The "War On Drugs" is 40 years old and an abject failure.

reply to post by alaskan


I agree a total failure. If it did anything it supplied them with more money and arms to better protect themselves.

You know it is a failure when you can go down the street and buy a bag of weed of coke fo cheap money.

They say you can rate how well drug inforcment is doing buy the cost of drugs.


An when they are cheap well that means they are not doing a good job.

I wouldn't calling a failure.....I say this because it hasn't stopped!

It is Failing, as we speak, where I live, the war on drugs is very much alive.

Thriving on regular people who otherwise are productive and law abiding citizens.

Solution? Allowing citizens to cultivate x number of plants for personal use.

Decriminalize possession of x amount

Imagine how fast the cartels would go broke?

Too many people are forced to buy what's available on the street, mostly from mexico. 1000's of miles
away!

Ending prohibition would be a dream come true...which, based on my past experience means that it's

unachievable. Drugs are bad... mmmk?

rev

For every rule someone makes, there is always a group of people that want to break it. That's just the way the world works.

This topic always reminds me of a vid regarding the absurdity of it all, especially when one considers the "legal" drug industry with all of their wonderful side effects and lack of effectiveness. We all know the real reason behind this is money for the agencies and prisons.
I just love this vid, it really calls it like it is.


peace,
spec

Its hardly a failure....it has done exactly what it was intended to do

Strip away our rights

Give the government an excuse to confiscate everything you own without even filing charges against you

Give them an excuse to train the police into a paramilitary force

Give JC Penny, Toys R Us, K Mart, Microsoft, IBM, and 100s of other companies slave labor so they can still get their products made for 17 cents and hour and proudly proclaim they were Made in America as I pointed out in this thread.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...


How can you call it a failure

The FBI has never wanted to win the War on Drugs, as one speical agent told me in 1989, "If we win this war on drugs we will all be out of a job." Which is why the FBI just sets people up when things get slow.

Originally posted by Helgas2011
There is no war on drugs, its a myth. Drugs is the second biggest economy behind war and is sort trillions of pounds to governments around the world. They don't legalize drugs because it would hand to much profit to separate companies and drive down the price on the street. Bottom line is all countries need the drug trade to survive economically.

Just my view on the world.

Helgas

Drug trade or illegal drug trade? If the latter, seems Portugal doesn't...

No, they don't need a drug trade to survive. Except for legal drug trade.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
After looking at the history of the war on drugs, it can be concluded, that it is a failure on several different fronts that can ultimately be traced back to the federal government. The first part is that, the federal government, fails to prevent the flow of illegal narcotics into the country. The federal government knows how such substances are getting into the country, yet does nothing to stem the tide or how to prevent such from getting in. In the process, they leave gaps in the security of the country, cause if illegal narcotics can get in, then so too can other things, that the federal government should be worried about.

Um. The government is bringing in most hard drugs - and likely a lot of cannabis, too. There is no way to hermetically seal our borders, anyway.

Another part is how people are getting hooked on such substances. Part of them did not start out to become hooked on such, rather it started out with going to the doctor and getting prescribed these substances, to help them in one way or another. There is an entire generation of people who were given these substances, that are now having to deal with the choices that were made for them. Children, who are given riddlen and other psychotropic drugs to help deal with behavioral issues, are often the victims in these cases, due to the good intentions of their parents and doctors, yet no study has been conducted about the long term care for such individuals after being on what is considered a class 4 narcotic.

"Hooked" is really inappropriate, when most of the drug offenses are cannabis related - like 70+% - for people in prison for drug-related charges - and the biggest lump of prisoners overall by far. Since cannabis does not get One "hooked," this is a minor concern at best. And we're not talking about the legal drugs here. They are evil, virtually all of them, but this is about the drug war and illegal things.

Then there are the users, and how they are handled by the justice system. The solution that was come up with is to put them in jail, yet very little funding goes into a viable treatment to help them overcome their addiction.

And most in prison don't need that. Most are there for cannabis.

