It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Would You Win the War On Drugs?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
How would we win the war on drugs?

First of, why would the government want to solve a problem they can make millions of dollars from?

The governments dont want to solve this problem, they want to find solutions on how to make more money from individuals drug addictions, so that they can employ more people to the task.

You can not solve a communities drug addiction/trafficking by giving out large fines and jail time to individuals.

Giving out a fine or jail time is more like a business agreement to try and make money out of local or domestic problem.


Legalizing drugs does not solve drug addictions. That is accepting that people have a addiction. The moral issue here is; Do we have a right to judge peoples personal addictions?

We have a right to judge peoples drug addictions if it affects people who dont have a drug addiction within a community.

Giving out large fines to individuals who have a drug addiction, does not solve the individuals drug addiction. But it creates more problems for the individual to service he's/hers personal addictions. The individual now has two problems to service. 1. Our greed. 2. he's/her addiction.

To win the war on drugs. The community have to find good solutions to cope with peoples addictions.

To find the solution, the community have to figure out why people do drugs. And very often people do drugs because of community and social problems. In other words we dont actually have a drug problem but a community and social problems to solve.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
There is no winning it when fellow citizens desire drugs. The only way to win is to eradicate that desire.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Without the cartels pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the world's investment banks, the economy would have collapsed a long time ago.

I don't think there will ever be an end to the 'War on Drugs.' It would be disastrous.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Oh it is posts like this that make me wish i could use an insane amount of profanity slamming every typed word that came out of your narrow minded fingers. First of all the US debt is around $14 billion dollars, and you think its a good idea to give the DEA 5x more cash to put small time drug dealers and users away for LIFE? Are you out of you stupid tiny little mind? Do you realize how much it costs to house one prisoner per year? $129 a day which is $47,085 a year, per inmate. So congrats, if we listened to your moronic ideas we'd sink into more and more debt and become a 3rd world country much sooner than we already are. And banning booze? Are you just the stupidest person on the planet? Have you not heard of prohibition? Mobs? Higher murder and other related crimes? Yeah we tried that once and it didn't work so well.

If you want to know what to do about the drug problem in America follow Amsterdam's lead. Don't prosecute, HELP! Provide state funded support. Try to heal instead of just lock up and throw away the key you inhuman piece of sh... Check their drug related crime stats to ours, and stop judging others for a problem that they may have no control over. I have done drugs and when I was tired of them I walked away, not everyone is as lucky as me some don't have the power to stop on their own without help. That's why they need out help not our jails. You are a pompous self righteous piece of trash and if there is a hell I hope you burn there.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thegrandpotato
 


You do realize I agree with you, right?



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
 




 



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by thegrandpotato
 


The US debt is $14 Trillion. Although, I think they would be more than happy to use your figure instead.

And I think the OP was being sarcastic in the beginning of the opening post.


edit on 27-8-2011 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by revellyre
 


My apologies OP I was so infuriated by the first paragraph that I started my reply without finishing reading lol. Sorry for the hate I gave you.

And yes I meant trillion... I'm a few beers deep and my feelings on the subject got the best of me lol.
edit on 27-8-2011 by thegrandpotato because: none



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
 




 



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
I would make all drugs compulsory and free.

Then everyone would refuse drugs.

And the druglords would be stuffed.

People don't refuse drugs when they are addicted, heroin and especially crack are incredibly addictive. You have to treat that, to no do so would be negligent in the extreme.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


OK, let the addicts go for it.

Seriously, to save many more billions of people.

My post was tongue in cheek, mostly.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
 




 



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thegrandpotato
 


No offense taken. I used to be employed as a social worker for a group home. You'd be amazed at what a 13 y.o. schizophrenic, ADHD-diagnosed juvenile delinquent with bipolar disorder whose drugged up on weed, antidepressants, benzodiazepine, and anti-psychotic meds can spit/scream in your face at 2 a.m. after being brought back by state troopers who picked him up in a department store doing things in the ladies underwear department that you wouldn't believe possible from a child that young.

After those kind of experiences, I gained some pretty thick skin



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I'm seeing a lot of cynicism out there on this subject!

I don't blame you. The "war" is a load of BS. But drug-taking is one of the activities that is destroying what is left of our society, including some very valuable beings.

This is a very central strategy among the elites. Addiction is a potent control mechanism. So they will be pushing drugs until their true intentions are well-exposed. Beyond that, the addicts need to be turned around or their demand for product will be a big problem for everyone, just like it is now. There are some very wealthy and influential people who are drug addicts. There is technology available to fix these people but It will not be a walk in the park to get it applied.

You can catch drug smugglers and their thugs until you're blue in the face and it won't make a dent. The evil intentions behind the whole phenomenon will need to be fully exposed and the mental and spiritual situations of the people involved will need to be fully addressed.
edit on 27/8/2011 by l_e_cox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
The hypocrisy involved in the drug war astounds me. I'm not 100% sure if it's true but i've read articles about a couple of plane crashes in South America that involved planes belonging to the C.I.A which contained literally tons of coc aine. If the institutions of social and political control in your country are secretly dealing drugs then really what chance does a war on drugs have ?

