Do you believe the war on drugs is a failure?

[Quantum Windbag]

Failure? Total.

Solution. Legalize all drugs.

In passing, I would think this would fit right into conservative thinking - you know, take responsibility for your own self and if you go down because you can't handle it, tough darts.

It doesn't fit in with BIG Government thinking which is why so many liberals support the war on drugs.

I don't know who you've been talking to.

I don't know any "liberals" who support the war on drugs.

Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama popped into my head without any thinking whatever, unless you want to argue that they aren't really liberals. If so, I won't argue, but they certainly call themselves liberal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It doesn't fit in with BIG Government thinking which is why so many liberals support the war on drugs.

I don't know who you've been talking to.

I don't know any "liberals" who support the war on drugs.

Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama popped into my head without any thinking whatever, unless you want to argue that they aren't really liberals. If so, I won't argue, but they certainly call themselves liberal.

I would say Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are about as "liberal" as GWB was "conservative".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know who you've been talking to.

I don't know any "liberals" who support the war on drugs.

Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama popped into my head without any thinking whatever, unless you want to argue that they aren't really liberals. If so, I won't argue, but they certainly call themselves liberal.

I would say Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are about as "liberal" as GWB was "conservative".

Can't argue with that, but I bet you would get plenty of other people from both sides that would.

 

[Bfgrn]

If doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insane, our nations leadership needs to formulate a new policy, one which would at least palliate the myriad problems which continue and grow as we continue to pursue a failed policy.

As noted above, a solution to the drug problem is likely beyond our reach, but continuing to spend dollars with very little benefit isn't wise and only benefits those who receive tax dollars to do the same thing year after year.

How could the dollars spent on the war on drugs be better invested?

How could $30,000 - $40,000 of taxpayer's money be better invested than incarcerating citizens who grow plants in their back yard, and then they SMOKE them? These people are dangerous to our society! They get high, drive 10 mph and get in the way of the drunk town judge's kid racing at 70 mph from one bar to the other. It causes a huge pile up!!

Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:

• Jews and marijuana: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."

• Marijuana and the culture wars: "You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us."

• Marijuana compared to alcohol: marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun." Nixon also saw marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed: "At least with liquor I don't lose motivation."

• Marijuana and political dissent: ". . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They're all on drugs, virtually all."

• Drug education: "Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them."

America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE!

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama popped into my head without any thinking whatever, unless you want to argue that they aren't really liberals. If so, I won't argue, but they certainly call themselves liberal.

I would say Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are about as "liberal" as GWB was "conservative".

Can't argue with that, but I bet you would get plenty of other people from both sides that would.

Of course. That's the problem with words like "liberal" and "conservative". They mean something different to everyone. I can only speak for what they mean to me.

 

[Montrovant]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Failure? Total.

Solution. Legalize all drugs.

In passing, I would think this would fit right into conservative thinking - you know, take responsibility for your own self and if you go down because you can't handle it, tough darts.

Ending the abysmally failed federal "war" on (some) drugs doesn't equal national legalization...It means that states can regulate recreational drugs as they see fit, just like Nevada regulates prostitution.

But telling such a truth would take away the scare tactic that socialist nimrods like you use, were Roe to be overturned.

What do you think the odds are that any states would decriminalize or legalize any currently illegal drugs, other than marijuana?

Or put another way, do you think the only problem with the 'war on drugs' is the fact that it is pursued at a federal level?

 

[Two Thumbs]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Yes.

Take care of yourself.

There's more than enough charity help to get cleaned up.

Plus legalization removes a lot of the mystery and "I'm breaking the law so I'm cool." crap.

It's worked in both countries that have tried it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Stop spending money one trying to stop drugs, there is no stopping it. .... just build bigger jails and hand out tougher sentences.

Just a thought.

