http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921556/posts
What we are doing is clearly not working and righteous indignation will not cure it.
Posted on 08/22/2012 12:31:03 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle on Tuesday said former President Ronald Reagan deserves "a special place in hell" for his role in the war on drugs, but later she regretted what she called her "inflammatory" remark.
The comment from Preckwinkle, known more for a reserved, straight-ahead political style, came at a conference led by former Republican Gov. Jim Edgar, who's now at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs.
Preckwinkle was defending the recent move by the city of Chicago to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana by allowing police to write tickets, saying out-of-whack drug laws unfairly lead to more minorities behind bars.
Downstate Republican state Rep. Chapin Rose of Mahomet questioned whether such an approach includes drug treatment for those who are ticketed. Preckwinkle said no, arguing that drug treatment should be part of the health care system, not criminal justice. She said Reagan deserves a "special place in hell" for his involvement in "making drug use political."
"What? You didn't like that?" Preckwinkle said after audience members gasped.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Same here. It's not only the drug wars that are bad but the fact that they are illegal and what that does to this country and others such as Mexico. When I was growing up Mexico was a nice place to take a family vacation and not just the exclusive parts of Mexico either.
It may not mean much to some here in the states but there are shootings and mass graves akin to the former Yugolavia just south of the Rio Grande all brought to you courtesy of the drug war.
I don’t ever think that we could tabulate how many tens of BILLIONS of dollars it costs this nation every year....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921556/posts
What we are doing is clearly not working and righteous indignation will not cure it.
Strangely enough, that's not actually true, if you take the cases, and thread back through precedent. They almost all ultimately rest on the 18th amendment, and strangely enough, cases involving prostitution. That was one of the things that surprised me about it when I did the research several years ago. I can't remember what piqued my interest, but I was reading a supreme Court decision, and started looking at cases that it referred to, then the cases that they referred to. It all ultimately rested on a very shaky bit of ground. Granted, give the stupidity of the courts over the last several decades, I'm sure they could be successfully argued on the current misreading of the 'commerce clause', but that hasn't happened, so the house of cards is based on quickstand instead.
This goes back to the constitutional atrocity of Wickard v. Filburn, which George W. Bush, after claiming to support an 'original intent' interpretaion of the Constitution, sent his AG before the USSC to argue to uphold in the Raisch v Gonzales case.
That being said, yes, I have major problems with the war on drugs; no knock raids, confiscation laws and such. Much of it comes down to corruption and greed, both human conditions.
One thing that I do know is that drug dealers, smugglers and gang bangers will not walk the straight and narrow if the profit is taken out of drugs. They are predators with evil hearts, most with no skills or education and felony records, hence unemployable.
They will deal in prescription drugs, human smuggling, illegal arms, terrorism, slavery, prostitution and more horrifically kidnapping for ransom and home invasions
Organized crime did not disappear after prohibition was lifted, it's still going strong.
And what do we do with the addicts because their numbers will increase.
Yes, but the war-zone like violence that we saw in the 1930s and see today in Mexico today will disappear.
Most large criminal organizations were created BECAUSE of prohibition. Some of the wealthiest men on earth today are criminals and they owe it ALL to prohibition. After the repeal of alcohol prohibition, organized crime was barely on the radar in most of the USA until pure cocaine became popular in the 1970s. Entire banks and cities in South Florida were built on cocaine money. Until the coast guard got control of South Florida, Miami was the most violent city in the USA all because of cocaine.
Just think. Before the recent gold bubble, most illegal drugs were worth more than their weight in GOLD. Prohibition essentially created GOLD that grows on trees! No other purely criminal activity can generate even close to as much illegal profit. The only thing that might exceed it are the “legal” activities of our politicians.
“And what do we do with the addicts because their numbers will increase.”
It will not increase because unlike in the early 1900s (when cocaine drops were marketed for kids) people are aware of the risks and dangers. People that don't use drugs today do so for personal reasons, not because of prohibition. Anyone can go out today, buy and use any drug they want.
Maintaining addicts with pure drugs after legalization would only cost a few dollars per day. With most drugs, people can actually be very functional as long as they continue to get them and don’t consume tainted ones. In the early 1900s, maintaining an addict and keeping them functional in their personal life was a legitimate medical treatment.
Right now when someone gets addicted, they steal thousands of dollars in property, sell it for a few hundred and hand it over to a dealer for a few dollars worth of product. The product is usually tainted and often ends up permanently injuring the user so they can never be productive again. If they are put in jail, we end up paying over $50,000 every year and even if they come out clean, they can never be good citizens with a criminal record.
Uhh...ever hear of the Mafia?
As for the addicts, they are unemployable for the most part and will have to be provided for as we do now with SSDI.
Proves my point that criminal organizations will just move on to another profit making endeavor. islamic terror organizations are funneling millions into jihad from smuggling LEGAL cigarettes, untaxed or from low tax states to states with higher taxes.
If somebody doesn't agree with it and doesn't want to point the finger at Wilson or Hoover or Roosevelt, they could blame Nixon for "ramping up" enforcement in the 1970 after drug use had greatly increased.
Reagan doesn't seem to have a major player in this -- apart from the "Just Say No" media campaign and the mandatory minimum sentences that were introduced in 1986.
If I understand correctly, the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines law that Congress -- then controlled by Democrats -- passed was tougher than what Reagan originally proposed.
laws alone lead to more minorities behind bars...if they would just stop the raping, the attacking, the stealing, and the killing, I could care less if they smoke their brains out.....
look at the damage to society from promiscuity...from out of wedlock children....from homosexuality...from laziness..from sloth...from gluttony...from ALCHOL and DRUG abuse...
govt has over reached in many areas, including the drug wars, but they never really intend to "win" the drug wars do they?....too many big timers getting their millions off the illegal drug trade....
There are billions to be made in illegal drugs. I support cutting criminals' profits by 99.9% - you may feel differently.
look at the damage to society from promiscuity...from out of wedlock children....from homosexuality...from laziness..from sloth...from gluttony...from ALCHOL and DRUG abuse...
govt has over reached in many areas, including the drug wars, but they never really intend to "win" the drug wars do they?....too many big timers getting their millions off the illegal drug trade....
I spent many years in those neighborhoods in Brooklyn and did much more than “hear” about “The Mafia”. Yes, some of them would commit violent crimes but the level of violence was nothing compared to the machine-gun slaughter that prohibition created. No “Mafia” ever came close to the power these cartels have. They have more firepower than many nations and without our help Mexico would have been taken over by them. I'm certain they have even infiltrated the highest levels of our own government.
Right now we have cops armed with 50 cals patrolling the streets of Mexico and entire towns with more killings than declared war-zones. During alcohol prohibition, machine gun shootouts with police were common. We didn't see such violence in this country again until the Miami cocaine wars.
Do you honestly know a SINGLE person who doesn't use or can't get drugs because of prohibition? I guarantee you that everyone you know who doesn't use does so because it is their own decision, not because of fear of the law.
Their incredible profit assures that someone will always be willing to sell to anyone who wishes to buy. The obscene amount of money to be made also assures there is enough money to buy the police. If you look well dressed and go out in a major city, you don't even need to ask anyone. The dealers will come right up to you...
No, it does not prove your point. The cartels are not moving on to something else. They are using the wealth and power from the drug trade to expand their reach into other profit making endeavors.
It is the huge profits from the illegal drug trade that give them the wherewithal to branch out.
We will agree to disagree.
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.