It's time to rethink drug war strategy

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

[ampat]

Does anyone honestly think the ineffective war on drugs could be so ineffective by accident?

[MrLeRoy]

Teen drug use was declining as of August 31, 2000, and is on the rise now; so Clinton/Reno were more effective than Bush/Ashcroft. How'd that happen?

[MrLeRoy]

Does anyone honestly think the ineffective war on drugs could be so ineffective by accident?

The War On Some Drugs is ineffective by its very nature. Other victimless "crimes," such as prostitution and porn, have likewise been illegal almost everywhere and yet are alive and well after centuries/millennia.

[Durus]

"The WOD is the most self-destructive, wasteful, dangerous assault on our Constitution and liberties that I can think of.

Worse than social security, welfare, socialized medicine, legislation from the bench, a greatly diminished 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (and more) amendments, etcetera etcetera ad nauseam?

The WOD is a symptom of the elite thinking that the constitution and all lesser laws don’t apply to them...or worse see them as barriers in their lust for power. If if we fixed the problem then the WOD couldn’t exist.

[mg39]

"Worse than social security, welfare, socialized medicine, legislation from the bench, a greatly diminished 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (and more) amendments, etcetera etcetera ad nauseam?"

I'm a strong support of social security and welfare (for those who truly need it). There is no socialized medicine in this country. Legislation from the bench is annoying, but can be corrected by Congress. On your last point, the WOD is responsible for much of the erosion of our Bill of Rights.

Also, nothing on your list has resulted in armed goons kicking in peoples' doors, destroying their property, shooting their pets, and sometimes even shooting the people themselves, all on the tip of some no-good criminal looking to cop a plea. Nope, for that we can thank the WOD.

[MrLeRoy]

Worse than social security, welfare, socialized medicine, legislation from the bench, a greatly diminished 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (and more) amendments

Those are plenty bad. But I haven't heard of JBTs playing commando and killing innocent people in pursuit of those wrongs, so maybe mg39 has a point ...

[Asclepius]

Why, what point of his did you disagree with?

What point of his do I not disagree with?

[mg39]

You read my mind. :)

[MrLeRoy]

I'm a strong support of social security and welfare (for those who truly need it).

What in the Constitution authorizes federal involvement in these areas?

[mg39]

"What in the Constitution authorizes federal involvement in these areas?"

That would require me hauling out a copy of the Constitution and reading through it to give you an answer, which is not plausible for me at this moment. I will say, though, that given the number of people like yourself who oppose those two programs, surely by now the Courts would have ruled those programs unconstitutional if they truly are.

[The FRugitive]

I mean he didn't call for legalization or even decriminalization - he was saying what we are doing is not working, I mean do you disagree with that?

[MrLeRoy]

surely by now the Courts would have ruled those programs unconstitutional if they truly are.

Nope, the courts are have too much fun legislating from the bench.

It's odd that you lambast the WOSD as an "assault on our Constitution" yet don't realize that the Constitution provides no authority for federal 'social security' or welfare.

[mg39]

1. I disagree that issues of such magnitude would not have been settled by the Courts by now;

2. Nothing funny about my stance, though you've piqued my curiousity and I'll try to research the Constitutional issue myself. Again, when I look at social security and welfare, I don't see them eviscerating our bill of rights and resulting in citizens being shot to death in their own homes by the police, or having their cars taken by the State because Junior happened to have left a seed in it the other night, etc.

[BlazingArizona]

We need new chiefs of police. Smarter ones, prefe

You prefer police chiefs who support seizing private property without due process?

[MrLeRoy]

when I look at social security and welfare, I don't see them eviscerating our bill of rights

The Bill of Rights is declaratory; as the preamble with which they were proposed by Congress says, "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution ...".

That is, they re-emphasize the fact that the federal government is strictly limited to its explicitly enumerated powers---which do not include the power to enact social security or welfare programs.

[MrLeRoy]

I disagree that issues of such magnitude would not have been settled by the Courts by now

They HAVE been settled---in a manner contrary to the clear text of the Constitution.

[Asclepius]

I mean he didn't call for legalization or even decriminalization - he was saying what we are doing is not working, I mean do you disagree with that?

We have laws against murder and people still murder each other. Go figure.

[truenospinzone]

From your link, an interesting stat among the rubbish:

In contrast, of young people who try it at 18 or older, only 1.7 percent become addicted to other drugs later in life.

Yes, we have the government publically admitting, albeit quietly, that their own "Marijuana use leads to hard drug use" myth is just that. Thanks for the link.

[Asclepius]

You prefer police chiefs who support seizing private property without due process?

Civil asset forfeiture laws are laws--they may be unfair or unjust laws, but they are laws, duly enacted by duly elected legislators. If you do not like them, then be off with you to the voting booth.

[mg39]

"Civil asset forfeiture laws are laws--they may be unfair or unjust laws, but they are laws, duly enacted by duly elected
legislators. If you do not like them, then be off with you to the voting booth."

It's hard for the anti-WOD movement to persuade people when the Government is involved in a massive propaganda campaign telling everyone how evil drugs allegedly are. All those "Campaign for a Drug Free America" ads in the papers and television don't come cheap. Maybe the other side can scrape up enough money for a counter-ad here or therre, but it's nothing compared to the resources backing the Government's/large corporations campaign to maintain the highly profitable WOD.

Just say no -- yeah, to the WOD!