It's time to rethink drug war strategy

Detroit News ^ | 10/3/02 | Police Chief Jerry A. Oliver

[headsonpikes]

"...critically, analytically, dialectically..."

Mr. A., thank you for gracing this thread with the most complete exposition of the Establishment 'position' on the WOD I have seen.(apologizing in advance for the capitals.)

Essentially, you have internalized the 'socialist' values of the 20th Century uber-state. Namely, that people are the 'human resource' of a polity, and that only the state can be an adequate expression of societal 'will'. Your "infinite shades of grey' are the palette of totalitarianism--that your version happens to be American is a mere incidental fact. You share the Hegelian metaphysic, implicitly.

So rot in H*ll, you commie b*stard! LOL!

[I like capitals...;^)]

[cinFLA]

Two points: 1) you're assuming there will be more overall drug use. This is not at all obvious. Further, substitution of pot for liquor is in general a good thing, IMO (less violence, less liver disease). Elimination of Drug Abuse Recruitment Efforts will probably lower demand, as these programs (surprise, surprise) seem to increase the customer base.

If price falls, then demand goes up! Basic law of economics. You also argue that (point2) society will be more efficient. How can this be if we have more dopeheads and more people administering the drug abuse programs you say will increase. You should not use arguments that refute your original hypothesis.

[cinFLA]

Eliminating (no one really knows the true number) a hundred thousand or so gov't jobs will increase productivity and add to the economy (to the extent that former narcs and their enablers are employable)

But in your point 1 you say that many more will need drug treatment programs. This is an increase in the gov't jobs. How many hundreds of thousands?

[Virginia-American]

...need drug treatment programs. This is an increase in the gov't jobs...

Thinking like a socialist. Shameful. You should be battling the socialization of our medical system, not using it as a rationalization for even more socialism

Further, you're making the assumption that there will be more demand for treatment. I find this hard to believe, as a large percentage of people in MJ 'treatment' are only there because they were busted. But after re-legalization, they won't be busted, except maybe fopr driving under the influence.

[cinFLA]

Thinking like a socialist. Shameful. You should be battling the socialization of our medical system, not using it as a rationalization for even more socialism

There you go using the liberal ploy of name calling. I did not advocate. Now go home and increase your risk of cancer. Hopefully, your kids will not also suffer this fate.

[philosofy123]

My friend, you have been brain-washed by our war on drugs propaganda! To make it simple, just take the example of alcohol during prohibition time. The underground profited from it, and when it became legal, the whole country did not collapse!

[Virginia-American]

There you go using the liberal ploy of name calling. I did not advocate.

I didn't say you were advocating socialised medicine, merely that you appear to consider it inevitable, and therefore a rationalization for your WosD stance.

Now go home and increase your risk of cancer.

How charming. You might find this interesting Marijuana, unlike tobacco and alcohol, does not appear to cause head, neck, or lung cancer, says a researcher from Johns Hopkins Medical School

[cinFLA]

My friend, you have been brain-washed by our war on drugs propaganda!

And you, my friend, have had your brain fried.

[Paulus Invictus]

What?! It's hard to understand what you just wrote. Was it done under the influence of some designer drug of your choice? I quoted Clancy simply as a suggestion of a method to rid the world of the cartels, or are you saying they should be protected?

[Pahuanui]

What?! It's hard to understand what you just wrote.

I understand. You're slow. That's OK.

Was it done under the influence of some designer drug of your choice?

Do you even know what a designer drug is? There is no choice involved. One doesn't 'order' one, smart guy.

I quoted Clancy simply as a suggestion of a method to rid the world of the cartels, or are you saying they should be protected?

No, I'm saying greenhorns, and stupid people who haven't lived on the front lines shouldn't presume to be something they're not.

This includes you, Tinkerbell.

[Paulus Invictus]

I am a greenhorn with regard to illicit drug use, but I may know a whole lot more than you do about what they do to people using and abusing them. Having spent 25 years in Latin America where the drug cartels abound, I know how they operate and what their goal is. Do you? And just where are the front lines? Are you there? Does one have to be a user to know where the front lines are?