News flash! Drugs win drug war!

[Tyler]

'In Media polls maybe, but ask the average person and you'll get a different response. My first job was as a campaign worker (I was one of those annoying people outside of stores asking people to sign my petition). One of the things we were trying to get on the ballot was medical marijauna(prop 215 in California). Most people happily signed and would have signed a petition for total legalized pot. EVEN in the very conservative parts of Southern Cali."

Good thing then. Why don't people vote that way? Do yo uthink the majority would support heroin legalized?


"Wouldn't have to, all they need to do is go to school, drugs are everywhere. I went to a Catholic high school, and drugs were readily available. Plus if drugs were legal it would make it easier to focus on those who sell them to kids."

How would it make it easier? Legalization is not needed, only decriminalization. With it decriminalized you have users not being arrested so the police can focus on the importers and dealers.


"If you agree, then why are we arguing"

I didn't really intend to debate you or Xev. I think legalization tomorrow is completely irrational. That's like saying we should all go to electric cars in a week. Great idea, but not at all plausible.

 

[static76]

1) The drug war could be said to be a success if you define "success" loosely enough. If success means making it harder to get drugs and making it less likely that some people will use drugs, then it can be said to be a success. PLEASE don't tell me that drugs are "everywhere" and that nobody is dissauded from using them because they are illegal. We all know better.

Welcome to Sciforums!

Sorry but drugs ARE everywhere. Tell me a place they're not.

2) If we propose age-limits for drug use won't that keep the black market in place? Or else, adults will get the stuff legally and sell it to their underage buddies? If we make it legal, it seems like it'll be available to just about anyone not under immediate parental control.

Teenagers and kids can't support the Black Market, they don't earn any money. Stores wouldn't sell to kids because we could revoke their drug license, the same thing we did with liquor.

Also, drugs are already available to kids not under parental control.

3) The argument that "no one has a right to tell me what I can take" doesn't sound very convincing. Isn't that what government IS? If you support government then you support the idea of someone telling someone else what they can do.

You need to reread the Constitution. The government works for us (at least they're supposed to...), they're not supposed to be controlling us.

Now a question. If drugs are legal, some people will take them and do horrible things -- causing the death of many people, unintentionally, say. If it's YOUR child who has done something like that are you going to still be supportive of legalized drugs or will you be whining "well if drugs weren't legal my child would never have done this, it isn't HIS fault".

I've had a couple of family members who fell victim to drugs. They were put in jail (where drugs are easy to get), and it made the situation worst. It wasn't until they hit rock-bottom that they cleaned themselves up.

Our Vice-President Dick Cheney has 3 DUIs, should he be serving 25 years in jail, like those with 3 drug offences?

 

[Xev]

Tyler:

Capone owned Chicago. Ever seen Goodfellas? The mafia controlled cities. Much more power than you'll ever come close to touching.

*Cough* Untermensch *cough*

Jesus fugging christ on a pogo stick, you really do believe that, don't you?

How about I say; Xev you're right, however you're not actually replying to what I'm saying. Now, could you please show me where I state I'm FOR the war on drugs? Or is that just another thing you've made up to argue against me?

Thanks. I'm glad that you've finally decided to remove your head from your arse. It does wonders for your typing.

So as you see, I am consistent through both quotes.

Consistantly idiotic, yes.

I didn't really intend to debate you or Xev. I think legalization tomorrow is completely irrational. That's like saying we should all go to electric cars in a week. Great idea, but not at all plausible.

Who said anything about legalization tomorrow?

I give the hell up.

postaok:

1) The drug war could be said to be a success if you define "success" loosely enough. If success means making it harder to get drugs and making it less likely that some people will use drugs, then it can be said to be a success. PLEASE don't tell me that drugs are "everywhere" and that nobody is dissauded from using them because they are illegal. We all know better.

I'm a brilliant physicist and sex goddess if we define "brilliant physicist" and "sex goddess" loosely enough. G.W Bush is a genius if we define "genius" to mean "guy who can walk and chew gum at same time" (although I have my doubts)

2) If we propose age-limits for drug use won't that keep the black market in place? Or else, adults will get the stuff legally and sell it to their underage buddies? If we make it legal, it seems like it'll be available to just about anyone not under immediate parental control.

Is there a black market for booze because of the age limits? No.

3) The argument that "no one has a right to tell me what I can take" doesn't sound very convincing. Isn't that what government IS? If you support government then you support the idea of someone telling someone else what they can do.