Billions are spent on advertisement and keeping the addicts in jail, yet very little of that money is spent on the means and facilities to help them overcome their problem. The ultimate shame of it all, is that the United States would rather lock a person up, and forget about them, putting them into a facility where they can get the harder stuff, than take the time to help them, or even fund programs for the treatment of those who desire to get off of the substances, that would be effective. They came up with a drug that prevents a person from drinking alcohol, yet does nothing to help those who are addicted to say coc aine.

Well, you hardly could expect them to cure the few on coc aine - that would reduce their customer base.

The government would get more for their money, if instead of putting people in jail for such, building a rehab clinic and putting people in there, that way the person can overcome the addiction and detox, instead of incarciration.

Granted, for addicts, that is a solution. Just a waste of money for the cannabis users.

Did you know that cannabis relieves (very effectively!) stress? Did you know that one who says (accusingly, usually) "You just want to get high!" would more honestly say, "You just want to relieve stress.!"

And as I heard on the radio the other day (wish I could remember where and who), "I know [cannabis] has medical use. When I smoke it I feel better."

You know, I was watching that documentary, "Waiting For Superman", and it said the State spends on average $33,250 on each prisoner in its jails per year. The cost of a child going to PRIVATE school is 8,000 a year K-12th grade. In just four years the State has spent as much money on a prisoner as it costs to put a child in private school from Kindergarten, and have $29,000 leftover for that child to attend a college of his or her choice. My conclusion, for ever person put in jail for possession of an illegal substance, is another child that could have received a top of the line education. This is just one thing that the war on drugs has done to our country.

most drug enforcement agencies cost the taxpayer nothing... Texas for example the budget of the entire Texas Department of Public Safety (drug enforcement division) is funded by proceeds from seized assets and cash from drug arrests.


end this endless drug war.....

Originally posted by CaDreamer
most drug enforcement agencies cost the taxpayer nothing... Texas for example the budget of the entire Texas Department of Public Safety (drug enforcement division) is funded by proceeds from seized assets and cash from drug arrests.


end this endless drug war.....

Um. I want to point out that the proceeds are from drug accusations, not arrests. 80% of people who lose property from drug-related seizure are never charged with a crime.

BTW legalization...er well decriminalization has worked here in California...well its working. the price of pot has dropped dramatically in the last year down 50% in my area (bay area) this is going to greatly assist in bankrupting the cartels. the bonus is tax revenue formerly taken by "drug dealers" as their paychecks. glad dealers cant collect unemployment once they are out of business.

reply to post by Amaterasu


wow didnt know that stat...bummer!!!

reply to post by Amaterasu

There are some points that can be brought up as part of a disagreement. The first primary is that the Federal government could do more to secure the border. This has been known for a long time, as the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the country, is also bringing in the illegal narcotics as well. If they wanted to start to win the war, then it has to be fought on multiple fronts, the first is putting a choke hold on where the drugs are coming into the country, from other countries. By doing that, making it more and more harder to get into the country and on the streets, then it would have a drastic effect on both ends.
Hooked is a good work and appropriate, as there is a real problem with children that are being born, already addicted to a wide variety of drugs, from prescription painkillers, to the harder drugs. It happens and the healthcare workers are at a lose on what to do. Combine that with the prescription drugs, the class 4 narcotics that are given to children that are highly addictive, and it becomes a greater problem in the long run. What do you do for the child who was prescribed a psychotropic medicine to help control the child’s behavior, knowing that the child will have to go through withdraw symptoms in the long run?
It may not be the legal drugs that are not mentioned, but should be, as they often lead to the harder substances, when they are denied to those who are hooked on them.
Yet they problem that is also there, that is not mentioned, is how the state laws and the federal laws are often at odds, when it comes to cannabis. The state may say it is legal, but federal law will often trump and it leads to more problems in the long run.
If you look at the spending for jail versus the actual treatment and rehab clinics there is a large discrepancy in spending.
The question should be, if cannabis is illegal and not addictive, then why do all of the users of such, still use such, and take the risk of going to jail?