Stop spending money. . . and just build bigger jails and imprison drug offenders for longer terms? And I suppose the money for these bigger jails will come from. . . trees? Maybe Lucky's pot o' gold? And I'm sure the next round of drug offenders will somehow manage to feed themselves and pay for guard wages and power/heat/water for those prisons? Maybe they can get together and do dance numbers like that prison in the Philippines, and then sell the DVD's. That should cover it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yeah, let's compare somebody smoking a doobie, to murder. Great correlation...

That isn't what I've said at all. I've only said that "people are going to do it even if it's illegal" is not a good reason to change the law about ANYTHING.

By itself, no, it's a good reason. But the nanny state isn't about protecting us from murderers, or other criminals who actually harm people. It's about the state protect us from "ourselves" and that's a foolish mission. It's foolish because it's simply not the state's business to decide what's good for us, and because - as has been pointed out "people are going to do it even if it's illegal". The point is not, as you're suggesting, that we should give up enforcing laws because some people don't follow them. The point is that you can't use laws to do this kind of social engineering. It doesn't work and violates basic concepts of freedom. If recreational drug users aren't harming other people, the state should leave them the hell alone.

I don't agree. I do not think you and i should have to pay for rehab on some druggie. Its called personal responsibility.

Don't you advocate spending on jailing, though? Would the rehab be more expensive than incarceration? Not that those are the only choices, but between the two I wonder what the cost difference would be.

I am not interested in rehabbing or rehabilitating anyone who breaks the law.... The money that would be saved on the "war on drugs" would be more then pay for more jails.

You want people to stop using drugs... make the risks to great to use them.

In light of this attempt at justification, my last response seems a little snippy, so. . .

The money that is spent on the war on drugs is, by en large, the money spent on catching the offenders and that spent on prosecuting and incarcerating the offenders. If your solution is to build bigger jails and make the sentences tougher, you're still going to have to spend the money to catch them. The price of prosecution won't just be maintained, but will actually go up.. At this point, petty possession is rarely prosecuted. When it is, it typically results in a no-contest plea deal (read: no trial), some community service and maybe bench probation. By en large, the police and DA's generally only really go after cases where they can prove there was manufacturing or distribution taking place, or at least make a solid argument at an intent to distribute. Granted, this is not a hard and fast rule, but increasing overall sentencing on drug offenders to get people to stop using them would include, I'm assuming, stricter enforcement at those smaller levels of possession (after all, if the intent is to stop abuse, further disincentivizing users and therefore those in possession of amounts that are clearly intended for personal use as opposed to distribution would seem to be something of an imperative). More cases to prosecute means more public defenders and public prosecutors. Lastly, the jailing and incarceration costs would obviously expand.

So you see. . . what you've suggested wouldn't end the war on drugs and free up funds that would "be more then pay for jail". What you've suggested is just an expansion of the current war on drugs that would cost more than what we're spending now.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I won't post the quotes here (I haven't figured out how to use multiple quotes yet without typing in all the HTML commands, so fuck it ) but I've seen some discussion as to whether or not the legality of drugs is a contributing factor to their abuse in our country. For some people, I'm sure, it's as simple as the illegality of the substances creating a forbidden fruit appeal, but I would dare to say that the simple fact that they're illegal also has a vast influence on drugs' relationship to many peoples' popular cultural ideals that appeals to an even broader range of sensibilities than just those who want it cuz they're not supposed to have it.

