Drug Warriors write Congress. Demand more Drug War!

[unokitty]

... former federal prosecutors, drug war lieutenants, and Justice Department officials have written a letter to the leadership of the U.S. Senate in opposition to the Smarter Sentencing Act. The law would cut most mandatory minimums in half, and apply the sentencing reforms already passed in 2010 retroactively. The letter begins with:
“As former government officials who served in the war on drugs . . . “
And includes:
“Many of us once served on the front lines of justice.”

Former federal prosecutors and Justice Department Officials on the drug war's 'front lines.'

Not giving up their tax payer funded budgets without a fight!

In contrast, here is a short video from retired Police Captain, Peter Christ, founder of LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition where he demolishes the Drug War...

Why Legalize Drugs

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. ... Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.

We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children...

So what is your opinion?

In the drug war, who do you support?

More billions for the Drug Warriors and their friends in the prison industry?

Or, the retired police captain and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition?

And generating funds by regulating and taxing distribution.

Uno

 

[ch33zw1z]

Realists support ending the War on Drugs. Dreamers do not.

Kinda weird.

 

[shira]

58% of Americans approve legalization of marijuana:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

People seem to be getting smarter:

But - as usual - Republicans are the party of stupid:

 

[realibrad]

I don't do drugs and I think people are usually better of not using them, but I would like to legalize them.

Having drugs illegal has caused drug cartels to form. These groups have killed thousands of people. The death toll from the cartels and the economic impact is far greater than those who would be addicts and suffer under legalization. There would be a net gain making the drugs legal and regulating them. We did this with alcohol and prohibition. We did not like the mobs having such a large revenue and the damage they caused, so we made it legal again, and things improved.

 

[Genx87]

Hopefully within 1-2 decades this thing will be over and the war lost. What a complete waste of tax payers money while imprisoning more people as a % than totalitarian regimes like China.

 

[shira]

Hopefully within 1-2 decades this thing will be over and the war lost. What a complete waste of tax payers money while imprisoning more people as a % than totalitarian regimes like China.

Unfortunately, a lot of states will merely decriminalize rather than legalize, which is a huge difference. Furthermore, no way the war on other drugs is going to end any time soon; just too many stupid people out there, and too many politicians willing to cater to their stupidity rather than display the courage to actually lead.

 

[Genx87]

Unfortunately, a lot of states will merely decriminalize rather than legalize, which is a huge difference. Furthermore, no way the war on other drugs is going to end any time soon; just too many stupid people out there, and too many politicians willing to cater to their stupidity rather than display the courage to actually lead.

I think it is possible to end most of the war. Your own chart shows how quickly we have moved in 15 years. It remained at ~25% for 2 decades before going to 58% last year.
I think the internet is an amazing technology to shoot down the old thinking about the drug war. I also believe the generations that are coming up understand the war is a complete waste. These baby steps in Washington and CO will show other states the benefits of legalization.

 

[BoberFett]

I thought we were supposed to have control over our own bodies and what we do with them? Legalize all drugs.

 

[unokitty]

A few data points.

Uno

 

[SlowSpyder]

At this point the war on drugs mostly exists to justify jobs, in my opinion. Has it really stopped users from using? I've read in the past that we've spent well upwards of a trillion dollars fighting this 'war'.

 

[rudder]

Legalize marijuana... fine. No reason to send someone to jail for smoking a doobie.

But people need to be cautious when calling for everything to be legal. I don't want to have to support a bunch of meth or heroin junkies. These types of drugs are highly addictive and I would hate to see the medical bills of having to treat people who use the drugs. At least if marijuana were legal and cheaper maybe there would be less of a demand for heroin and meth.

 

[Genx87]

Legalize marijuana... fine. No reason to send someone to jail for smoking a doobie.

But people need to be cautious when calling for everything to be legal. I don't want to have to support a bunch of meth or heroin junkies. These types of drugs are highly addictive and I would hate to see the medical bills of having to treat people who use the drugs. At least if marijuana were legal and cheaper maybe there would be less of a demand for heroin and meth.

You already are supporting them while supporting this fruitless war.

 

[alzan]

I'll stand with Peter Christ and LEAP.

In addition to creating drug cartels as was pointed out, the WoD has exponentially increased the profit on drugs of all kinds making them a lucrative business to enter and perpetuate.

 

[shira]

I thought we were supposed to have control over our own bodies and what we do with them? Legalize all drugs.

I agree that MANY, perhaps even most, currently-illegal drugs should be legalized. But for some drugs the benefit of legalizing doesn't outweigh the cost. There's no reason to replace the current unthinking dogma against all drugs with a similarly unthinking dogma for legalization of all drugs. What's needed is a dispassionate cost/benefit assessment for each drug.

 

[BoberFett]

Legalize marijuana... fine. No reason to send someone to jail for smoking a doobie.

But people need to be cautious when calling for everything to be legal. I don't want to have to support a bunch of meth or heroin junkies. These types of drugs are highly addictive and I would hate to see the medical bills of having to treat people who use the drugs. At least if marijuana were legal and cheaper maybe there would be less of a demand for heroin and meth.

