Obama's "New" Drug War Strategy

Obama's "New" Drug War Strategy

www.huffingtonpost.com

The White House's 2010 National Drug Control Strategy, released this morning by President Obama and drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, is both encouraging and discouraging. There's no question that it points in a different direction and embraces specific policy options counter to those of the past thirty years. But it differs little on the fundamental issues of budget and drug policy paradigm, retaining the overwhelming emphasis on law enforcement and supply control strategies that doomed the policies of its predecessors.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.miamiherald.com

Oh look, another promise by Obama down the drain.

As the article details, there are certainly good changes made, but certainly not to the extent that it will drastically change this laughable war on drugs. A war we've never won a battle in and has been draining the US of money it currently doesn't have. Furthermore it facilitates the growth of crime by making such substances illegal. Where we could be making billions upon billions of dollars from the jobs, industries and taxes that could be imposed, we spend money and lives fighting something that can't be fought.

The second link is a multi-page article detailing exactly what this war on drugs has done. To give some spoilers, NOTHING.



www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

I did a huge long paper on the War on Drugs. My conclusion was that it is not working. Not how it has been going since Day one. I think the biggest reason is this:

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the non-profit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

Read more: www.miamiherald.com...

5.6 billion spent on prevention and treatment - yet more is spent on enforcing the laws.

This has not worked. Throwing more money and enforceing is not nor has been working. And again Obama does not own up to his promise.

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives - and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint - you realize the stakes are too high to let go."

Read more: www.miamiherald.com...

Yeah, that really answers the question.


[edit on May 16th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by SpectreDC


Waste of time on certain [perceived] recreational drugs.
Look, on certain [Recreational] substances. The US Gov could make lots of cheese by legalizing it! IMO. That would alleviate about 90% of the issues South of our Border.


YES YES I have had SOME experiences. NO! I'm not promoting. I remember reading about when Alcohol was illegal. hmmmm?


Take the profits out of the cartels hands and into the national budget?

Im sure most of these politicians heads never see the light of day. They are stuck in stinkville. To me its really a no brainer. Even if they were to legalize the lower class drugs, marijuana for instance. The profits alone would be more than enough to wage whatever kind of drug wr they wanted on the more harch drugs, heroin, cocaane, meth, crack, you know things that are ACTUALLY HARMFUL.

I guess 1/3 of the people dont matter. Why is it that you can get a handful of quacks to change something for everyone, but you get 100,000,000 people who could give a rats ass if drugs were legal and you still cant get anything done? Im getn tired of being under big brothers thumb.

MessOnTheFED!

Director Kerlikowske told the Wall Street Journal last year that he doesn't like to use the term "war on drugs" because "[w]e're not at war with people in this country."

YEAH SURE YOU'RE NOT!

Give me a break. All you do is wage war against the people!

Legalize all drugs, close the border with Mexico, create an industry of hemp. Arrest the criminals in the CIA and police who are dealing drugs.

But of course that'll never happen, too much corruption, big business and black budget money.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

This Obama administration is getting absolutley ridiculous. They are trying to take on way too many big issues......immigration, banking/wallstreet, foreign policy, the economy, and now the drug war? COME ON! Pick one and get it done! This is what leads to inefficiency and incompetence on the government's part. They try to do too many things at once without doing any of them correctly. Obama is such a worthless turd. I'm so sick of him and his entire administration. The democrats can't get anything done.

If Obama wants to solve the drug problem legalize pot. Decriminalize drugs and make them a medical and societal issue and not a legal issue. Oh wait........OBAMA IS A #TY LAWYER ALONG WITH MOST OF HIS CABINET!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT WOULD NEVER WORK! That's part of the problem......the top echelons of government are made up of politicians and lawyers instead of scientists, doctors, and other experts.

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


I'm for the legalization of all drugs, and it's rather simple why.

Even though quite a few drugs are rather harmful (Crack, Heroin, Meth(Cocaine isn't that harmful unless you do A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of it), if kept illegal their usage will continue.

It's already been researched that people aren't going to be running towards the corner store the moment crack is legal to smoke some crack because (surprise) people know how dangerous it is. There would be no real increase in the usage of these substances, and furthermore it would be easier for the addicts that do exist to get clean.

