use of said compounds)
Careful - YOUR ANSWER may parallel mine from earlier - and we can't have that now can we ...
The reasons behind why governmental organizations pass laws controlling the sale, distibution (or prohibition thereof) and/or use (limits such as blood alcohol limits) of various intoxicating substances are not limited to only three categories.
Careful - YOUR ANSWER may parallel mine from earlier - and we can't have that now can we ...
It doesn't.
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.