ABC NEWs Special; The war on drugs

[gigapet]

For those of you that did see this news special....[open up can of worms]what did you think about it? Any constructive critisizm or particular aspects you thought were good/bad. Did it change your view on things. Is it going to have any impact whatso ever?[/open can of worms]

link

ok lets try and keep this clean......ready......fight!



My favorite part was the interview with Asa Hutchenson, The head of the DEA. Stossel basically made him look like the biggest tool on the planet. He didnt answer any questions he basically kept rephrasing this opinion "The drug war is good because drugs are bad" .

my second favorite part was when the holland government stated that they suceeded in making pot boring which explained how legalizing it actually reduced the percentage amount of users compared to the U.S.

My third favorite part was the cop being interviewed while keeping guard at a legalizing pot rally somewhere in the US. The cop was asked if the protesters(pot heads) were a threat. He responded that they were not a threat to him, society or anything. Then he was asked why he was there, why pot was illegal to which he looked amazingly confused and answered that he did not know why, he didnt make the laws, only enforced them.

 

[MadRat]

The war on drugs justified large scale expansion of border patrols. Unfortunately there is no secure border, so it was pretty futile of effort. They are best to infiltrate the drug rings with agents and informants, the only tactic that effectively works. Besides that it does nothing to address internal drug trade or drug use in general. Military machinery is a poor way to control a personal choice problem. They'd of been better served to scare the potential drug users, kids, with freaky television ads.

 

[Linflas]

Personally I think they should declare victory and close down the DEA. The money would be better spent on something a lot less futile than stopping people from going to hell in their own handbasket.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Personally I think they should declare victory and close down the DEA. The money would be better spent on something a lot less futile than stopping people from going to hell in their own handbasket.

good call.....
perhaps more money should be spent fighting violent crimes or even filter the money back into schools or anti drug education.

:Q what a concept!

 

[jjones]

As long as they keep treating the symptoms instead of the disease, the War on Drugs will continue to be a uselessly futile expenditure of wasted time and money.

 

[wQuay]

The government will never voluntarily give up the "War on Drugs." It's all about power. Even my state of Nebraska just purchased an ACP, supposedly to fight meth labs. LOL

 

[tcsenter]

We could win the war on drugs very easily, but it would require burning the Bill of Rights and creating a police state that would make Stalin envious. Our Constitution just doesn't permit the lengths to which we would need to go before we could ever put a dent in the drug trade of a society that, quite frankly, has a love affair with things that aren't very good for us and, more importantly, has the money to buy them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjones
As long as they keep treating the symptoms instead of the disease, the War on Drugs will continue to be a uselessly futile expenditure of wasted time and money.

Well, the disease is human nature, so we'll never stop drug abuse totally. However, banning it and making the use and sale of drugs illegal is actually counter productive... not to mention it's costing ALL of us our rights as the law makers become more and more desperate.

 

[rbhawcroft]

well it is a good war because it makes the gimp at the top (TM) look like he is doing something, afterall got to keep the Ivy Leaguers out next time round.

 

[Moonbeam]

Politicians instinctively understand that the way you get people to vote for you is to be for the good and against the bad. Since they have little imagination other than a will to power, they know little about what the good is. That leaves them with being against the bad. Without a bad to be against they would be lost and even lose. That is why Bush, in his simple minded way is against the axis of evil, yeah, and against the evil of drugs, yeah. You have to be very careful if your intention is to take away the politician?s props. Their instinctive and instant reaction will be to add you to that axis. Self knowledge is what is required to end the war on drugs, but that's a difficult proposition because it's just so incredibly embarrassing.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Politicians instinctively understand that the way you get people to vote for you is to be for the good and against the bad. Since they have little imagination other than a will to power, they know little about what the good is. That leaves them with being against the bad. Without a bad to be against they would be lost and even lose. That is why Bush, in his simple minded way is against the axis of evil, yeah, and against the evil of drugs, yeah. You have to be very careful if your intention is to take away the politician?s props. Their instinctive and instant reaction will be to add you to that axis. Self knowledge is what is required to end the war on drugs, but that's a difficult proposition because it's just so incredibly embarrassing.

