Posted on 10/05/2007 7:17:45 AM PDT by cryptical
Nope. We tried that once and it didn't work.
Do you think we should?
What are you talking about, "stripping resources"? The ONDCP budget is about one-half of one percent of the federal budget -- if you paid $10,000 in income taxes, $50 went to the WOD. Plus, half of that money is spent on anti-drug advertising and substance abuse programs.
Making recreational drugs illegal helps parents in keeping their kids away from them. Despite the fact that marijuana is easier for teens to obtain than alcohol, twice as many teens use alcohol rather than pot. Why? Alcohol is legal and has societal acceptance.
Yes, we did. So then, how is it that we don't learn from our mistakes? If we are well aware of the futility of prohibition, why do we continue to believe in it?
Like I said, you are not very bright.
Getting addicted to any of these heavyweights tends to get you killed fast. Good riddance - a lot less street crime and Hollywood peabrains to worry about.
Oh yes they can. If they don't press charges against you, they can just keep the money and spend it on doughnuts and wiretaps.
Yes, I’ve yet to understand bobby’s motivation. As far as I can tell, he’s really a one-note singer.
Many so-called designer drugs are a direct result of the WoD and wouldn't otherwise exist.
Rearrange a molecule, add or subtract a radical group, then voila! a 'new' drug that isn't covered by existing laws that describe a drug by a specific chemical name.
Pharmaceuticals may bribe politicians and bureaucrats, however they don't have the same effect of corrupting every layer from customs and border agents to local LEO, to state and federal agents, judges, and politicians as do the drug lords.
Reduce or eliminate the huge profits and the huge life-or-death stakes of drug distribution and you'll also reduce the subsequent corruption.
IMO, those who wish to preserve the status quo are actually happy with the results of the WoD.
If they weren’t happy with the results they would advocate change.
But they don’t.
Under CAFRA 2000, notice must be sent within 60 days of seizure or 60 days after establishing party’s identity if unknown at time of seizure, or the property must be returned.
Of alcohol. That doesn't mean other things can't be prohibited.
If you don't think the prohibition of drugs is working, if you believe it's futile, then you must believe that if we ended it drug use would not increase.
Do you truly believe that?
With our luck they'll go into a coma and we'll have to spend $1 million of our tax dollars taking care of them.
I see, so what, exactly makes alcohol different than any other drug?
If you don't think the prohibition of drugs is working, if you believe it's futile, then you must believe that if we ended it drug use would not increase.
Well first, the prohibition of drugs is obviously not working, just like the prohibition of alcohol didn't work, and for all the same reasons and with all the same side effects.
And second, your statement is a logical non sequitur. My belief in the futility of it has nothing to do with whether it decreases the use of drugs. It is futile because it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest. It is futile because the goal of prohibition is to eliminate drug use, something that is obviously impossible.
Yes, you are. Is there anything the feds do you don't breathlessly run to shill for?
Why do you or anyone else care whether or not drug abuse ends?
That isn’t anyone’s goal at all as even OTC meds can be abused.
But why on earth is it important to you if your next door neighbor catches a buzz or stays up all night as long as they don’t cause you harm?
Addiction? There are addicts in all strata of society, from high functioning addicts like Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre, who’s ‘crimes’ were to become addicted to pain meds to street trash who will sniff glue, paint, or industrial chemicals to get a high.
Are you truly worried about the health and welfare of those you’ve never met?
Or are you mostly concerned that someone is doing something that you can’t control?
You do realize that we help him self gratify with all this attention, right?
Who cares? The point is that the success or failure of one is not dependent on the other.
"Well first, the prohibition of drugs is obviously not working, just like the prohibition of alcohol didn't work, and for all the same reasons and with all the same side effects."
What are you talking about? Prohibition reduces use. I call that "working".
"My belief in the futility of it has nothing to do with whether it decreases the use of drugs."
Gobbledygook. It reduces drug use, therefore it is working, therefore it is not futile.
"It is futile because it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest."
Wrong. Look it up. The police power of a state, an inherent power going back 400 years, is "the capacity of a state to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of public welfare, security, morality, and safety".
"It is futile because the goal of prohibition is to eliminate drug use, something that is obviously impossible".
So a reduction in drug use is no good and therefore the program is futile.
AKA, "stripping their resources".
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.