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.

[LazarusX]

Just like they see jackass on tv and imitate it.

sometimes. less morons for us to deal with. big deal.

[Texaggie79]

After a long study of TP's 'style', I've come to the conclusion that he will follow me anywhere to insult me. He must use my "find in forum" list to find me as he does. He apparently is so hated and despised by the other FReepers, that I am the only one that replies to him. So he seeks me out.

[Texaggie79]

sometimes. less morons for us to deal with. big deal.

Perhaps with the jackass viewers, but hard drug users take other innocent people down with them.

[LazarusX]

Apples and oranges. There are 2 totally different types of people that consume cocaine, and those that just consume alcohol. Most alcohol users simply want a slight change in mood and feeling. Types that take HARD drugs such as coke, heroin, ect want a SEVERE change in mood and feeling. Those types continually look for more and more to satisfy them.

Not during prohibition. people moved away from socially drinking low alcohol drinks to drinking the hard stuff. This included children. Gangs thrived, and Joe Kennedy made a fortune smuggling booze and created the wealth that keeps that family above the law to this day.

[Mark17]

So he seeks me out.

Don't you feel fortunate? Not.

[Texaggie79]

I think that shows that we're sick of people leeching off of us.

No it showed that the Liberals have died down their fight because our economy is so good and most of the poor are living well. Creat millions of homeless addicts, and they will start to fight again.

[LazarusX]

Perhaps with the jackass viewers, but hard drug users take other innocent people down with them.

If you're speaking of their families, they are free to leave the drug addict loser. If you mean people they rob we have laws against that and they should be arrested for it.

[Texaggie79]

people moved away from socially drinking low alcohol drinks to drinking the hard stuff.

Only because it was more available than the mild stuff. However, today, you can get beer for cheap and it is more available. Look to drugs though and you see that cocaine is just as available as crack. And many rich users still choose Crack.

[LazarusX]

No it showed that the Liberals have died down their fight because our economy is so good and most of the poor are living well. Creat millions of homeless addicts, and they will start to fight again.

are they doing better? I'm under the impression the good economy helped those of us lucky or industrious enough to be toward the top of the heap, but didn't do much for those with low paying jobs. I've made out great over the past five years, but I don't think the same is true for the people at the bottom.

[Texaggie79]

If you're speaking of their families, they are free to leave the drug addict loser.

How, just let your own mom/dad, or wife/husband, or daughter/son just fade into death? That may be practical but most family members won't do that. And young children of single parents or both parents who use drugs can't leave.

[Texaggie79]

but I don't think the same is true for the people at the bottom.

Yes it is, more jobs, means for everyone.

[Virginia-American]

It is physically impossible to remain a responsible peaceful citizen when on crack.

That's simply not true, based on my own observations. Believe it or not, there really are weekend crack smokers who have regualr jobs during the week. I'm not claiming that this is the way most crack (ab)users behave, but some certainly do.

[LazarusX]

Only because it was more available than the mild stuff. However, today, you can get beer for cheap and it is more available. Look to drugs though and you see that cocaine is just as available as crack. And many rich users still choose Crack.

cocaine is less available to the poor due to the inflated price of drug. It's possible now that the genie is out of the bottle (or the crack is out of the pants) they may not go back to regular cocaine, but new users may tend toward regular cocaine because they see how insane crackheads are. In columbia they chew the leaves that cocaine is derived from. it's a mild stimulant and causes little harm. by prohibiting the substance we caused the people selling the drug to focus on more concentrated forms. first that gets us cocaine, then crack. this is not progress.

I haven't heard of any rich people destroying their lives with crack. Do you have any examples of wealthy people with crack problems? I'm not talking about someone who does it once in a while and doesn't go insane. Are there any that lost it due to the drug rather than the drug laws?

[tpaine]

You're getting mildly paranoid again.

Look at it this way tex.
-- You make a lot of wild statements & unsupported claims. -- Sometimes I have the knowledge to challenge them. -- You never respond to such rebuttals with facts, -- just more of what you consider 'cutesy' wisecracks.

Then, after your weird 'style' becomes an issue, you claim harrassment..

It is a pattern, and others comment on it also. -- Change your style, or learn to live with critiques .

[1_American]

You make a lot of wild statements & unsupported claims. -- Sometimes I have the knowledge to challenge them. -- You never respond to such rebuttals with facts, -- just more of what you consider 'cutesy' wisecracks. Then, after your weird 'style' becomes an issue, you claim harrassment..

I've noticed that too. Most everything Tex posts is emotion driven. I understand that he has had some bad experiences that drive him and I'm not sure if I blame him BUT this IS a debate site and he doesn't present many facts. And when someone disagrees with him he calls them names and when that person responds to the insult he gets mad at them. Sad ... very sad. BUT he is better than some others I have seen.

I generally just lurk but I had to put MY two cents worth in this time

[Texaggie79]

Do you have any examples of wealthy people with crack problems?

Sports stars, Many on the Dallas Cowboys, Daryll Strawberry, many Movie stars such as Max Wright, and too many musicians to name. The reason they are the most known about is because their lives are so public. Crack is a more concentrated form of coke, and it makes you feel higher, why in the hell wouldn't people prefer it?

[Texaggie79]

You make a lot of wild statements & unsupported claims.

Yup, apparently drugs aren't harmful. LMAO

[Texaggie79]

he doesn't present many facts

What? WHAT the hell can I present that these guys don't shoot down as false because of the source, or because it just can't be true. I posted WELL KNOWN undisputed statistics on drug use from 79 till the 90's and everyone immediately calls it a sham. Must I get stats from Harry Browne himself before they accept it? All that is left for me to push on them is common sense. Common sense tells you that drug use will dramatically rise with legalization, and all the posters here know that. They just don't like to admit it because that would hurt their cause.

I don't call names and most of whome a post to I have a friendly relationship with, some I don't (tpaine is pretty much it). Some of my best friends on FR are pro-drug legalization.

[Virginia-American]

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

In a hearbeat. The crystal ball would also show a 50 BILLION DOLLAR per YEAR decrease in the federal budget, comparable decreases in the 50 states, and I'm not sure just how many, but many tens of thousands of bureaucrats, narcs, prison guards, lawyers, and so forth forced to do legitimate work.

How can you even compare the damage an addict causes to himself and those in his immediate surroundings to the society-wide (and world-wide, when you factor in the things that hidden drug profits fund) damage done by lawyers and bureaucrats? One crooked cop is a much greater danger than any number of addicts

One of the main reasons we have pot prohibitiion is that FDR didn't want to lay off the alcohol T-men after the 21st amendment passed. I really want to excise their metastatized progeny from public life.

[LazarusX]

just let your own mom/dad, or wife/husband, or daughter/son just fade into death? That may be practical but most family members won't do that. And young children of single parents or both parents who use drugs can't leave.

I agree it's tragic for the children of drug addicts, and think that is the point where the state should step in. This doesn't mean that the drug should be prohibited. It's not worth financing criminals to save people from themselves. i'd read several months ago about a cocaine vaccine that blocks the action of the drug. that may be the solution. make it available to those who need help quitting and let the people that don't want to quit destroy themselves. I know that sounds harsh, but the alternative is a nanny state, and forcibly vaccinating people would have big government modifying peoples bodies...very worrying. I think it would be reasonable to require the vaccination as a condition for welfare. That way the choice is still with the individual. No easy answers.