Musings About the War on Drugs

The Wall Street Journal ^ | February 21, 2006 | GEORGE MELLOAN

[Mojave]

consumption of the plant will not even harm a John Deere tractor

Maybe he was trying to say something about hemp biodiesel.

[Mojave]

"We should not allow Fed, State, or local governments to write unreasonable, unconstitutional regulations about 'wars' on drugs"

He left out "prohibitionary".

[Phantom Patriot]

Well, you may have a point. But I do believe it's more than a few instances.I do not believe the overall effect is positive. Taking the profit out of black market sales of certain drugs could only help with slowing down the process. Regulation and taxation could be put toward education and treatment of those that truly have a problem.

Let the users of milder drugs comparable to mj fund treatment etc. Not the waste of money as with todays process.

[robertpaulsen]

"He left out "prohibitionary"."

Yeah, I noticed that. You think that means he's starting to come around to our side?

[tpaine]

Paulsen, you've been told repeatedly that people have a right to decide how they will live together, -- within Constitutional bounds.

-- Your drug prohibitions legislate outside of those bounds, as they cannot be enforced without infringing on our basic liberties.
-- It's amazing to see you ignore that fact.

You know of any restrictive law that doesn't?

States & local governments can make reasonable regulations about how we 'live together', without restricting our basic rights to life, liberty or property.
-- Can you deny the validity of that concept paulsen?

You may want to give me an example of a restrictive law that doesn't restrict life, liberty, or property.

Then we can argue examples instead of the issue? -- Admit it paulsen, you can't deny the validity of our Constitutional concept, -- that governments can not enact legislation that "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

-- Fiat prohibitions try to do exactly that..

Why are you unable to even admit that this concept exists?
560 tpaine

Our drug laws do not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
What are you talking about?
561 PAULSEN

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here was your pitiful reply the last time you tried the "example" ploy, paulsen.

Do you ever tire of playing your infantile word games?

[Phantom Patriot]

Are you? You mention "responsible use" -- wouldn't that also apply to the responsible use of cocaine and heroin? Shouldn't those users also avoid punishment?


Cocaine possibly, Not sure I agree with the latter.I believe it depends of the affect of the drug and the physical impact on the body. I am not advocating legalization of everything.


The vast majority of people use alcohol responsibly. Does that mean we have no problems with that drug?


No. I believe you may have problems with any drug. Certain people are going to abuse whether legal or not. it's in their makeup.

What's the benefit to society in legalizing yet another recreational drug?


Well sir, In a free society I would have to say choice.But that does not mean I advocate blowing smoke in children's faces. That would be un acceptable behavior.

[tpaine]

We should not allow Fed, State, or local governments to write unreasonable, unconstitutional regulations about 'wars' on drugs.

He left out "prohibitionary".
602 Mojave

Yeah, I noticed that. You think that means he's starting to come around to our side?
604 bobby

Never fear fellas. -- "Your side" is a bit too close to treason to attract many freepers.

[Phantom Patriot]

Touch`e. Hey give me a little break, it was late on the east coast And I have that equipment on my job.As if you've never had a brain fart during an intense discussion.LOL But it seems as though you got my point.

[Phantom Patriot]

I think you are just mean spirited. To harp on a spelling error is creatively side stepping the point of the post.
Hope you have a beautiful day.

[AllGoodMen]

"Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition."

The war on drugs would be much more successful if the supply of drugs was able to be cut off and then drug dealers couldn't sell it. That makes perfect sense.

[Mojave]

[Phantom Patriot]

Thank you.

[Phantom Patriot]

Another point to post 603.What would be better,more jobs created in the medical health field, and treatment,or more jobs for highly armed storm troopers?

[Phantom Patriot]

The war on drugs would be much more successful if the supply of drugs was able to be cut off and then drug dealers couldn't sell it. That makes perfect sense


How would you propose to accomplish that feat?

[AllGoodMen]

"How would you propose to accomplish that feat?"

I think a lot of law enforcement energy that was being used to fight the war on drugs has unfortunately had to be redirected to the war on terror and drug dealers have taken advantage of it.

The logical solution seems to be to better equip our illegal drug fighting task forces with more manpower and better equipment. In many cases, the drug dealers have better resources to allude our law enforcement than our law enforcement has to find and arrest them and put them behind bars where they belong.

[Phantom Patriot]

Our drug laws do not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. What are you talking about?


If at some point in our future the Government decides the law to be un constitutional.Then the entire process will have violated the freedoms afforded to us.

Laws have changed,interpretations have changed,and attitudes have changed throughout our history.Example Roe v Wade. That example is a choice because it is very controversial as with this topic.

Point: If this ever does take place then we have not been practicing due process correctly.

You know in Salem they were convinced of the evil, took extreme action. And later found it to be un just.

[Phantom Patriot]

That just seems like throwing more money away. There will probably be quite a few areas that we will have to focus law enforcement in the future for the reasons you've mentioned.

And the reason they have better equipment is because of the never ending flow of profit.Take the black market out by legalizing the least harmful which I believe is the most used. Their funding drops Government creates a new revenue source to fight the rest. Then all the money that would have been wasted can be put toward schools, health care. Even if what you advocate could be accomplished the desire to acquire and use would still be there.Some other substance or man made mixture would be found.

[Supernatural]

I called it a win, which is what it was.

You sure love putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you?

[Supernatural]

"No need to cite statistics about how there are no deaths directly attributable to marijuana. We believe you".

If it is harmless then there is absolutely no reason to prohibit it. How can we be "saved" from something that is harmless?

Its morally wrong? So is homosexual sex. So are abortions. All legal, all deadly and dangerous.

The world is upside-down. People like you made it that way and people like you are keeping it that way.

Crawl back under your rock and leave the rest of us alone.

[mugs99]

If it is harmless then there is absolutely no reason to prohibit it. How can we be "saved" from something that is harmless?

It's not about harm. For the government it's about power.
For the crusaders it's about sin.
.