The primary reason people start doing these harder substances is because they're tricked into getting it. Pushers start with users early on and get them hooked while they are still ignorant of what they are. This WOULD NOT HAPPEN if it was legal. More so, I would hazard a bet that within a generation or two of legalization that the addicts would simply not exist anymore. Maybe a few, but there would be so few the market wouldn't even cater to these individuals anymore. Yeah, I'm saying it; the free market can cure the heavy drug problem within a few generations.

With drugs cheaper, easier to get, safely produced and easy to treat addiction for, many of these heavier drugs won't be used anymore. And with proper education, not propaganda, kids will know what is safe to do and what is not safe to do. One reason I think a lot of kids get into heavy drugs is simply because they try weed, realize how harmless it is, and think the stuff they say about the harder drugs is false too. Hell, if I EVER have kids, I'd be more pissed if they started drinking or smoking cigarettes versus smoking marijuana.

Thankfully with the internet and sites such as erowid.org people are truly starting to become informed on ALL drugs.

The reason the war on drugs will never end is because the government is just protecting its markets as it always does. it hates competition and will kidnap imprison and even murder you if you try and compete with them. They are the biggest drug dealers in the planet. it also has provided them with excuse to erode almost every liberty we have.

We're dealing with a criminal gang here folks and nothing more. Just the most pervasive and sophisticated criminal gang in the history of the world! They lie rob cheat murder etc. to protect their monopoly on commerce and production period. Further most of the people who work for them have no clue they work for a criminal gang and actually think they are helping society.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!

 

I'm for the legalization of all drugs, and it's rather simple why.

Epic FAIL!


Now you sound like some sort of Anti-American stooge who is hell bent on pushing some sort of self serving agenda to bring this nation down!



NO!

NOT
ALL Drugs!
ETA
_______________________________________________________

I wrote the original reply thinking about my own parents [Experience] my own claim and what I would as a parent would acknowledge as acceptable for my children.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by SLAYER69]

Isn't the problem really that the military industrial complex wouldn't get all that drug money they spice the black budget with if they legalized certain drugs?

There's no denying the CIA is running the drug business, supply the dealers, and whenever they seize a big drug bust they'll just put it back into the system later.

If they all of a sudden cut that off they'd be losing major black ops funding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, is there any inconsistencies? Could they sell seized drugs right back into the markets or is there some kind of fail-safe? If anyone could do that it would be the CIA.

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
Isn't the problem really that the military industrial complex wouldn't get all that drug money they spice the black budget with if they legalized certain drugs?

There's no denying the CIA is running the drug business, supply the dealers, and whenever they seize a big drug bust they'll just put it back into the system later.

If they all of a sudden cut that off they'd be losing major black ops funding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, is there any inconsistencies? Could they sell seized drugs right back into the markets or is there some kind of fail-safe? If anyone could do that it would be the CIA.

Cops do it already. One of my closer friends was...."involved" with certain business ventures when he was younger. And one time, while transporting merchandise related to these business ventures, he and his driver got pulled over and searched. The cops took all of the merchandise (nothing like coke, crack or hern) and just let them be on the way. It's obvious they were going to sell what they took.

So if cops already do this, of course the CIA does. Just on a larger, MUCH MUCH MUCH larger scale.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

reply to post by SpectreDC


Yes, that's exactly right hop scotch over my reply.


FAIL!

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


No. I think the real problem is the lack of $$$$ being spent on prevention and rehabilitation.

Don't have customers? You wont have a product to be sold.
Supply and demand. First step is to lower the demand. How this is done? Im not sure, im not an expert on rehabilitation nor prevention. But that should be our focus FIRST, in my opinion.

But as long as there is demand for a product there will ALWAYS be someone to supply it.

[edit on May 16th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Hello everyone. Just a friendly reminder to keep the thread on topic concerning the war on drugs and other various conspiracies.

Posts that contain discussions and debates on legalization issues will be removed and the thread possibly closed.

Thanks for understanding.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!

 

I'm for the legalization of all drugs, and it's rather simple why.

Epic FAIL!


Now you sound like some sort of Anti-American stooge who is hell bent on pushing some sort of self serving agenda to bring this nation down!

NO!

NOT
ALL Drugs!
ETA
_______________________________________________________

I wrote the original reply thinking about my own parents [Experience] my own claim and what I would as a parent would acknowledge as acceptable for my children.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by SLAYER69]

Nope, as soon as you prohibit something, you take the essence of freedom away from all individuals. Either you can do what you want or you can't. Despite mom and dad telling you "you can't just do what you want", you are born with freedoms that you seem to support stifling. If Joe sixpack wants to snort coke and smoke meth, that is HIS retarded decision to make, not you're or any corrupt politicians. The U.S government has become a machine that was never intended!

