War on drugs. Question. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : War on drugs. Question.


Pages : [1] 2

frank4570
12-04-2011, 08:32
I am personally of the opinion that we need a drastically different approach to dealing with drugs. So that is my view.

My question is for the people who are in favor of continuing the war on drugs.
Bear with me for a second. I think the war on drugs is only having a very small effect toward the goal of preventing americans from getting drugs. I would guess for every $1 worth of drugs we prevent, $100 gets through. And it costs us $100 in resources to keep out that $1.
That is a terrible return on our money. And it looks to me like we are losing ground. We are not winning.

So if you support the war on drugs, how do you see this going? Are you comfortable with continuing down the same path and just hoping for the best?

INJoker
12-04-2011, 08:48
I've never done any "hard" drugs and I have a white-collar job. I don't hang out with drug-users or hard-partiers or scheisters of any kind.

That said, by my own estimate, I could have anything I wanted of good quality delivered to my house by noon in under 3 phone calls for a competitive price.

Again, I do not use drugs, but I fully support legalizing marijuana.

For destructive drugs like meth, however, I think we should take the Singapore approach to dealing with dealers/traffickers.

vafish
12-04-2011, 08:51
I think the war on drugs has been as successful as prohibition was.

At least it's made the criminal gangs very successful.

I think if we took all the money spent in the war on drugs and incarcerating drug dealers and spent it on treatment programs instead we would be better off.

50 Cent
12-04-2011, 08:59
The thing I've never figured out is a country like Holland - no "War on Drugs" (to say the least) over there but the Dutch don't seem to be falling apart. Heck, seems they have their country more together than Italy or Greece and I haven't heard of them needing a bailout.

Or maybe its just all the tourists that go there for drug holidays??

mike1956
12-04-2011, 08:59
For those who wage it, and those who prosper from it, the war on drugs is very successful.
For the rest of us, it is a war on self: divisive; unwinnable; unsustainable and destructive. The jails are full and the treasuries are overburdened, with no end, or even an objective in sight.

Steel Head
12-04-2011, 09:06
To me the war on drugs is a sham-look like your doing something and spend a whole lot of money doing nothing.
A mix of treatment,education and much more effective penalties could help.

Lethaltxn
12-04-2011, 09:11
It makes people feel good. And isn't that worth an amount of money?
/sarcasm

Bruce M
12-04-2011, 09:13
I am personally of the opinion that we need a drastically different approach to dealing with drugs. So that is my view.

...?

Out of curiousity what drastically different approach do you suggest?

Restless28
12-04-2011, 09:15
I always get a good laugh when I read the local paper's story of a marijuana eradication operation.

99% of the time, it's a group of 10-12 overweight cops, all dressed in tactical gear with ATV's and a helicopter, posing with a small growing operation.

I would guess they spend thousands of dollars to wipe out a few plants.

This is a great example of waste.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 09:15
It makes people feel good. And isn't that worth an amount of money?
/sarcasm

It doesn't make me feel good, and I'm a people.

K.Kiser
12-04-2011, 09:17
I don't belive in treatment at all, to me that makes it look like a drug addict has a illness which they do not... A drug addict has a deficit of responsibility, accountability, concern toward others, healthy concern for themselves, and just all-around complete lack of judgement and a surplus of selfishness...

I like the appraoch my Dad has always mentioned... When drugs are confiscated, just poison the crap and put it back out on the streets... It will only kill who it needs to, and drugs will quickly start to carry a pretty lethal reputation and maybe it'll act as a deterrent... If it's not a deterrent, who gives a $h** cause it will just kill the ones that can't head a warning...

There comes a point with a serious problems that ya got to lose compassion, and just fix the ********** problem... I say F'em -- killem all...
It's time responsible and contributing citizens get all that they deserve from the society in which we've conributed to...

BTW - I've never smoked a joint in my life, but I don't think weed is a real big deal that needs to soak up much of our tax $$...

frank4570
12-04-2011, 09:19
Out of curiousity what drastically different approach do you suggest?

Probably something along the lines of legalizing pot and increasing money on treatment programs.
Honestly, my approach would simply be to do some research and find out what actually works and move in that direction, screw what people "think" should work. What we are doing doesn't work, but we keep doing it.

