Associated Press destroys the War on Drugs. Absolutely damning article.

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
The most damning article against prohibition EVER. (at least that I have read). The associated press just stood up and completely destroyed the war on drugs. Facts, Facts, Facts. Great presentation. No BS. Just $$ and sense.

Even norml.com has this on their front page right now, and they are stunned at how good this piece is.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/


AP IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals
MEXICO CITY

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and wi...


MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction."

His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.

Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

___

In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

— $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

— $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

— $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

— $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

— $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

___

From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement — no matter how well funded and well trained — could ever defeat the drug problem.

Then-Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who had his doubts, has since watched his worst fears come to pass.

"Look what happened. It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia," he said.

In 1970, proponents said beefed-up law enforcement could effectively seal the southern U.S. border and stop drugs from coming in. Since then, the U.S. used patrols, checkpoints, sniffer dogs, cameras, motion detectors, heat sensors, drone aircraft — and even put up more than 1,000 miles of steel beam, concrete walls and heavy mesh stretching from California to Texas.

None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year — almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The United States has in recent years rounded up thousands of suspected associates of Mexican drug gangs, then turned some of the cases over to local prosecutors who can't make the charges stick for lack of evidence. The suspects are then sometimes released, deported or acquitted. The U.S. Justice Department doesn't even keep track of what happens to all of them.

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence — and are sometimes assassinated when they do. Confessions are beaten out of suspects by frustrated, underpaid police. Judges who no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse release the suspects in exasperation.

In prison, in the U.S. or Mexico, traffickers continue to operate, ordering assassinations and arranging distribution of their product even from solitary confinement in Texas and California. In Mexico, prisoners can sometimes even buy their way out.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

And then there's the money.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds — $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

___

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

And yet both countries continue to spend the bulk of their drug budgets on law enforcement rather than treatment and prevention.

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale, who served three administrations and four drug czars. "Yet ... it appears that this historic policy stride has some problems with its supporting budget."

Carnevale said the administration continues to substantially over-allocate funds to areas that research shows are least effective — interdiction and source-country programs — while under-allocating funds for treatment and prevention.

Kerlikowske, who wishes people would stop calling it a "war" on drugs, frequently talks about one of the most valuable tools they've found, in which doctors screen for drug abuse during routine medical examinations. That program would get a mere $7.2 million under Obama's budget.

"People will say that's not enough. They'll say the drug budget hasn't shifted as much as it should have, and granted I don't disagree with that," Kerlikowske said. "We would like to do more in that direction."

Fifteen years ago, when the government began telling doctors to ask their patients about their drug use during routine medical exams, it described the program as one of the most proven ways to intervene early with would-be addicts.

"Nothing happens overnight," Kerlikowske said.

___

Until 100 years ago, drugs were simply a commodity. Then Western cultural shifts made them immoral and deviant, according to London School of Economics professor Fernanda Mena.

Religious movements led the crusades against drugs: In 1904, an Episcopal bishop returning from a mission in the Far East argued for banning opium after observing "the natives' moral degeneration." In 1914, The New York Times reported that cocaine caused blacks to commit "violent crimes," and that it made them resistant to police bullets. In the decades that followed, Mena said, drugs became synonymous with evil.

Nixon drew on those emotions when he pressed for his War on Drugs.

"Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America," he said in a special 1971 message to Congress. "It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Just a few years later, a young Barack Obama was one of those young users, a teenager smoking pot and trying "a little blow when you could afford it," as he wrote in "Dreams From My Father." When asked during his campaign if he had inhaled the pot, he replied: "That was the point."

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives — and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint — you realize the stakes are too high to let go."
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Nuts that we've spent $1 Trillion in total on the WoD. 1 Trillion. I truly don't know what we have to show for all that money.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Not to be contrary but the article is weak. One could easily come away and say it just needs more resources, more money, throw more sh*t at it. Anyway, drugs have changed in 40 years as has culture.

The only thing that's going to make an inroad to somebody like me is what happens when you decriminalize like they did in Portugal? It seems to me that the results there are not as hideous as I would have thought. This is the kind of thing that begs for a closer look on perhaps waving the white flag on the war instead of a surge.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Not to be contrary but the article is weak. One could easily come away and say it just needs more resources, more money, throw more sh*t at it. Anyway, drugs have changed in 40 years as has culture.

