[Smokin' Joe]

Ri-ight. Just give all the tweekers machetes instead and they'll sit in the corner and be peaceful.

We have been 'fighting' the war on Drugs almost as long as the War on Poverty. Just another quagmire. Until Coke is as cheap as Pepsi, there will be turf wars fighting over who makes the profit. Users aren't going to quit, but sunlight might send the cockroaches scuttling elsewhere.

(No, I do not advocate the use of currently illegal drugs, but we have been doing the same thing for a while now and expecting different results.)

[Blood of Tyrants]

We have been 'fighting' the war on Drugs almost as long as the War on Poverty.

Longer. The WOD started very early in the 20th century when southern DemocRats got laws passed to outlaw cocaine because they were seeking new ways to imprison blacks in their plantation/prisons.

[wastedyears]

No, I do not advocate the use of currently illegal drugs, but we have been doing the same thing for a while now and expecting different results.

The definition of insanity.

[philman_36]

...currently illegal drugs...
I keep saying this over and over and folks still don't get it...There are no illegal drugs. There are controlled substances.
If you read the Controlled Substance Act (you'll note that it isn't called the Illegal Drugs Act) you'll find that actions taken with controlled substances are what carry penalties.
Controlled Substances Act PART D - OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
(a) Unlawful acts
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally -
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.
That is the "meat and potatoes" of the issue.

It is necessary to realize that the government enacted a workaround provision to do what they did. There should have been a Constitutional amendment, just like the 18th, yet this "Act" was enacted into law to allow the government to act under color of law.

Since Congress knew that there would be resistance to such an amendment they went the route that they did. They didn't "prohibit" anything, they just controlled the actions of Americans. And that should give everyone pause. For if one "act" can be penalized then any "act" could potentially be penalized, even an act guaranteed by the Constitution. And if someone might think to say that no such thing is possible I give you...gun control.

[philman_36]

A side note...
§ 802. Definitions.
(6) The term ''controlled substance'' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

By this definition any number of things could be deemed a "substance", as there is no definition of "substance", and actions taken with that substance would fall under this Act and warrant a penalty.

[philman_36]

And one last thing. Do you think the UN had anything to do with the implementation of the Controlled Substance Act? Most people, in their ignorance, would say...NO.
Well, they're wrong!
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.

Yes, Mr. and Mrs. America, all of these "drug problems" are brought to you by none other that the meddling, sovereignty stealing bureaucrats of the UN.
They've been helping you since 1961!