Obama's "New" Drug War Strategy

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

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.

www.erowid.org... aine/coc aine.shtml

And nicotine is the most addictive substance (chemically speaking) on the planet. Yes, it is more addictive than crack, heroin or meth. Also, I have no personal experience with coc aine, I'm just not ignorant on the subject. Cocaine typically leads to harmful usage because it doesn't last long and withdrawal sucks.

Can you provide a link for this research? I've never heard of it.

I've been looking for it but their site isn't the most organized and easy to gain information from. I remember it from about a year and a half back, from their site www.leap.cc...

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 aspect of being able to buy crack from a corner store was an absurd example and not how it would practically be implemented. One of the better suggestions I've seen were detox clinics giving it out to those willing to become clean. Much like how we give methadone to heroin addicts. Methadone IS heroin, it's chemical signature is altered just ever so slightly to allow it to be patented.

The reason these people don't get clean is because becoming clean is about as dangerous as doing the drug itself. The pain and harm doesn't just come from the drug but coming off of it. Giving it out to those willing to detox, slowly weening them off, gives them incentive to get clean. And I'm aware in the holes you'll put into this, I'm not detailing this as THE plan to do, but

So, your telling all of us, that even a teenager doesn't know how bad they are? Some of them can read, you know.

One of the major reasons people start moving to these drugs is because they are harder to detect in the system. Weed can be detected 2-4 weeks after using . All of the hard stuff can't be detected past the 2nd or 3rd day after using. Another is that they are often tricked into starting from the pushers, who aren't just selling pot but other drugs as well. It's a multi-angled problem that can't be solved with the drug war or just legalizing pot.

Also, considering my experience with people reading on this site I'm less and less inclined on the reading abilities of other people

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

If you're nitpicking specifically with that issue, as I said it wasn't a serious suggestion as to how it should be sold legally.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Waste of time on certain [perceived] recreational drugs.

I'll mention here about Alaska's experience with marijuana. For 10 year period people were allowed to carry a small amount on your person and you could raise a few plants. Law enforcement wouldn't bother the user but they could arrest the pusher.

It really didn't work, there were more users, more kids smoking, more of the 60s generation were users. It ATTRACTED the drug users to Alaska. We were thought of as a tolerant state and the drug users came here with their problems.

What I'm saying is like in California and their medical marijuana, it attracts users.

My conclusion is if you do the legalization, do it on a national level not a state level! And IMHO it doesn't work anyway.

I see a lot of people every day and these days I rarely smell or detect drugs, back in those days, the 70s and 80s, it was not uncommon to smell drugs and see the typical glazed appearance, very common!

[edit on 16/5/10 by plumranch]

reply to post by plumranch


Like you said, you either do it for real or you make a half assed attempt.
People should look at Portugal and Amsterdam.
Our only attempts hitherto has been successes, now I ask you, where's the contrary evidence? Doesn't exist, so from a purely rational standpoint legalisation/decriminalisation is totally justified and a no brainer.

Most people arguing against it are reacting in a knee-jerk manner, anti marijuana propaganda has been bashed into our collective heads for decennia.
In my country the state still publish unscientific propaganda to scare people, hell older generations and even some youngins think marijuana is a hallucinogenic(it technically is but that's another discussion), propaganda fools young people into thinking you'll start thinkin' you're an orange needing a peeling(with a knife). That is a blatantly false story that used to be spread as truth by lecturers around my country.
Using propaganda to make children stay away from a dangerous drug, is that justifiable even though you have to exaggerate? Maybe, I would say no. The truth is the truth.
The problem is, marijuana is basically harmless and when kids find out it is after hearing all the propaganda they'll assume other drugs are just as harmless, which they aren't.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by TheLaughingGod]

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


Tonight on C2C was Judge James P Gray and active CA judge

He effectively documents a growing coalition of often conservative lawyers, legislators and justices who view the drug war's impotent dream of national abstinence as folly and its shadow effects (from imprisonment of nonviolent offenders to diversion of law enforcement resources) as dangers to liberty. Gray writes with the courage of his convictions, bluntly addressing the most controversial elements of the drug war. For example, he asserts that politicians offer slavish loyalty to the drug war because it is "fundable," not because it is winnable. Similarly, Gray details how drug prosecutions have both whittled away at constitutional protections and corrupted many police agencies. He even takes the radical step of humanizing drug users. Without assuming a libertarian stance, he establishes that the risks to an individual who is determined to use drugs are dwarfed by the harm caused to the community by overaggressive policing and the criminal economy. Gray's crisp prose is mercifully short on legalese,

However harmful the ingestion of drugs are to their users, the attempt to prohibit drugs has made matters far worse, threatening our basic rights to life, liberty and property. That is Judge Gray's thesis!

IMHO there needs to be a shift in the drug policy both nationally and at the local level because as Judge Gray says, we haven't made a dent and the problem, it is just getting worse. Not to mention the drug problem is causing us to give up our civil liberties so important to Americans!

Of course the Obama Administration's approach is completely ineffective, wasteful and inappropriate. Obama is simply doing political favoritism to his lawyer and legal friends, a huge payback! So disgusting!

Gray's approach is to make a drug offense no more punitive than say a chronic alcohol offense, apply the appropriate remedies, social pressure, programs, control at personal levels.

Ie. he is saying that like in Switzerland where they have a heroine addiction problem endemic. The person can stay on heroine, have a job, and have a normal life as long as his/ her behavior is the social norm. No robbing banks, busting pedestrians, and etc. The person wants to have their drug so bad they behave themselves. The local authorities provide the drug and the supervision, etc.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Oh look, another promise by Obama down the drain.

Politicians, bag of scum that they are, can't just reverse law enforcement and treatment budgets overnight. They need to reset the balance over time to allow time for programs to be set up, people to be trained and law enforcement agencies to be assessed and wound down. Any progress is progress.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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!

So I assume that, in your opinion, oppression of the poor and weak based on psudo-moral righteousness is fundamental to the nation? You believe that the country would be destroyed if you allow the people the freedom to decide what to put in their own bodies?

(love the new avatar by the way, popeye's messed up!!)

[edit on 17/5/10 by pieman]