Don't forget that the genuis Clinton escalated the War on Drugs to new heights, and Gore agreed with the policy. Trying to blame Bush for the WOD is just plain silly.

 

[xospec1alk]

seems like everyone agrees w/ the view that drugs should be legalize...we should write our congree people or something...

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: xospec1alk
seems like everyone agrees w/ the view that drugs should be legalize...we should write our congree people or something...

unfortunately this is far from the truth, two generations still need to die b4 we get anywhere as far as legalization goes

 

[Moonbeam]

Come on Amused, my first word on the subject was "Politicians". Are Clinton and Gore politicians? If so then I would have to include them too, wouldn't I? Clinton is history and guilty just as you charge. Gore is no better on this issue. I tend to stay contemporary on this. I didn't blame Bush senior for this kind of stupidity when Clinton was in office, I blamed Clinton, whom, in case you don't know, I didn't vote for because I didn't like his morality.

Edit: Make that lack of morality.

 

[JellyBaby]

I read something the other week about how a US citizen had his 90-acre farm siezed by the government because he was growing marijuana in order to self-treat a disease that was making him go blind. Apparently, something in weed is helpful to prevent blindness in his case. He ended up moving to the Netherlands were pot is legal because he didn't want to go blind.

This doesn't make any sense. There was no victim. He wasn't harming society. The "crime" took place on private property. Yet in the end he lost everything and had to move out of the country. I can't think of anything more un-American.

 

[ivol07]

What pissed me off was that he kept implying that legalizing drugs would stop the crime drugs cause. How is that? Once it's legal people will still need MONEY to buy the legal drugs. People who are junkies will still steal and commit crimes to obtain the MONEY they need to buy the drugs. Alcohol is legal, has anyone ever heard of a beer run? Legalizing drugs might stop the cartels behind them (might), but the street crime would only rise because the people who need the drugs will have more access to it and will need to find more money to buy it.




edited for typo

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: ivol07
What pissed me off was that he kept implying that legalizing drugs would stop the crime drugs cause. How is that? Once it's legal people will still need MONEY to buy the legal drugs. People who are junkies will still steal and commit crimes to obtain the MONEY they need to buy the drugs. Alcohol is legal, has anyone ever heard of a beer run? Legalizing drugs might stop the cartels behind them (might), but the street crime would only rise because the people who need the drugs will have more access to it and will need to find more money to buy it.




edited for typo

Do you know how much beer costs? Legalize it and the price goes down. Unless they try to tax it into oblivion like they are doing with cigarettes, but they are just creating another problem there.

 

[ivol07]

Do you know how much beer costs? Legalize it and the price goes down nimrod. Unless they try to tax it into oblivion like they are doing with cigarettes, but they are just creating another problem there.

No, it's going to be tax free. Of course it's going to be taxed! Come on. Is beer expensive? I don't think so. It will make a highly addictive substance more widely available, which will increase the likely hood that people can become addicted. And will make it easier for junkies to find it. They might have coupons, but they will still have to find the money for it. Legalizing drugs will not stop street crimes and will only make the cartels huge, legal companies with lots of power. If alcohol is legal and still so expensive (I think that is what you are saying) then why would drugs be any different. And I don't think drugs are all that expensive as it is now.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ivol07

Do you know how much beer costs? Legalize it and the price goes down nimrod. Unless they try to tax it into oblivion like they are doing with cigarettes, but they are just creating another problem there.

No, it's going to be tax free. Of course it's going to be taxed! Come on. Is beer expensive? I don't think so. It will make a highly addictive substance more widely available, which will increase the likely hood that people can become addicted. And will make it easier for junkies to find it. They might have coupons, but they will still have to find the money for it. Legalizing drugs will not stop street crimes and will only make the cartels huge, legal companies with lots of power. If alcohol is legal and still so expensive (I think that is what you are saying) then why would drugs be any different. And I don't think drugs are all that expensive as it is now.

I fail to see how crime will rise. When was alcohol related crime higher, during prohibition, or after? When was the last time you heard of liquor dealers doing drive by shootings? When was the last time you heard of an alcoholic killing someone for a beer?

The most dangerous thing about drugs to non-drug users is the illegality of them. That illegality drives them and their markets underground, just as it did with alcohol in the 20s, and causes far more crime than we would have had we just left them legal and combated them with education and treatment.