Once again, I will throw my post in, almost as if it were a vote.
I think a lot in the way we run our country could change if we legalized some drugs (Marijuana and mushrooms), Think about the buzz it would cause for a country like Canada.
We are already the number one producer of Marijuana both illegally and legally.
If we legalized it, I think we could usher in a new sense of open mindedness regarding peoples true right to do what they want.
Why is it a black person can complain about feeling as if they were the victim of prejudice, yet if a white guy feels as if he is being judged just because he uses Marijuana.
IMHO There is no difference. If someone wants to light a plant on fire and breath in the fumes, as long as no one else was harmed WTF?
The reason why people get harmed?
BECAUSE ITS ILLEGAL.
Screw you big pharma, god forbid we stop prescribing lorazepam at record rates.
Screw you big tobacco...Nuff said.
Screw you big alcohol companies... You know you are more guilty than any person growing a few marijuana plants.

Cadreamer? Your Law Enforcement is payed for by seized drugs and assets in Texas? Good for Texas.
Here in California? The drug war is a success for the DEA, and the County and State Jails and all the Law Enforcement that get overtime and pensions for catching and keeping the "BAD" guys behind bars.
KEEP the beds full? You get federal money to house them in the pen. County Jails too.
Let them out? Lose funding...NO O T or Pension. There's not a prison or jail house guard that would want to see their law enforcement brother get layed off.. Period.
I'm NOT bagging on law enforcement for keeping the beds full. Just saying,from THEIR position it IS a success. They keep getting paid to house them... And they don't make the laws..just enforce them.

No doubt career criminals should stay behind bars. They have a pattern and history of showing NO respect for others and will commit a crime to acheive the end goal of getting money at anyones expense..innocent people.
Where do we draw the line on jail time for drugs and how much time?
NOT Law enforcements job.
Doesn't Texas have people in jail that got caught with a pound of pot doing 20years?
That's what the law reads in Texas.. So.... Should we change the laws? At what level..? State or Fed?

Cadreamer? Your Law Enforcement is payed for by seized drugs and assets in Texas? Good for Texas.
Here in California? The drug war is a success for the DEA, and the County and State Jails and all the Law Enforcement that get overtime and pensions for catching and keeping the "BAD" guys behind bars.
KEEP the beds full? You get federal money to house them in the pen. County Jails too.
Let them out? Lose funding...NO O T or Pension. There's not a prison or jail house guard that would want to see their law enforcement brother get layed off.. Period.
I'm NOT bagging on law enforcement for keeping the beds full. Just saying,from THEIR position it IS a success. They keep getting paid to house them... And they don't make the laws..just enforce them.

No doubt career criminals should stay behind bars. They have a pattern and history of showing NO respect for others and will commit a crime to acheive the end goal of getting money at anyones expense..innocent people.
Where do we draw the line on jail time for drugs and how much time?
NOT Law enforcements job.
Doesn't Texas have people in jail that got caught with a pound of pot doing 20years?
That's what the law reads in Texas.. So.... Should we change the laws? At what level..? State or Fed?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

There are some points that can be brought up as part of a disagreement. The first primary is that the Federal government could do more to secure the border. This has been known for a long time, as the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the country, is also bringing in the illegal narcotics as well. If they wanted to start to win the war, then it has to be fought on multiple fronts, the first is putting a choke hold on where the drugs are coming into the country, from other countries. By doing that, making it more and more harder to get into the country and on the streets, then it would have a drastic effect on both ends.

I did not say we could not tighten our border. I said we could not hermetically seal it. There will always be gaps. And on top of that, it's the government that's bringing in most of the coc aine and heroin.

The question I might ask is why we want to clamp down more vs. just legalizing cannabis and sending addicts to rehab? Clamping down more merely removes our freedom to travel all the further from the days when we could come and go with no issues. It won't stop the drugs. In 40 years, if this inane War on (some people who use some) Drugs, if we couldn't eliminate drugs, it's pretty clear we're not going to.