Take, for instance, the concept of the American gangster. The icon of a dashing and/or badass and/or fearless AND rebellious, truly self determined outlaw has been one of these popular cultural ideals for at least as long as people have been putting pen to paper (or even chisel to stone) to tell stories. Every romanticized gangster icon is just another incarnation of this same fascination. The organized crime aspect that modern cultural pockets have attached to the image in many cases is just a vehicle wherein this archetype can achieve an even greater measure of success and power (and who doesn't like to spice up a good fantasy with success and power?). Now, when a substance in high demand is illegal, motivated people willing to break the law will line up to fill the economic void. The demographic, "motivated people willing to break the law" spans the gamut from honest, good natured dissenters to scruple-free, ruthless scumbags. In the world of legal business, if the guys at Safeway decide a good way to eliminate competition from Albertsons is to roll up into some of their locations and light the places up with automatics, the folks at Albertsons can call the police without fear of self-incrimination. In illegal trafficking, there is no such option, and so any sort of "black market" attracts those who like the option of being able to rob and kill their competition with relative legal impunity. As long as they can avoid the law, the only people they have to worry about are others sharing their attitude and possessing the power and influence to rob and/or kill -them-. Thus "black markets", in their incentivizing having more power and less scruples than the next guy, encourages organized crime (mafia, gangs, pick your term), in that having more manpower comprising the muscle of your organization is a sure way of having a more powerful organization than the next guy. Giving these high-demand substances (drugs) a black market status ties them intimately to virtually every romantic gangster archetype that America has drummed up. And holy shit are there a lot of them. Virtually every racial and nearly every economic demographic in existence in the US can find an entire list of movies glorifying a gangster archetype that they can relate to, and drug use and/or trafficking is a pivotal aspect of pretty much all of them. Eliminate the illegality and you eliminate the black market aspect. Gangs don't form around legitimate businesses. Even if people who've come to power via organized drug trafficking organizations wanted to maintain their market share, the fact that their competitors wouldn't be discouraged from seeking the assistance of the local authorities in the event of violent tactics would eliminate the incentive to operate in that manner. Those without the intelligence/wisdom to adjust to legitimate business practices would inevitably fall to the wayside. Biker gangs cooking meth in the boondocks simply wouldn't be able to compete with a product turned out by a corporation putting money into chemists and R&D, and without the money driving the gang, VOILA! No more gang. Within a generation of decriminalization, drugs would no longer be nearly so core in the wannabe gangster image.

 

[editec]

Do you believe the war on drugs is a failure?

Not for the mafia, Mexican drugs cartels, cops, or the criminal justice system, it isn't.

The WoD is a law designed to insure full employment for those mutally benefical industries.

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Legalize it.

Then there is no drug abuse.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO, based on over 30 years of experience, the war on drugs is an expensive and totally ineffectual policy. I was curious as to how such a policy might be changed to make it viable, less expensive and more humane; it seems that very few of the posts are well thought out and too many are based on ideology sans analysis.

Let's take the Libertarian 'solution' and examine it in some detail: Legalize drugs.

Which drugs:

Federal Drug Classification Schedules


Schedule I

(a) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(b) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(c) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Schedule II

(a) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(c) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule III

(a) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(c) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Schedule IV

(a) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(c) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.


Schedule V

(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

So, all drugs should be legalized? That's absurd. Yet most of us know prohibition hasn't worked, "Just say No" failed and drug abuse includes alcoholism and tobacco use - both of which will eventually kill the user. Some controls are necessary, and without any regulations addictive substances will invade the bodies of younger and younger children creating a Brave New World with SOMA dispensed by anyone seeking to make a profit.

Are there any ideas out there or is the idea that no solution exists so let's default to ideology? It's much easier and doesn't require any thought.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yeah, let's compare somebody smoking a doobie, to murder. Great correlation...

That isn't what I've said at all. I've only said that "people are going to do it even if it's illegal" is not a good reason to change the law about ANYTHING.

By itself, no, it's a good reason. But the nanny state isn't about protecting us from murderers, or other criminals who actually harm people. It's about the state protect us from "ourselves" and that's a foolish mission. It's foolish because it's simply not the state's business to decide what's good for us, and because - as has been pointed out "people are going to do it even if it's illegal". The point is not, as you're suggesting, that we should give up enforcing laws because some people don't follow them. The point is that you can't use laws to do this kind of social engineering. It doesn't work and violates basic concepts of freedom. If recreational drug users aren't harming other people, the state should leave them the hell alone.

It's really protecting people from the druggies. If people were allowed to protect themselves from the actions of drug addicts we'd be miles ahead.

All in all, yes, the state should leave druggies alone. Recognize the benefits, they die young.