Junkies have absolutely no trouble finding drugs as it is. And the cost of drugs is high because of the illegality of them. Pot is worth more than gold, by weight, and cocaine is worth far more than gold, by weight, because the illegality of it has driven up the prices.

Gold: $11 a gram
Cocaine $100-150 a gram.
Pot $15-20 gram

Can you say the same for alcohol, ANY alcohol?

It's time to admit that driving up prices and banning substances does nothing but create huge and dangerous underground black markets that cause far more crime and misery.

 

[Gaard]

Of those who think drugs should be legal...I'm curious to know if your main reason for holding that position is the desire to reduce crime or if your main reason is so that you can get high legally. Is crime reduction the focal point of the legalization push? Or is the "I have a right to get high" mentality the drive behind the push to legalize drugs/pot?

 

[ivol07]

I personally know at least one person who has broken into someones house because they wanted money to buy alcohol and or drugs. Why would this stop because it's legal? Legal drugs = more drugs = more addicts = more crime. Simple

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ivol07
I personally know at least one person who has broken into someones house because they wanted money to buy alcohol and or drugs. Why would this stop because it's legal? Legal drugs = more drugs = more addicts = more crime. Simple

The Netherlands had the exact opposite outcome.

When was the last time someone tolds you the only, or even main reason they don't do drugs is because they're illegal? I posit that the illegality of drugs does very little, if anything to stem abuse.

And no way in hell you can compare alcohol related violent or propery crimes to drug realted crimes. It sure as hell isn't alcohol that is making street gangs rich, and causing them to kill each other.

 

[ivol07]

When was the last time someone tolds you the only, or even main reason they don't do drugs is because they're illegal? I posit that the illegality of drugs does very little, if anything to stem abuse.

The main reason I don't do drugs is because they are illegal. I used to smoke and sell pot. Then I got arrested because it is illegal. That stopped me.

We are going in circles. Drugs are addictive. If they are legal more people will do them. Causing more people to become addicted. SOME people will have to resort to crimes to pay for their habit. Plain and simple. Legalizing drugs will not lower crime, it might stay the same, but it will not lower it. That is my point of view. The only way either of our sides will be proven wrong or right is if it is legalized....which will never happen anyway.

 

Originally posted by: ivol07

When was the last time someone tolds you the only, or even main reason they don't do drugs is because they're illegal? I posit that the illegality of drugs does very little, if anything to stem abuse.

The main reason I don't do drugs is because they are illegal. I used to smoke and sell pot. Then I got arrested because it is illegal. That stopped me.

We are going in circles. Drugs are addictive. If they are legal more people will do them. Causing more people to become addicted. SOME people will have to resort to crimes to pay for their habit. Plain and simple. Legalizing drugs will not lower crime, it might stay the same, but it will not lower it. That is my point of view. The only way either of our sides will be proven wrong or right is if it is legalized....which will never happen anyway.

Caffine is more addicting than Pot, but yet it is still legal. You dont see people mobing stores trying to get coffee. Legalizing drugs will have the following effects effects: Government control. Cleaner and safer. Not to mention the money from taxes.
Drop in usage rates. Those that want to do it will take drugs no matter what the law is. But there is another group of people out there that take it simply to rebel...teenagers. Some do it for the thrill of breaking the law. No law to break, whats the thrill?


EDIT: And you are right about more people doing drugs when they become legal...im going to go out and buy me a TON of crack when it becomes legal

 

[joe678]

Originally posted by: ivol07

When was the last time someone tolds you the only, or even main reason they don't do drugs is because they're illegal? I posit that the illegality of drugs does very little, if anything to stem abuse.

The main reason I don't do drugs is because they are illegal. I used to smoke and sell pot. Then I got arrested because it is illegal. That stopped me.

We are going in circles. Drugs are addictive. If they are legal more people will do them. Causing more people to become addicted. SOME people will have to resort to crimes to pay for their habit. Plain and simple. Legalizing drugs will not lower crime, it might stay the same, but it will not lower it. That is my point of view. The only way either of our sides will be proven wrong or right is if it is legalized....which will never happen anyway.

it was in the netherlands, and less users. thats one of the points of the article and what amused was trying to say...