We don't have more resources or money, as people are quickly learning.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Not to be contrary but the article is weak. One could easily come away and say it just needs more resources, more money, throw more sh*t at it. Anyway, drugs have changed in 40 years as has culture.

The only thing that's going to make an inroad to somebody like me is what happens when you decriminalize like they did in Portugal? It seems to me that the results there are not as hideous as I would have thought. This is the kind of thing that begs for a closer look on perhaps waving the white flag on the war instead of a surge.
Forget the rhetorical quality of the article or the particulars of its thrust. What is significant is that the anti-DEA message is becoming truly mainstream. It is a harbinger of good things to come.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Instead of running around and throwing people in Jail for smoking pot we might be better off with a public affairs campaign and some money for treating drug addicts. It is a waste of time fighting against citizens that only want to smoke a little weed. Let them grow their own and then they can spend their money on other things.

The biggest problem might be for the cops to police up the roadways with all the people who get high and then want to drive their car. However, the same people that are drinking are going to be the people doing their drugs. I think most of society will be just fine. At least there will be less bullets flying around.

The funny thing is that part of this is this need of people in charge to want to control other people. By restricting who can grow and who can sell drugs illegal and legal they just drive up prices and create their own drug enforcement problems. It is time to just quit fighting the drugs by using law enforcement. Our jails are full of people who just wanted to get high. This just creates a market for the illegal drug trade and then the criminals run around trying to kill each other. This has been going on so long that criminals will go bankrupt if there is no enforcement.

I wonder if food will become scarce if everyone is trying to cash in on the Pot Market? Imagine farmers planting a few rows of weed next to their corn? Will corn become scarce? Will we start growing fields of poppies?
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Instead of running around and throwing people in Jail for smoking pot we might be better off with a public affairs campaign and some money for treating drug addicts. It is a waste of time fighting against citizens that only want to smoke a little weed. Let them grow their own and then they can spend their money on other things.

The biggest problem might be for the cops to police up the roadways with all the people who get high and then want to drive their car. However, the same people that are drinking are going to be the people doing their drugs. I think most of society will be just fine. At least there will be less bullets flying around.

The funny thing is that part of this is this need of people in charge to want to control other people. By restricting who can grow and who can sell drugs illegal and legal they just drive up prices and create their own drug enforcement problems. It is time to just quit fighting the drugs by using law enforcement. Our jails are full of people who just wanted to get high. This just creates a market for the illegal drug trade and then the criminals run around trying to kill each other. This has been going on so long that criminals will go bankrupt if there is no enforcement.

I wonder if food will become scarce if everyone is trying to cash in on the Pot Market? Imagine farmers planting a few rows of weed next to their corn? Will corn become scarce? Will we start growing fields of poppies?
I think the argument is much easier to make to legalize weed than hard drugs, at least in a society that legalizes alcohol.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Overall, I agree with Skroob, overall the AP report only demonstrates that the way we are conducting the so called war on drugs is definitely not working. Without really testing the wide range of maybe better tactics we might potentially use, which is the real questions needing to be asked.

But given the ramifications of a trillion dollars down a rat hole, it may be time to take a totally fresh looks at all questions and put every single assumption we made on the table for testing. To start with, why do we lump basically a recreational drug like Marijuana in the same class as dangerous addictive drugs in the opiate class? Or even look at taxing of illegal drugs to take the profits from drug cartels?
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
The only thing that's going to make an inroad to somebody like me is what happens when you decriminalize like they did in Portugal? It seems to me that the results there are not as hideous as I would have thought. This is the kind of thing that begs for a closer look on perhaps waving the white flag on the war instead of a surge.

Exactly, people have got to understand that if you decriminalize or legalize all but the hardest and most dangerous drugs that usage levels WILL go down overtime, not up. IMO one of the key factors that has always spelled failure for the war on drugs is that the illegality and clandestine nature of the drug culture has a great allure to young people in their most formative and rebelious years. The vast majority of young people experiment with drugs the first time because of the excitement of doing something illicit, not because they are looking for an escape or a new way to get intoxicated. Take away the illicit/illegal mystic and you will see rates of first time users plummet and over time overall use as well.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I'll repost what I posted in the other thread. Something for "conservatives" to think about.