No. Government's purpose is to tell people what to do as their actions might harm other people, not as their actions might harm themselves.

Now a question. If drugs are legal, some people will take them and do horrible things -- causing the death of many people, unintentionally, say. If it's YOUR child who has done something like that are you going to still be supportive of legalized drugs or will you be whining "well if drugs weren't legal my child would never have done this, it isn't HIS fault".

You mean, driving while high?

I don't have kids. But what's the point? If I did, I would not whine like that. And if they shot up their school, I would not sue Marilyn Manson. And etc.

 

[Joeman]

Ha! You are all wrong. Here is my take on war on drugs

*crack knuckles*

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Why is the US still spending billions of dollars on a 'war' that has not accomplished any of its goals since its inception decades ago?

US is not winning the war on drugs because US is handcuffed by a few things.

1. The politics in dealing with drug producers and its government. US doesn't want to piss them off and do things that would harm US's image.

2. Priorities. Obeying Morals, international laws and US constitutions are more important than the war on drugs. It is related to #1.

3. Drugs dealers are using American drug users' money to fight against US. They have more money and resources.

Basically US is not winning simply because US did not try hard enough and is not desperate enough and is not taking war on drugs seriously. If US wants to win, super hard ball politics and dirty tactics has to be used. That means US should invade countries that make drugs and put troops there. Civilian marijuana farm workers are no longer considered innocent and should be killed. Since US has declared "war", soldiers can shoot to kill. Small nuclear devices should be used to wipe out plantations. It is useful because the radiation will keep the land barren. Arm twisting is needed to freeze bank assets of drug dealers overseas, and failure to comply will result in loss of foreign aid or embargo. US will win war on drugs if desperate enough.

I am FOR US stepping up war on drugs another notch because drugs will not be legalized for a loooong time for following reasons.

1. Legalizing drugs is the lowest of low priorities in US congress if such bill would exist. The government has gotten larger and the congress isn't. Congressmen are too busy with bills, Bush/Cheny investigations, committe hearings, fund raising, and cheap shot on one another that they don't have time for this shit. When a company gets bigger they hire more people, but not US congress.

2. Supporting drug legalization is bad image for politicians. They don't want to be called "pot head" by people they are running against.

3. Powerful lobbying by tobacco and alcohol industry. They fear loss of revenue.

4. Legalization of drugs must mean legalization of prescription drugs as well. Nobody is gonna be for that.

 

[static76]

Good thing then. Why don't people vote that way? Do yo uthink the majority would support heroin legalized?

Probable not, but our Constitution supports it.

How would it make it easier? Legalization is not needed, only decriminalization. With it decriminalized you have users not being arrested so the police can focus on the importers and dealers.

One of the major problems with the drug war is the fact that it funds Organized Crime. I'd rather it be a regulated industry, instead of the MAJOR source of income for criminals totalling in the Billions.

Legalization is the only way.

I didn't really intend to debate you or Xev. I think legalization tomorrow is completely irrational. That's like saying we should all go to electric cars in a week. Great idea, but not at all plausible.

Bad analogy. America ended alcohol prohibition all at once and it hasn't hurt our country.

 

[static76]

Basically US is not winning simply because US did not try hard enough and is not desperate enough and is not taking war on drugs seriously. If US wants to win, super hard ball politics and dirty tactics has to be used. That means US should invade countries that make drugs and put troops there. Civilian marijuana farm workers are no longer considered innocent and should be killed. Since US has declared "war", soldiers can shoot to kill. Small nuclear devices should be used to wipe out plantations. It is useful because the radiation will keep the land barren. Arm twisting is needed to freeze bank assets of drug dealers overseas, and failure to comply will result in loss of foreign aid or embargo. US will win war on drugs if desperate enough.

$23,475,028,760 so far this year sounds like trying hard enough.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

 

[Tyler]

"Jesus fugging christ on a pogo stick, you really do believe that, don't you?"

That you'll never control the amounts of money, drugs, alcohol, whores and power that Conway did? Yes.


"Thanks. I'm glad that you've finally decided to remove your head from your arse. It does wonders for your typing."

I said you were right in what you were talking about. That the war on drugs was pathetic. Now, seeing as you obviously don't speak English I'll map it out for you.

- I was never against the War on Drugs
- There is no War on Drugs in Canada, but these drugs are illegal
- You then stated that the War on Drugs was a bad idea
- I said you're right.
- Now you're acting as if I somewhere denied this.


"Consistantly idiotic, yes."

Ouch. A brilliant reply.


"Who said anything about legalization tomorrow?"