Originally posted by SpectreDC


Even though quite a few drugs are rather harmful (Crack, Heroin, Meth(Cocaine isn't that harmful unless you do A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of it), if kept illegal their usage will continue.

Ahem...........you said it yourself. Quite a few drugs are harmful, and how do you know that coc aine isn't that harmful unless somebody does a lot of it? Do you have a medical degree? Personal experience is no excuse to try and fool us here. All the ones you listed are also extremely addictive.

It's already been researched that people aren't going to be running towards the corner store the moment crack is legal to smoke some crack because (surprise) people know how dangerous it is. There would be no real increase in the usage of these substances, and furthermore it would be easier for the addicts that do exist to get clean.

Can you provide a link for this research? I've never heard of it. Even people who do know these drugs are dangerous, do them, anyway. Why? Because they are addictive. How would being able to purchase crack at a corner store, make it easier for an addict to get clean, unless they are picking up a bar of soap at the same time?

The primary reason people start doing these harder substances is because they're tricked into getting it. Pushers start with users early on and get them hooked while they are still ignorant of what they are.

I thought you said just above, that people wouldn't do these drugs if they could get them at the local corner store. So, your telling all of us, that even a teenager doesn't know how bad they are? Some of them can read, you know.

This WOULD NOT HAPPEN if it was legal. More so, I would hazard a bet that within a generation or two of legalization that the addicts would simply not exist anymore. Maybe a few, but there would be so few the market wouldn't even cater to these individuals anymore. Yeah, I'm saying it; the free market can cure the heavy drug problem within a few generations.

I would hazzard to say that if the drugs were legalized, there would be no more addicts, because they would be more easily able to have an overdose because they can pick it up at the corner store.

With drugs cheaper, easier to get, safely produced and easy to treat addiction for, many of these heavier drugs won't be used anymore. And with proper education, not propaganda, kids will know what is safe to do and what is not safe to do.

So, you think these drugs will come with a message from the Attorney general on them, like a pack of cigarettes? If a kid wants to smoke, they are going to do it anyway, even with a label on the pack telling them how dangerous it is, and that it could kill them.

One reason I think a lot of kids get into heavy drugs is simply because they try weed, realize how harmless it is, and think the stuff they say about the harder drugs is false too. Hell, if I EVER have kids, I'd be more pissed if they started drinking or smoking cigarettes versus smoking marijuana.

Kids get into heavy drugs because they want to, even if it is only experimenting. If you don't mind your child smoking pot, that is one thing, but you are advocating highly addictive, and deadly substances be sold at the corner store, in the same thread. I'm shaking my head!!!!!!!! I only pray for you, that you never have a meth head in your family!

edit to fix quote



[edit on 16-5-2010 by Blanca Rose]

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
Isn't the problem really that the military industrial complex wouldn't get all that drug money they spice the black budget with if they legalized certain drugs?

There's no denying the CIA is running the drug business, supply the dealers, and whenever they seize a big drug bust they'll just put it back into the system later.

If they all of a sudden cut that off they'd be losing major black ops funding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, is there any inconsistencies? Could they sell seized drugs right back into the markets or is there some kind of fail-safe? If anyone could do that it would be the CIA.

Cops do it already. One of my closer friends was...."involved" with certain business ventures when he was younger. And one time, while transporting merchandise related to these business ventures, he and his driver got pulled over and searched. The cops took all of the merchandise (nothing like coke, crack or hern) and just let them be on the way. It's obvious they were going to sell what they took.

So if cops already do this, of course the CIA does. Just on a larger, MUCH MUCH MUCH larger scale.

Yeah I understand that.. but I meant major shipments, like 30 tonnes of heroin. Don't they destroy them? Shouldn't internal affairs(or some other agency or function) make sure they don't end up on the streets again especially when it's huge amounts. If I created the system I would make sure they would have to present empirical evidence that they really destroyed it.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Yes, that's exactly right hop scotch over my reply.


FAIL!

What's that? Your reply was along the lines of: it is un-american to end the war on drugs. The reality is that the drug war = epic fail, any questions?