I wonder if the instability that the War on Drugs has created in Mexico is at least somewhat responsible for the massive number of illegal immigrants in this country? And I'm not just talking about couriers. I'm talking about the fact that the War on Drugs has set Mexico up as a staging location for violent drug cartels. Mexico literally has a war going against drug cartels who make their vast fortunes off of selling drugs to Americans. Dirty cops and politicians are everywhere, which has to make it harder to run legitimate businesses, and is at least partly responsible for hurting honest people. Maybe the far right should try to balance the fact that their drug war is possibly partly to blame for the influx of millions of illegal immigrants. They could almost be considered refugees. Maybe if we ended the war on drugs, the Mexican economy could improve and some of those people would go home on their own.

Food for thought...
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
As a gay man I'm quite familiar with that side of the drug culture, even though I've never personally taken any illegal drugs other than smoking pot once or twice when I was in high school. There are many gay men who recreationally use drugs like cocaine and ecstasy and a smaller group of gay men who party with harder stuff. That said, most of these men hold down good jobs, generally take care of themselves, and are otherwise normal, everyday contributors to both our economy and our society.

I have no interest in escaping reality with those or many other substances, but I cannot think of any good reason they should be prevented from using them. Obviously, if they're missing work, being abusive or disrespectful, and generally being irresponsible, they have a problem and need help, but the conclusion I cannot logically escape is that those people would have problems being responsible and respectful anyway, whether they used illegal drugs or not.

Each of us makes decisions for ourselves and is responsible for those decisions. If we reject that responsibility there are going to be problems, for both us and others. That rejection of, or indifference to, responsibility is the root problem... not drug use. Drug abuse is just a form of irresponsibility, and no more detrimental to yourself or the rest of society than many other bad but perfectly legal things like obesity.

Drugs are not a cause of irresponsibility, they're a way in which to be irresponsible. There are many ways to be irresponsible, legal and otherwise.

At the end of the day, people either figure it* out or they don't... with all the accompanying rewards or consequences therein.

(* how to be responsible and successful in life; how to be good to yourself and others.)
 
May 11, 2008
22,452
1,461
126
The most damning article against prohibition EVER. (at least that I have read). The associated press just stood up and completely destroyed the war on drugs. Facts, Facts, Facts. Great presentation. No BS. Just $$ and sense.


This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.
.




None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year — almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The United States has in recent years rounded up thousands of suspected associates of Mexican drug gangs, then turned some of the cases over to local prosecutors who can't make the charges stick for lack of evidence. The suspects are then sometimes released, deported or acquitted. The U.S. Justice Department doesn't even keep track of what happens to all of them.

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence — and are sometimes assassinated when they do. Confessions are beaten out of suspects by frustrated, underpaid police. Judges who no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse release the suspects in exasperation.

In prison, in the U.S. or Mexico, traffickers continue to operate, ordering assassinations and arranging distribution of their product even from solitary confinement in Texas and California. In Mexico, prisoners can sometimes even buy their way out.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

And then there's the money.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds — $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

___

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

And yet both countries continue to spend the bulk of their drug budgets on law enforcement rather than treatment and prevention.

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale, who served three administrations and four drug czars. "Yet ... it appears that this historic policy stride has some problems with its supporting budget."

Carnevale said the administration continues to substantially over-allocate funds to areas that research shows are least effective — interdiction and source-country programs — while under-allocating funds for treatment and prevention.

Kerlikowske, who wishes people would stop calling it a "war" on drugs, frequently talks about one of the most valuable tools they've found, in which doctors screen for drug abuse during routine medical examinations. That program would get a mere $7.2 million under Obama's budget.

"People will say that's not enough. They'll say the drug budget hasn't shifted as much as it should have, and granted I don't disagree with that," Kerlikowske said. "We would like to do more in that direction."

Fifteen years ago, when the government began telling doctors to ask their patients about their drug use during routine medical exams, it described the program as one of the most proven ways to intervene early with would-be addicts.

"Nothing happens overnight," Kerlikowske said.

