In the War on Drugs, everyone's a loser

Denver Post ^ | July 06, 2003 | Michael Holzmeister

[toothless]

"Now I know that the chief believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but it scares me when a drug warrior wearing a badge and a gun stands up at a public meeting and says that the document that makes us Americans causes him problems."

[corkoman]

The WOD also offers a wealth of opportunities for lots Freepers to reveal their totalitarian leanings. They shout liberty but whisper "off with their heads".

[Ranger Drew]

It goes even deeper than that. Legalizing current illegal drugs would take the profit out of it. The money. If that were the case, two thirds of our current government leaders would have to find something else to enrich them and their puppet agencies. By god,...this is NOT what the founders had in mind at all.

Things have gotten so terribly skewed,...I don't know if they can ever get back to constitutional leadership and law.

[angkor]

The WoD is arrayed against a global business network which exceeds the combined revenues and resources of IBM, GM, Microsoft, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, and Procter & Gamble.

Who did you say was going to win?

[CWOJackson]

Yawn...good name.

[Razwan]

More than a few do a bit more than whisper.....

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I could find maybe a tiny little bit of support for the nonsense if they at least bought American made jackboots for the WODWarriors. But Magnums are made in China.

The WOD will never end. There's too much money in it for the Warriors to ever give it up. No, instead it will expand into tobbaco and foods, eventually to everything else that people like.

[Maelstrom]

Exactly what do you think "winning" means for either side?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

You didn't ask me, but I'd say both sides see maintaining the status quo or a slow steady expansion as winning.

It's a symbiotic relationship in which the death of either party will end both.

[Mr. Mojo]

I used to be a proud Republican, but the more I listened to law-and-order Republicans chatter about the dire need for ever more enforcement of the controlled-substance laws,

Democrat politicians "chatter" just as incessantly in favor of the WOD as the GOP does.

[cinFLA]

Legalizing current illegal drugs would take the profit out of it. The money.

Anyone that supports legalizing crack has a cracked head!

[gcruse]

They shout liberty

Usually as an epithet.
Given the choice between
liberty and statism, too many
Freepers think liberty is
just an excuse to be immoral.

[angkor]

For the suppliers, winning means ongoing business. For the WoD, winning means ongoing enforcement. For both, it is a perpetual, neverending repetition of today's status quo.

[cinFLA]

Democrat politicians "chatter" just as incessantly in favor of the WOD as the GOP does.

But the libertarians get so much more joy out of bashing republicans.

[JoeSixPack1]

The drug war = Biggest money maker in the history of law enforcement.

[LadyDoc]

YEAH, if they eliminate the war on drugs, they can write about positive things, like druggies who leave babies in trash cans, or kill their kids, or the increase in the drug addicted homeless, or about overdose deaths and the 40 percent of car accidents caused by drug addled people, or about how the factories are being moved out of cities because they aren't allowed to fire employees who do shittie work due to drugs.

[jocon307]

"No, instead it will expand into tobbaco and foods, eventually to everything else that people like."

Oh yes, I'm afraid you are right about this. This is America after all, we've got to burn quite a few innocent "witches" before we return to our common sense.

[JoeSixPack1]

Oops, sorry,I must have misunderstood, at first glance I thought you meant this is what could happen. Silly me. Good thing that's not happening now.

Glad to know LEO and pill pusher Doc's have it all under control.

[William Tell]

LadyDoc said: "YEAH, if they eliminate the war on drugs, they can write about positive things, like druggies who leave babies in trash cans, or kill their kids, or the increase in the drug addicted homeless, or about overdose deaths and the 40 percent of car accidents caused by drug addled people, or about how the factories are being moved out of cities because they aren't allowed to fire employees who do shittie work due to drugs."

If drugs are decriminalized, leaving babies to die in trash cans will still be illegal.

If drugs are decriminalized, killing kids will still be illegal.

If drugs are decriminalized, homelessness ( which is "liberal-speak" for joblessness ) will still be the responsibility of the "homeless".

If drugs are decriminalized, those who overdose on drugs will still have themselves to blame and nobody else.

If drugs are decriminalized, drug-addled drivers who cause accidents will face jail time for criminal behavior.

If drugs are decriminalized, employers will continue to have the responsibility to fire employees who fail to perform on the job.