[JTN]

Ping

[rellimpank]

--excellent post--

[Old Seadog]

"Lesh jus' legalize drugs (hic) it worked with booze."

[adam_az]

Last few sentences are the most important IMO, I added the * for emphasis:

"To be precise, the question should be do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?"

"A large percentage of Americans will probably say no, mainly because they are law-abiding people who maintain high moral and ethical standards and don't want to surrender to a small minority that flouts the laws, whether in the ghettos of Washington D.C. or Beverly Hills salons. The concern about damaging society's fabric is legitimate. **** But another question needs to be asked: Is that fabric being damaged now? ****"

[webheart]

So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.

Sadly, this is a subject which can almost certainly never be discussed objectively.

[bassmaner]

bump for later - this should be good!

[stuartcr]

Why not just legalise the two main drugs that are payrolling most of the drug cartels? It should provide an immediate impact on the smugglers.

[mysterio]

Great article. The thought of freedom and adults making choices for themselves should attract the warriors and get them foaming at the mouth. I'm sure they'll want us to sell away more of our liberties to prevent somebody somewhere from getting high.

[JTN]

MrLeroy is in the keywords. Who thinks I'm MrLeroy?

[robertpaulsen]

"global war against drugs" would be a failure ... that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war ... at a program that isn't working"

But the author does not define "failure" or "lost" or "isn't working". Just buzzwords that we're supposed to read and say, "Yeah, he's right! It's a failure! We've lost! It isn't working!".

What a crock.

Now, if he means that the WOD has not stopped drug use 100%, sure. The WOD is a failure. As are our efforts against against everything else from cancer to illiteracy.

So that means we should quit? Well, he answers that himself when he says that a large percentage of Americans will probably say no to the question of, "Do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?"

Personally, I'd have left out the word "probably".

[cosine]

It seems to me that most people want social actions against drug users in order to minimize what are certainly destructive behaviors. And there is no doubt that beyond a certain point drug users probably cannot quit without outside intervention. So we first tried a brute force approach, making drug use and trafficking illegal. At the same time we said users were sick and deserved protection from the consequences of their actions--employers, landlords and everyone else were prohibited from to taking certain actions against people they think are using drugs. Treatment programs, most of which do little good unless a user already wants to quit, became the solution du jour.

Before I'll listen to anyone discuss legalization, which has its points including reducing the size of criminal fortunes that destabalize domestic and foreign governments, I want to hear that that person also supports hiring and firing at will, an end of controls on landlords, and the abolition of other laws that prevent decent people from discriminating against drug users (or any other kind of objectionable behavior). Perhaps social disapprobation, with teeth, will raise the costs of indulging in many more ways than mere law enforcement can.

[Eagle Eye]

So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.

Like that is possible here!

Next joke, please?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The War On Drugs hasn't been a failure. It's kept many pepole employed for years. It's also let to much greater government control over things like allergy medicines. What's not to like?

[Lady Jag]

Nixon definitely knew what pot smells like.

[muir_redwoods]

Well, we can't possibly live in a world where adults get to choose what to put in their own bodies. None of us is sufficiently capable to make such a decision. Only our loving and protective governments have the wisdom to make such a choice for us. After all, when has any government ever failed to protect its citizens or do what is best for them? I for one am very glad the awfully smart and loving folk in the government are there to make the hard decisions for me.

I'm just an adult whose strongest recreational drug is black coffee so I have no competence when it comes to questions of what I should be allowed to put into my own body. And I don't mind the huge tax burden the WOD costs and I don't mind the occasional wrong door, no-knock fatalities and I don't mind the militarization of the police and I don't mind the windfall profits for organized crime and international drug cartels because, after all,

It's for my own good.

[JCEccles]

This Soros-funded drug legalization insanity is primarily a baby boomer phenomenon, the fruit of the Haight-Ashbury hippie era. When the boomers finally whimper and blink out in advanced age and death, so will broadscale calls for drug legalization.

[Ed_in_NJ]

We are not likely to make much progress in the "WoD" as long as that expression is used -- about all it is useful for is as an umbrella term used for the ONDCP budget, or for the holier-than-thou crowd to show their disdain -- neither of which are constructive.

Other than that, WoD means too many different things to too many different interest groups to allow a meaningful discussion.

We compare "media ads" to "storm troopers kicking in doors" to "forced random testing of students" to "burning crops in other countries" to -- etc. Some of the programs are effective, some are not; some are minimally invasive on citizens, some are grossly offensive; some cost a lot more than others. Some substances are more deadly than others.

"WoD" is a bureaucratic contrivance that serves to keep the taxpayers at bay while the budget goes up -- and the Feds are not going to help clear anything up (Feds don't DO that). Until SOMEBODY starts sorting it out, we will go 'round and 'round, and pay and pay and pay.

[MRMEAN]

This thread is referenced in the Salon Blog "Drug War Rant"


http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2006/02/23.html#a1419

[hgro]

The answer is obvious. Make pot freely available with no criminal penalty for use, then tax the living hell out of it.

Further, users will have to be free of any indication of use in applying for and working at any job.

[185JHP]

What the US is doing isn't a "war" b/c "war" involves doing harsh things. There are places in the world where harsh-enough things are done that drug users don't proliferate and aren't much of a problem...