___

Until 100 years ago, drugs were simply a commodity. Then Western cultural shifts made them immoral and deviant, according to London School of Economics professor Fernanda Mena.

Religious movements led the crusades against drugs: In 1904, an Episcopal bishop returning from a mission in the Far East argued for banning opium after observing "the natives' moral degeneration." In 1914, The New York Times reported that cocaine caused blacks to commit "violent crimes," and that it made them resistant to police bullets. In the decades that followed, Mena said, drugs became synonymous with evil.

Nixon drew on those emotions when he pressed for his War on Drugs.

"Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America," he said in a special 1971 message to Congress. "It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Just a few years later, a young Barack Obama was one of those young users, a teenager smoking pot and trying "a little blow when you could afford it," as he wrote in "Dreams From My Father." When asked during his campaign if he had inhaled the pot, he replied: "That was the point."

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives — and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint — you realize the stakes are too high to let go."

According to this documentary it seems the black people who where doing heavy labor where getting cocaine to work harder. Afcourse they got addicted and started to behaved horny and aggressive. There is even a part of history about the police needed to use bigger caliber bullets because some men totally high on cocaine would not go down when shot with a small caliber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw&feature=related

But i truly hope, that your war on drugs ends, that cannabis gets decriminalized / legalized. I have seen a documentary about cannabis smokers who where send to jail just for smoking. I think that (a wild guess) 70 percent of the jailers can go free right away with smoking cannabis in private no longer being a criminal act. And the police have more time to go after the heavy cases, the real criminals. And have time to spare to help addicts of the heavy forms of drugs to rehabilitate and just keep it too an occasional joint and a good glas of alcohol.

The big question is , what is going on with Mexico that so many people go work in the drugs scene ? How is the poverty in Mexico ?
How are the jobs ? How many people have a job ? What is the government like ?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
To start with, why do we lump basically a recreational drug like Marijuana in the same class as dangerous addictive drugs in the opiate class?

The absurdity of the DEA's drug scheduling is that pot is not is not a Schedule II, or Schedule III like most opiates, it is a Schedule I, same class as PCP, even cocaine is a Schedule II. Schedule I is the class reserved for drugs that have not real benefit, and are considered extremely dangerous.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I'll repost what I posted in the other thread. Something for "conservatives" to think about.
I believe everything has an effect to some degree on everything else. if the war on drugs has had a net weakening to Mexico's stability and economy, which it likely has (I don't know how many drug dealers are building huge houses, though, maybe it's a net gain), then absolutely it is to some degree to blame for the influx of illegals.
I have no interest in escaping reality with those or many other substances, but I cannot think of any good reason they should be prevented from using them.
If you had kids the topic would hold far more relevance. I can speak for myself and probably most parents when I say that when I think of hard drug use the main concern I have is that my children would in some way get involved. Only because in some cases and circumstances the environment can conspire against a child in ways that are hard to predict.
Drugs are not a cause of irresponsibility, they're a way in which to be irresponsible.
Either one can influence the other, in fact. No shortage of examples of people doing incredibly stupid sh*t when high.
The big question is , what is going on with Mexico that so many people go work in the drugs scene ? How is the poverty in Mexico ?
How are the jobs ? How many people have a job ? What is the government like ?
Mexico is just a huge bucket of fail on basically every measure. No jobs, the jobs that exist pay crap, poverty is high, infrastructure sucks, government is corrupt as fvck, etc.
 
May 11, 2008
22,452
1,461
126
If you had kids the topic would hold far more relevance. I can speak for myself and probably most parents when I say that when I think of hard drug use the main concern I have is that my children would in some way get involved. Only because in some cases and circumstances the environment can conspire against a child in ways that are hard to predict.Either one can influence the other, in fact. No shortage of examples of people doing incredibly stupid sh*t when high.
Very true.


Mexico is just a huge bucket of fail on basically every measure. No jobs, the jobs that exist pay crap, poverty is high, infrastructure sucks, government is corrupt as fvck, etc.

I was expecting such an answer. Thank you...