Nancy did. I quoted him. My whole reason for entering the debate was to go against this. You also seem to think that legalization for all drugs can come soon. I may be wrong on that so I haven't insinuated that you believe it.




static;

"One of the major problems with the drug war is the fact that it funds Organized Crime. I'd rather it be a regulated industry, instead of the MAJOR source of income for criminals totalling in the Billions."

That's not a problem of the War on Drugs. Perhaps Americans don't realize that they're one of the few nations with a stated "War on Drugs", hmmmmm? To quote Carlin "America finds something they don't like and declares war on it".


"Bad analogy. America ended alcohol prohibition all at once and it hasn't hurt our country."

And they could end marijuana prohibition all at once and it wouldn't hurt the country. However; marijuana, heroin, cocaine, crack, acid.... are a different story.

 

[Joeman]

Originally posted by static76

$23,475,028,760 so far this year sounds like trying hard enough.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

I didn't talk about the money.

You will NEVER see me posting anything saying throwing more money will solve a problem.

I was talking about the method, not the money.

War on drugs is sorta similar to vietnam war. US couldn't win the war with both hands tied behind the back. With handcuffs removed US will win.

 

[Xev]

Joeman:

US couldn't win the war with both hands tied behind the back. With handcuffs removed US will win.

Those handcuffs are my fucking Constitutional rights.

Handcuffs stay on.

Tyler:

That you'll never control the amounts of money, drugs, alcohol, whores and power that Conway did? Yes.

I don't care about booze, money drugs and hookers. I care about power, and odds are in my favor that I'll posess more of that than Conway could ever have dreamed.

 

[fadingCaptain]

If US wants to win, super hard ball politics and dirty tactics has to be used. That means US should invade countries that make drugs and put troops there. Civilian marijuana farm workers are no longer considered innocent and should be killed. Since US has declared "war", soldiers can shoot to kill. Small nuclear devices should be used to wipe out plantations. It is useful because the radiation will keep the land barren.

Joeman,
Please tell me you do not really believe these actions would be a good thing. You think nuking marijuana farms would make the world a better place? If so, you have seriously distorted view of drugs and their effects.

Legalizing drugs is the lowest of low priorities in US congress if such bill would exist

This would change if people were educated and read threads like this .

Supporting drug legalization is bad image for politicians.

See above.

Powerful lobbying by tobacco and alcohol industry.

This would be a tall hurdle to overcome...but still see above.

. Legalization of drugs must mean legalization of prescription drugs as well. Nobody is gonna be for that.

Why? Nobody is talking about legalizing prescription drugs.

You don't have to be a hippy to see that the war on drugs is harmful and a waste. It should stop. Either decriminalization or legalization would be better. Maybe in that order. Yes it would take a long time and should be implemented in phases...that is a given.

 

[Joeman]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Joeman,
Please tell me you do not really believe these actions would be a good thing. You think nuking marijuana farms would make the world a better place? If so, you have seriously distorted view of drugs and their effects.

It is not US's responsibility to make sure the world will be a better place. It is US's responsibility to make sure US will be a better place. Such action will be bad no doubt, but hopefully US doesn't need to go that far. US need to send the message to Colombian farmers saying if you work on the drug farm you die. Being in poverty is not the excuse. Some people think since they are poor they have the right to sell illegal shit into US. It is not our fault that they are poor. Colombian government needs to be told that if they can't fix their drug problem US will take over.

This would change if people were educated and read threads like this .

I don't think so. There are still lots of people prejudiced against drug use. It is not just matter education. I am very prejudiced against drug use because I have seen many cases of drug users ruinning people's lifes and their own lifes.

 

[static76]

Originally posted by Tyler
"One of the major problems with the drug war is the fact that it funds Organized Crime. I'd rather it be a regulated industry, instead of the MAJOR source of income for criminals totalling in the Billions."

That's not a problem of the War on Drugs. Perhaps Americans don't realize that they're one of the few nations with a stated "War on Drugs", hmmmmm? To quote Carlin "America finds something they don't like and declares war on it".

?????... The "war on drugs" gives Organized Crime their major source of income. As long as it stays on the black market, criminals will have a readily available supply of easy money.

 

[static76]

I don't think so. There are still lots of people prejudiced against drug use. It is not just matter education. I am very prejudiced against drug use because I have seen many cases of drug users ruinning people's lifes and their own lifes.

I've seen the same with alcohol, should that be illegal Joeman?