As other posters have mentioned have we forgotten the 1920's ? Prohibition on alcohol never worked and all it did was allow gangsters like al capone etc etc to make enough money to bribe officials and politicians thus corupting the mechanisms that control and regulate society. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out huge sums of money exchange hands to keep up the war on drugs, money for the gangsters and money for the corrupt officials.

I'd legalise marajuana ( can't be as bad as alcohol or tobacco ! ) and make other drugs a medical, rather than legal problem and supply addicts from the doctors pharmacy with the idea of gradually getting addicts to quit.
edit on 27-8-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by revellyre
 


I can understand criminalizing chemical drugs, such as coc aine and heroin, but can you show me in the Constitution where the government has the right to criminalize what grows in the ground naturally? Do you think the Grand Creator put those weeds there for fun, or so we of the human race could use them to help us? The War on Drugs was lost before it even got started. Spending a few more billion on it just makes no sense at all.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Im sorry but with the greatest respect the OP is deluded. The only way to win the so called 'War on drugs' is to legalise everything and take the crime out of it, and treating addicts as a medical problem instead of a criminal one. This has been done in Portugal already and results over 10 years study have proven this to have worked cutting the crime rate dramatically. You cannot win the war on drugs by increasing the budget and handing out stupid prison sentances.
edit on 27-8-2011 by chaztekno because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by revellyre
 


Legalize marijuana and soft drugs such as psychedelics and use some of the saved money to discourage kids from drug use in a truthful way so they do not come to the conclusion they are being lied to. Group the possible dangers of alcohol in there. The disease model of addiction is a good way of expounding the problem with drugs in a way that is honest and it would also remove any of the romanticism that may exist about drug use. After the age of majority the choice to use or not use drugs is up to the individual. As long as people do not infringe on another persons free will then it should be their own choice.

Hard drugs should be supplied by Government in a setting that encourages, but does not force, treatment; that is after the person is shown to be addicted to hard drugs though. The cost would be a fraction of what the war on drugs currently costs. Then give average sentences for drug dealers unless they are caught selling to minors, with that being a harsher sentence. With government supplied drugs/treatment centers the price of drugs would plummet and it would not be worth the potential sentence to sell hard drugs, the whole problem would stabilize and the cost to minimize drug use would plummet. The rationale here is that addiction is a disease and even though it may be brought on oneself in partnership with predispositions and exacerbating circumstances there are other diseases that people bring on themselves in the same manner and they are not stigmatized like drug use is. A person cannot really be forced to permanently quit; even in jail drugs use continues so it makes no sense to marginalize people by forcing them to quit, it doesn't work. Better to let them use while encouraging them to quit because under those circumstances, along with some stability, the vast majority of people would eventually quit using hard drugs. The disease model would also serve to discourage most people from ever trying hard drugs which wreak havoc on the functioning of the mind and body, eventually causing severe cravings and physical addiction.

Honestly I find the idea of government supplying drugs distasteful, on more than one level. It "feels" backwards but that is likely due to being conditioned to the current system which is exactly the opposite of the above idea. The problem is the current system drives up the cost of drugs with no way of stopping or even really curbing demand, based on history anyway. The current system is upside down because driving up costs without having the ability to lower demand is guaranteed to drive the market into a violent underground. I am sure the cartels would be the last people who would want to see government takeover their market and that is a good indication that it is a good idea. On another level which is more important and is due to a strong distaste for the nanny state the government supply idea is not appealing. Adults who are not impeding on others free will through either coercion, deceit or violence can decide for themselves. I do not want anyone overriding my free will when those conditions apply so I would not presume to override anyone else's. In opposition to that, though, a for profit heroin trade advertised openly on tv sounds like a really bad idea. Due to those opposing ideas I am on the fence about full out legalization of hard drugs. If it were legalized with education on the harms and no advertising allowed then I might change my mind, maybe. I think full government control in order to get a handle on the problem of hard drugs would be necessary first before even considering that though.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by chaztekno
 



You do realize I agree with your viewpoint wholeheartedly, right? Please read the second paragraph for clarification. A lot of police officials & politicians, (not mentioning parties), support longer prison terms ("Three strikes you're out"), and believe drug enforcement programs are underfunded, which is the real reason they tend to fail or have limited effectiveness. I was only echoing what has actually been the government's policy, thereby demonstrating the inherent flaws with the drug war when taken to its logical conclusion if these people have their way.

While I doubt the War on Drugs is winnable in it present guise, I was hoping someone would be able to logical challenge my point of view.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
legalize drugs, raise a banner declaring victory, wipe the dust off hands.

Otherwise, the only other way to "win" a war against a drug is to eliminate all drugs. ALL drugs, including oxycotin, ritalin, prozac, etc. Not going to happen, just as its not possible to eliminate all the heroin and meth.

This is basically like asking "How can the U.S. win the war against the ampersand."
edit on 27-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join