 

[George Costanza]

Ending the abysmally failed federal "war" on (some) drugs doesn't equal national legalization...It means that states can regulate recreational drugs as they see fit, just like Nevada regulates prostitution.

But telling such a truth would take away the scare tactic that socialist nimrods like you use, were Roe to be overturned.

Not to be weirdo, but. . .ummm

Whut?

v

Point being that the responsibility for regulating both would devolve to the states....They wouldn't be made legal or illegal merely by the removal of a federal policy.

Federal or state - doesn't matter. Until both the feds and ALL of the states legalize drugs, the problem is going to remain.

 

[George Costanza]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Yes its a failure.

As another poster stated, education and treatment.

I don't agree. I do not think you and i should have to pay for rehab on some druggie. Its called personal responsibility.

Fine - but what happens when the druggie burglarizes your house in order to get funds for more drugs? Maybe, if you and I had paid for rehab on him, he wouldn't have done that.

 

[Katzndogz]

IMO, based on over 30 years of experience, the war on drugs is an expensive and totally ineffectual policy. I was curious as to how such a policy might be changed to make it viable, less expensive and more humane; it seems that very few of the posts are well thought out and too many are based on ideology sans analysis.

Let's take the Libertarian 'solution' and examine it in some detail: Legalize drugs.

Which drugs:

Federal Drug Classification Schedules


Schedule I

(a) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(b) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(c) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Schedule II

(a) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(c) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule III

(a) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(c) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Schedule IV

(a) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(c) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.


Schedule V

(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

So, all drugs should be legalized? That's absurd. Yet most of us know prohibition hasn't worked, "Just say No" failed and drug abuse includes alcoholism and tobacco use - both of which will eventually kill the user. Some controls are necessary, and without any regulations addictive substances will invade the bodies of younger and younger children creating a Brave New World with SOMA dispensed by anyone seeking to make a profit.

Are there any ideas out there or is the idea that no solution exists so let's default to ideology? It's much easier and doesn't require any thought.

A lot of substances will kill the user. Salt, sugar, transfats, saturated fats will all contribute to someone's demise. They don't interfere with cognitive ability like drugs, neither does tobacco. Not everyone will choose to take drugs. The world belongs to those who make that decision. The rest should be assisted into a drug induced self-euthanasia as early in life as possible.

As my Chinese friends tell me "We are for drug legalization, for you. Not for us."

 

[dblack]

Some controls are necessary, and without any regulations addictive substances will invade the bodies of younger and younger children creating a Brave New World with SOMA dispensed by anyone seeking to make a profit.

Are there any ideas out there or is the idea that no solution exists so let's default to ideology? It's much easier and doesn't require any thought.

It's not ideology. You're starting with the assumption that its a problem government should do something about. That's the premise I'm rejecting. Not all our problems can or should be solved by government and drug abuse is a perfect example.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That isn't what I've said at all. I've only said that "people are going to do it even if it's illegal" is not a good reason to change the law about ANYTHING.

By itself, no, it's a good reason. But the nanny state isn't about protecting us from murderers, or other criminals who actually harm people. It's about the state protect us from "ourselves" and that's a foolish mission. It's foolish because it's simply not the state's business to decide what's good for us, and because - as has been pointed out "people are going to do it even if it's illegal". The point is not, as you're suggesting, that we should give up enforcing laws because some people don't follow them. The point is that you can't use laws to do this kind of social engineering. It doesn't work and violates basic concepts of freedom. If recreational drug users aren't harming other people, the state should leave them the hell alone.

It's really protecting people from the druggies. If people were allowed to protect themselves from the actions of drug addicts we'd be miles ahead.

All in all, yes, the state should leave druggies alone. Recognize the benefits, they die young.

Yep, a callous conserative and a vigilante. Lots of thought went into his post.

 

[earlycuyler]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Its a huge failure. Education is part of the solution.

 

[Katzndogz]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Its a huge failure. Education is part of the solution.

Education can't compete with pro drug propaganda.