 

[Tyler]

Static; the War on Drugs is seperate from drugs being illegal. Note that the War on Drugs did not start until generations after drugs became illegal.

 

[Joeman]

Originally posted by static76


?????... The "war on drugs" gives Organized Crime their major source of income. As long as it stays on the black market, criminals will have a readily available supply of easy money.

That is true. US government needs to confiscate drug dealer's resources and make the money ours. It comes from Americans mostly. Identifying and seizing revenue from drug dealers could be a source of funding for war on drugs.

 

[wet1]

It was implied above that bootleggers don't exist anymore. News flash.... Yes they do.

The intended effect was to bypass those counties still being "dry". They voted not to sell liquor within their county. Those places still exist. There is a county right next to the one I live in that is dry.

The effect is that when I was a teenager (and seriously underage) I could go and buy any beer or liquor I desired. No id, no parents, no one saying no no. (At that time I lived in a dry county)

*stRgrL* makes mention of drunk pilots and guess what? There was a pilot last week stopped at the security checkpoint and they refused to let him board. He was drunk...

The war on drugs has done nothing but increase our tax burden, increase the amounts of those we would call criminals, and increased the size of law enforcement and the amount of lawyers and judges necessary to deal with it. When you make bad laws the citizens develop an attitude against all laws and those responsible for enforcing them. If it is all right to break one then it is all right to break others. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that it is not working. All you have to do is look around and it is everywhere. In schools, in the public, or almost certainly at any public gathering of size.

I argue this, not because I am a drug user, but because it is contrary to what the "people" want. (Otherwise there would be no drug problem) That once again morality can not be legislated. If people would have it then someone will sell it. Far better it would be to legalize and obtain some benefits from the sales. It would shut down the illegal drug market here in the states and go a long way towards reducing the size and scope of it elsewhere in the world, simply by us no longer supporting the trade. Government would be able to receive funds at all levels, through license permits and taxes. New jobs would be created through the support and infrastructure of allowing this to be a managed business. The tax burden would go down by not having to support so many prisoners or having to build many more new prisons. I would think that we probably have enough prisons already built if we remove the non-violent drug offender from the ranks.

Some thoughts I wished to add...

 

[Joeman]

Originally posted by static76


I've seen the same with alcohol, should that be illegal Joeman?

Because alcohol is the same as drugs that doesn't make me less prejudice.

 

[Joeman]

Wet1,

Originally posted by wet1
The war on drugs has done nothing but increase our tax burden, increase the amounts of those we would call criminals, and increased the size of law enforcement and the amount of lawyers and judges necessary to deal with it. When you make bad laws the citizens develop an attitude against all laws and those responsible for enforcing them. If it is all right to break one then it is all right to break others. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that it is not working. All you have to do is look around and it is everywhere. In schools, in the public, or almost certainly at any public gathering of size.

That is why wars should never be fought half assed. War on drugs is half assed. There is no such thing as a peaceful war. There is no such thing as a war that keeps everyone happy. There is no such thing as a surgical strike. When you declare war on something, you have to be ready to face deaths and injuries. They could be soldiers or civilians. War needs to be won at all cost, otherwise why even try. Personally I am not ready to raise the white flags to drug dealers and say you won we lost. If something doesn't work, try another way. Crank up the heat another notch. Change the leadership. I don't think US has tried its best.

That once again morality can not be legislated.

Most people think drug users only harm themselves and it's none of our businesses if they do. That is not the case. Some only affect themselves, but a lot of them affect others. It could lead to people losing their jobs and affect their families or losing their lifes or set a bad example to kids.

 

[wet1]

Personally I am not ready to raise the white flags to drug dealers and say you won we lost.

Hmmm, that is not what this is about anymore than the legalizing of alcohol was. It is that if we legalize the drug dealers are taken out of the market and as such they lose; war won. There is no longer any reason to sell, as there would be no money in it for the dealer.

Most people think drug users only harm themselves and it's none of our businesses if they do. That is not the case. Some only affect themselves, but a lot of them affect others.

All the more reason to remove the profit that drives the behavior behind such acts. Many other countries in Europe have tried the legalization route and it seems successful for them. They do not have the shooting and killing that go on with the protecting of turf for drug sales. Further, those users "in trouble" with drugs are readily spotted and help is present without stigma. (It must be said that no one here or there can help one who does not want help.)

 

[static76]

Originally posted by Tyler
Static; the War on Drugs is seperate from drugs being illegal. Note that the War on Drugs did not start until generations after drugs became illegal.

I see, my mistake.

I thought you were reffering to them being illegal.