To extrapolate that thought to Portugal with the recent EU crisis.
I will not be surprised now that it has become clear that Portugal has financial problems and if they cannot solve those problems and losses of jobs will occur and poverty will rise again, a large increase in drugs use will happen. And when the supply runs low, the price will rise. And the violence that will already happen, will only increase and intensify more. I sure hope it will not come that far though...
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
If you had kids the topic would hold far more relevance. I can speak for myself and probably most parents when I say that when I think of hard drug use the main concern I have is that my children would in some way get involved. Only because in some cases and circumstances the environment can conspire against a child in ways that are hard to predict.

I was referring to adults. Children are an entirely different matter.

Either one can influence the other, in fact. No shortage of examples of people doing incredibly stupid sh*t when high.

Stupid is as stupid does... whether or not they're on drugs.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I was referring to adults. Children are an entirely different matter.

Yes, they are, and often a scapegoat for emotional appeal. We already do not allow children to smoke, or drink, and tell them drugs are bad. I know that the whole "Just say No" BS is fail. When you tell a child not to do something, more times than not the first thing they do when you turn your back (or to your face :p) is exactly what you said don't do. Rebellion is natural, and expected. you can not litigate children into correct behavior.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Legalize the sale and growth of drugs, make punishments harsher for being intoxicated in public.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
We need to start by dis-banding the DEA...........
There is no good reason why the few useful functions inside the DEA couldn't be rolled into the FBI. I guess that goes for the ATF as well - the other remnant of prohibition.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Yes, they are, and often a scapegoat for emotional appeal. We already do not allow children to smoke, or drink, and tell them drugs are bad. I know that the whole "Just say No" BS is fail. When you tell a child not to do something, more times than not the first thing they do when you turn your back (or to your face :p) is exactly what you said don't do. Rebellion is natural, and expected. you can not litigate children into correct behavior.

I'm very much a supporter of the School of Hard Knocks.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Legalize the sale and growth of drugs, make punishments harsher for being intoxicated in public.
Why exactly do they need to be harsher? We could just enforce the laws we have more effectively rather than making tougher punishments that will still be enforced inconsistently.

I would much prefer to walk through a crowd of people who are stoned on pot than a crowd of drunks.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Exactly, people have got to understand that if you decriminalize or legalize all but the hardest and most dangerous drugs that usage levels WILL go down overtime, not up. IMO one of the key factors that has always spelled failure for the war on drugs is that the illegality and clandestine nature of the drug culture has a great allure to young people in their most formative and rebelious years. The vast majority of young people experiment with drugs the first time because of the excitement of doing something illicit, not because they are looking for an escape or a new way to get intoxicated. Take away the illicit/illegal mystic and you will see rates of first time users plummet and over time overall use as well.

I support some sort of drug legalization/decriminalization, but I'm not sure I'm buying all that. I'd like to see some evidence. Alcohol's legal and we still have plenty of drunks.
 
May 11, 2008
22,452
1,461
126
I support some sort of drug legalization/decriminalization, but I'm not sure I'm buying all that. I'd like to see some evidence. Alcohol's legal and we still have plenty of drunks.

In the past there is evidence people used the heavier forms of drugs(Arabs used opium because they where not allowed to drink from their religion)
In the past, other people in the US where not allowed to drink and used cocaine instead. Clearly when looking at history, people need some sort of a medium to let go, to hide behind when they want to blow of some steam.
History has shown that the best way to do so is alcohol and cannabis. Both are the least addictive(Forgetting for a moment about the always present exceptions) and very difficult to hide when using all day. When some people needs to relax and can smoke a joint instead of drinking alcohol, i think for some people it would be an improvement over alcohol.



Why exactly do they need to be harsher? We could just enforce the laws we have more effectively rather than making tougher punishments that will still be enforced inconsistently.

I would much prefer to walk through a crowd of people who are stoned on pot than a crowd of drunks.

Indeed. The worst that can happen is ending up laughing until you cry and your abdomen hurt :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MorR04iLtMw


I'm very much a supporter of the School of Hard Knocks.

Yeeegh.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
The absurdity of the DEA's drug scheduling is that pot is not is not a Schedule II, or Schedule III like most opiates, it is a Schedule I, same class as PCP, even cocaine is a Schedule II. Schedule I is the class reserved for drugs that have not real benefit, and are considered extremely dangerous.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

Hell, pretty much the entire list of Schedule IV drugs is crap that would cause near zero real societal disruption.