Why did the War on Alcohol require a constitutional amendment, while the War on Some of the Other Drugs did not?
It isn't that simple. Cops, screws, "rehab," and property siezure are all big business. Law enforcement in the U.S. is rotten to the core. It is no longer effective against non-drug crime. Even rape and murder solution rates are way below historic norms. This is a very very bad problem, and ending the Drug War will be just the first step to solving it.
Joel needs to quit smoking that stuff.
Any time a government bans something and there's a demand for the banned product or service, a black market will sprout up to fill that demand. That's basic Econ 101.
Exactly. The problem of drug abuse is not a Washington problem. It can't be dealt with through top-down command and control solutions. Bureaucrats will never be able to arm enough cops and build enough jails to get rid of it. Its a problem that has to do with individual character, the family, and faith in this country. We have to change people's outlook. We're not going to win by locking up every druggie in the country's prisons. The WOD is a failure and its time we gave it up before it takes away in the process more of our hard-won freedoms.
I knew that in 1980.
BANG
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!!!
Hoo boy, another WO(s)D thread...
This has probably been posted ad naseum on other threads, but I thought Id throw it in any way.. ;)
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
- Abraham Lincoln: Speech in the Illinois House of Representatives, Dec 18, 1840.
The people like and respect guns as much as they hate the tweaker drug users, so don't expect bans on all guns to ever be allowed to stand long anywhere in the USA IMO.