Hooked is a good work and appropriate, as there is a real problem with children that are being born, already addicted to a wide variety of drugs, from prescription painkillers, to the harder drugs. It happens and the healthcare workers are at a lose on what to do. Combine that with the prescription drugs, the class 4 narcotics that are given to children that are highly addictive, and it becomes a greater problem in the long run. What do you do for the child who was prescribed a psychotropic medicine to help control the child’s behavior, knowing that the child will have to go through withdraw symptoms in the long run?

If we're addressing the vast majority of cost in this "war" it will be cannabis users. Over 65%. Maybe even as high as 85%. So "hooked" is only valid for the addicting drugs, which account for a very small percentage of "drug-related crime." And, again... We're not addressing legal drugs. We're addressing the incredible cost of waging a war, mostly on our cannabis-using population. Not to belittle babies born addicted to prescription drugs, mind you.

It may not be the legal drugs that are not mentioned, but should be, as they often lead to the harder substances, when they are denied to those who are hooked on them.

Am I getting this straight? You want to make more drugs illegal? I have news for you, that would be a very bad choice. Also, in order to make sure no one buys, sells, or uses drugs that are illegal, we would have to watch EVERYBODY, 24/7. In the bathrooms, in the bedrooms, everywhere. (Does the book, 1984, come to mind...?) [And who will watch the watchers?

Yet they problem that is also there, that is not mentioned, is how the state laws and the federal laws are often at odds, when it comes to cannabis. The state may say it is legal, but federal law will often trump and it leads to more problems in the long run.

Well, I am of the opinion that cannabis and its legal status is no business of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. No power over drugs is to be found in the constitution. Therefore, State law on this matter should trump Fed. Fed doesn't see it that way, of course.

If you look at the spending for jail versus the actual treatment and rehab clinics there is a large discrepancy in spending.

This is very true.

The question should be, if cannabis is illegal and not addictive, then why do all of the users of such, still use such, and take the risk of going to jail?

Because it is a medicine. People use it to treat: stress, anorexia, glaucoma, cancer, Alzheimer's, Multiple Sclerosis, insomnia, pain, nausea, and more. They want to get high (treat stress, pain, etc.)

And because prohibition DOES NOT WORK. As pointed out in a post above, we prohibited alcohol and suddenly we were beset with turf wars, crime, unsafe alcohol, police corruption - all the very same problems we're having with the War on (some people who use some) Drugs. Exactly the same. You'd think we would learn.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Just ask yourself,
"Qui bono?" or
"Who benefits?"

Haha how ironic, I saw a documentary on FreeView on ABC here about the Roman defendant Cicero when he went up against Erucius who was prosecution in the murder of Sextus Roscuis, and who the accused was his own son.

When the facts did not add up, "Qui bono" is what Cicero used, as it was the accusers who all benefited from the death and distribution Roscius' equity, not his son who faced death.

And it is indeed as fitting today.... "Qui bono" indeed!

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Makes me sick! I hate living in this damn country!

We could fix so much if we PRESSURED those in charge, or replaced them with smart people - but the citizens here are too damn busy watching American Idol and being just plain moronic.

I think it's slowly turning in our favour however, because I see a vastly different public view on the illicit nature of drugs today than I did 20 years ago. People are growing more aware of what drugs do, as opposed to the boogeyman stories they were told.

We've got an aging population who grew up with these facts and who are now entering into areas of life that were once filled with people who thought drugs are for criminals as they filled their pipe and quaffed their brandy and ate their valium. I swear, 20 years ago I used to argue with someone in usenet who staunchly claimed that people who smoke marijuana are as bad as rapists.

What has kept prohibition primarily in place was the old views of the voters mixed with ignorance as mentioned above - it was largely political suicide to advocate for a change in the status of prohibition because the older more conservative voters would all be shocked at such renegade political action, and take their votes to someone else within their limited world views.

I know there are still many barriers out there, but the wall is definitely being taken down, brick by brick... slowly..