Newsflash: People already do drugs if they want to. There is no shortage of drugs availability. Why no focus on treatment for the user instead of military action?

 

[BoberFett]

I agree that MANY, perhaps even most, currently-illegal drugs should be legalized. But for some drugs the benefit of legalizing doesn't outweigh the cost. There's no reason to replace the current unthinking dogma against all drugs with a similarly unthinking dogma for legalization of all drugs. What's needed is a dispassionate cost/benefit assessment for each drug.

Since when does cost/benefit have to do with my right to do what I want to my own body?

You're a scumbag, just like the right wing you hate. You just want a tiny bit less totalitarianism than they do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Since when does cost/benefit have to do with my right to do what I want to my own body?

You're a scumbag, just like the right wing you hate. You just want a tiny bit less totalitarianism than they do.

My guess would be when I have to pat your drug abuse cost as part of socialized medicine. I would love for you to be able to do whatever you want, but you might be less elite than I am, which makes it imperative that I take care of you. We few truly responsible beings have that duty to look after cess conscious and less educated and disciplined individuals. Sorry about that but it is obvious to the superior that they are in fact superior.

 

[CLite]

Since when does cost/benefit have to do with my right to do what I want to my own body?

You're a scumbag, just like the right wing you hate. You just want a tiny bit less totalitarianism than they do.

I think at some point you have to have legitimate concern for the consumer. Like you can't sell people tainted food/etc.

I think the hard stuff could be decriminalized, but I don't see what legalization would do because no private company would ever sell the stuff for fear of lawsuits and I doubt places which require state-run stores would have people vote to stock them with Heroine.

 

[BoberFett]

It's so nice to see people like Shira and Moonbeam agree that people can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies.

When does the abortion ban kick in, fellow fascists? And clearly, the LGBT community must be saved from themselves by those of us blessed with enlightenment...

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's so nice to see people like Shira and Moonbeam agree that people can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies.

When does the abortion ban kick in, fellow fascists? And clearly, the LGBT community must be saved from themselves by those of us blessed with enlightenment...

I thought Moonbeam was being sarcastic.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I thought Moonbeam was being sarcastic.

In this place it is hard to tell.

 

[BoberFett]

I thought Moonbeam was being sarcastic.

No, he believes his claptrap.

 

[shira]

It's so nice to see people like Shira and Moonbeam agree that people can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies.

When does the abortion ban kick in, fellow fascists? And clearly, the LGBT community must be saved from themselves by those of us blessed with enlightenment...

According to you the "pro-choice" position is that a woman's right to control her own body is absolute, and that abortions should therefore be freely available right up until the instant before delivery. But the real pro-choice position, like the position I outlined on drugs, recognizes that rights and goals for a better society are in conflict and must be balanced against each other with wisdom and all of the available knowledge at our disposal.

 

[BoberFett]

According to you the "pro-choice" position is that a woman's right to control her own body is absolute, and that abortions should therefore be freely available right up until the instant before delivery. But the real pro-choice position, like the position I outlined on drugs, recognizes that rights and goals for a better society are in conflict and must be balanced against each other with wisdom and all of the available knowledge at our disposal.

Then you and the rest of the pro-choice warriors shouldn't be so incensed by the right's insistence that abortion is bad for society. Yet you aren't even willing to entertain the notion that the anti-choice might be preferable in the case of abortion, even though you believe in anti-choice when it comes to certain chemicals.

 

[shira]

Then you and the rest of the pro-choice warriors shouldn't be so incensed by the right's insistence that abortion is bad for society. Yet you aren't even willing to entertain the notion that the anti-choice might be preferable in the case of abortion, even though you believe in anti-choice when it comes to certain chemicals.

The beginning and end of the no-choice position is that a fertilized human egg is a person. Yes, you use terms like "human life" and "baby," but the (usually unstated) foundation of the no-choice position is the insistence that the moment a human egg is fertilized it is a person who has all of the rights and liberties of - for example - the people who make posts on ATPN. And more than that, the no-choice position is that the rights of the "fetus-person" ALWAYS outweighs the rights of "mother-person" (except that many no-choicers do allow make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother).

I agree that a given abortion CAN be bad for society. Can no-choicers agree that NOT allowing abortions can be bad for society?

Do you see what I've done there? Most pro-choicers don't think abortions are harmless. And they agree that some limitations on abortions (such as those codified in Roe v Wade) are reasonable. But no-choicers don't want to allow ANY abortions at all (except for the special exceptions indicated).

So if I compare the consequences of the pro-choice and no-choice position, and taking into account that if all abortions were illegal the number of abortions performed would remain high, albeit it under much more dangerous circumstances, it's clear to me that a no-choice society is much worse.

Look, one of the reasons that drug-legalization is gaining traction is the recognition that the negative consequences of keeping drugs illegal are just too great. Well, the same argument applies to abortion: the negative consequences of outlawing all abortions would be just too great.