The drug war vs. the war on terror

Chicago Tribune ^ | December 13, 2001 | Steve Chapman

[CrossCheck]

On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.

[Texaggie79]

is it really worth the cost to society?

Well you apparently think that I think that the current measures are what we should do. This is false. I oppose the WOD. I oppose any federal intervention, this is a state matter. I don't think users should serve jail time, just dealers.

The current WOD operates under the assumption that you can stop drug use by force. They are not only wrong, but they are unconstitutional. The founders supported state sodomy laws, but did not go raiding houses, and snooping into peoples lives to stop it. They simply made a statement with the law. That is the point of such laws. It says, we as a state will not tolerate that activity, and if you do it where we can see you, we will punish you.

[Texaggie79]

but that doesn't call for shooting people.

Just in his leg :-)

[Texaggie79]

For what it's worth

For what it's worth if you read more of my posts, you will see that we pretty much agree.

[bassmaner]

Yup, that's why such rich people as Darryl Strawberry use it. LMAO Are you that blind?

Strawman. It's the overall legal framework that dictates the existence of crack, not individual, anecdotal cases. IMO, Strawberry, like Scott Weiland from the band Stone Temple Pilots, likes "the thrill of the hunt" - i.e. scoring the stuff on the street. Most users probably would prefer to get high legally, without such hassles. In a legalized world, Darryl would probably settle for getting pharmaceutical-grade powder and freebasing it, ala Richard Pryor and David Crosby.

[LazarusX]

That graph is a bit misleading. At the point the numbers were high we lived in a more permissive society so people were more willing to report drug use. In addition to this they were using cocaine and marijuana for the most part. at the point it dips down the drug war had caused the crack epidemic. less people were using drugs, but they were using more dangerous drugs.

First, that is not how I think, second it is not socialistic, and third the only utopian is you who thinks that this republic would survive if all drugs were legalized.

We'd survive total legalization, just like we'd survive everyone strapping on a gun. The screwups would take themselves out with unfortunately some collateral damage, and we'd come through it as a more responsible society. I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but we have to accept the reality that some people are screwups and not expect a nanny state to make the country safe for even the dumbest people.

[nightowl_jg]

I also noticed your chart shows the number of adult Americans who are currently using illegal drugs (the 1979-1991 National Household Survey) above. I am curious how they do their research. Someone show up at the front door - "Hi, I'm from the government. Are you currently using any illicit drugs?" I'm sure no one would ever have any reason to lie about illegal behavior. < /sarcasm>

[Texaggie79]

Darryl would probably settle for getting pharmaceutical-grade powder and freebasing it, ala Richard Pryor and David Crosby.

Not if given the choice. You set high quality crack next to cocaine on a store shelve for legal sale, and many would buy the crack.

[illbenice]

I am a productive member of society and I get high, many relitives of mine who are lawyers and scientists get high, and we have never harmed anyone. So what have you accomplished by making weed illegal?

[LazarusX]

You are certifiably insane.

I don't think so. He's a lot extreme about crack in his post, but talking about it doesn't mean he'd really do it. He seems a lot more sensible than the other prohibitionists here.

[Texaggie79]

we'd come through it as a more responsible society.

No we'd come through with millions of more addicts crying out for help, and the liberals answering them. What we would have with legalized drugs would be a liberals wet dream.

I really wish one state would do legalization and that the feds would let them. That state might start out libertarian, but in a few years, it will be more socialist than Mass. Addicts need gov programs.

``Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. ''

- George Washington

[clamper1797]

don't think so. He's a lot extreme about crack in his post, but talking about it doesn't mean he'd really do it. He seems a lot more sensible than the other prohibitionists here.

A LITTLE more ... not much ... but a little. Me thinks he gets a bit emotional about it.

[bassmaner]

You set high quality crack next to cocaine on a store shelve for legal sale, and many would buy the crack.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Hell, if you had the choice between a nice bottle of 12-year-old scotch and flask of freshly-distilled moonshine for the same price, what would you select?

[LazarusX]

You are just totally convinced that smoking crack is just a peaceful activity aren't you? LMAO I have witnessed the facts.

What have you witnessed to lead to your views on crack? I'd agree it's bad news. a friend used to use it and says it's the only drug she'd consider sucking dick to obtain. I'd like to know about your experiences.

[Texaggie79]

What have you witnessed to lead to your views on crack?

Some of the most stupidest things I have seen humans do. One guy shot a hole in his wall because he thought the government was helping aliens spy on him. He thought he heard them in the wall. The ones I saw at parties were the most aggressive people I have seen.

[bassmaner]

No we'd come through with millions of more addicts crying out for help, and the liberals answering them. What we would have with legalized drugs would be a liberals wet dream.

Come on, Tex, history disproves the theory that there would be millions more addicts! (re: Prohibition repeal - Amendment XXI) If legalization is done right, addiction rates would most likely decrease, even though the use rate over the entire population would rise slightly at first. Without the "forbidden fruit" aspect, most people would simply get bored with drugs and stop, just like many did with booze after Prohibition.

[Texaggie79]

Hell, if you had the choice between a nice bottle of 12-year-old scotch and flask of freshly-distilled moonshine for the same price, what would you select?

I drink alcohol for a completely different reason than people smoke crack. Hard drugs are all about how high you can get, and users always need more and more to be happy.

[bassmaner]

Someone show up at the front door - "Hi, I'm from the government. Are you currently using any illicit drugs?" I'm sure no one would ever have any reason to lie about illegal behavior. < /sarcasm>

LOL! Well put.

[Texaggie79]

"forbidden fruit" aspect

That is one of the lamest words from Libertarians. People who take drugs do it to feel good, or diferent. Forbidden fruit has nothing to do with it. Normalize hard drugs and there can be no other result than a massive increase in use.

Tell me, who suffers loss of freedom if my way of drug laws was implemented? You would not have to worry about incorrect no know raids. No agents snooping on your bank account, no infrared scanning. It would only be severely punishable to sell hard drugs. Do you really want to defend people who profit off of selling death? Users will be put into treatment. Or do you wish for them to continue in drug use? Tell me is the massive price we would pay to legalize drugs worth stored having the "freedom" to sale death, or the "freedom" for joe to smoke his crack?

[LazarusX]

What pisses me off is all these FRmails from FReepers thanking me. GET ON HERE AND STATE YOUR POSITIONS!!! Look at this thread. It appears as if most of FR is pro-drugs. STOP FRMAILING ME AND POST!!!!!

Not pro-drugs, pro-freedom. I haven't seen any posts saying "kids, smoke crack. It's Grrrrreat." A lot of us believe in allowing people the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else. steal to support your habit, neglect or abuse your kids, etc...go into the system. smoke yourself to death in your own home when you don't have children if you want, that's not the state's business. I don't believe the state owns us. We should be free to live the lives we please as long as we don't neglect our responsibilities. anything else would be socialism. Some drugs are so addictive (heroin, tobacco, crack) that they bend the users will, but no drug can control you before you start taking it. We are responsible for our own actions and the government is not there to protect us from ourselves.

[Texaggie79]

Answer me this. If God himself gave you a crystal ball that worked and you saw that massive increase in addiction would result from legalization. Would you still support it? I don't wan't diversion, just answer the question straight up, yes or no.