When I was in spain kids a lot younger than adults drank alcohol. None of the locals thought it was a big deal. And they were never drunk like the americans were. Maybe there is a lesson in there.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 09:22
I don't belive in treatment at all, to me that makes it look

I don't care how it looks. I care what works.
It seems to me that being concerned about how things look, instead of how things are, is emotional instead of logical.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 09:25
Out of curiousity what drastically different approach do you suggest?
De-criminalize drug use across the board and stop making total abstinence a condition for employment, health care, and social services in the form of mandatory drug testing, for starters. Recognize the difference between the recreational pot smoker and the daily heroin addict. Stop treating a voluntary behavior as both a lifelong disease and a criminal activity. Stop lying to children in an attempt to scare them into adopting a totally-abstinent lifestyle. Recognize, at a federal level, the genuine medicinal applications of marijuana. Admit and accept as a society that a small percentage of that society is going to act irresponsibly in their consumption of mind-altering substances, while the overwhelming majority of those who do so, do so moderately.

Bruce M
12-04-2011, 09:32
I would consider decriminalization but as far as employment goes I think that should be left up to employers. Unless someone can show that the F16 driver does as well after testing positive. As far as medical use of marijuana if the guys at Brigham and Womens, Cleveland Clinic, Reagan, Bethesda, MGH etc. decide it has benefit, I agree.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 09:35
Admit and accept as a society that a small percentage of that society is going to act irresponsibly in their consumption of mind-altering substances, while the overwhelming majority of those who do so, do so moderately.

I think that's pretty much it right there. We already have years and years of experience/evidence when looking at the drug alcohol.

Bruce M
12-04-2011, 09:37
Also I'm gonna go way way out on a limb and suggest this thread will have the same fate as others of the same topic.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 09:38
As far as medical use of marijuana if the guys at Brigham and Womens, Cleveland Clinic, Reagan, Bethesda, MGH etc. decide it has benefit, I agree.

I have 3 bad discs and nerve damage in both my ankles, chronic pain. You'd be surprised how many people have told me that a small amount of THC would stomp out the pain and leave me perfectly functional. Not really an option for me though. I'm not into doing illegal stuff.

Flying-Dutchman
12-04-2011, 09:39
.....

frank4570
12-04-2011, 09:40
Also I'm gonna go way way out on a limb and suggest this thread will have the same fate as others of the same topic.

Good point. I'm going to see if I can steer it toward my original question.

M&P Shooter
12-04-2011, 09:43
The war on criminals doesn't work so well either but you must always continue to fight. To say we should end the war on drugs is like saying we just lay down and give up.

Lethaltxn
12-04-2011, 09:46
It doesn't make me feel good, and I'm a people.

You must be one of those heartless right wingers! :rofl::tongueout:

M&P Shooter
12-04-2011, 09:50
It doesn't make me feel good, and I'm a people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCDnR6Px-co

Lampshade
12-04-2011, 09:54
The war on criminals doesn't work so well either but you must always continue to fight. To say we should end the war on drugs is like saying we just lay down and give up.

It shouldn't be a war in the first place.

See your signature... the little part about people being "free?"

clancy
12-04-2011, 10:03
When the "War on Drugs" started in the 60's I do not think it was intended to becoem the oppressive, Constitution shredding assualt on the citizens of the US it is now. I have a friend who did 2 years in prison under the Rockefeller Law's in the 70's, all because he had 2 joints. Another friend cashed his Christmas Club check a couple years ago, got stopped for speeding on the way to the mall and had his $2500 confiscated by the police. In the town I once lived in a kid was growing about a half dozen pot plants. His parents home was seized by the police and auctioned off. One old guy cashed in a CD and took the money to a local car dealership to pay cash for a new car. The cops were called and they took his money too. According to the local newspaper, it cost him almost $5000 in lawyer fees to get his $30,000 back.

There is a whole industry that has developed over drug testing. Even the local fast food places and supermarkets are now testing applicants. Our local police departments have become in far too many instances militarized and unapproachable. At least half of the population of our prisons are there for non-violent drug crimes, and violent felons are being given early release to make room for more.

To me, the was on drugs has become a war on the American people and the US Constitution.

Danny Reid
12-04-2011, 10:04
Essentially, you can substitute drugs with any other enterprise people want to legalize. The underground element will still always exist.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 10:07
The war on criminals doesn't work so well either but you must always continue to fight. To say we should end the war on drugs is like saying we just lay down and give up.

So you think we should just continue on the same path? Or should we do something different, still maintaining the war on drugs? What do you think we should do?

McJohnny
12-04-2011, 10:17
To me, the was on drugs has become a war on the American people and the US Constitution.

Quoted for truth.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 10:19
Essentially, you can substitute drugs with any other enterprise people want to legalize. The underground element will still always exist.

Much fail here.

Only the government can create a black market.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 10:20
If you fabricate a cause with sufficient nobility or fear the American people will tolerate anything.

Danny Reid
12-04-2011, 10:21
No fail at all. Legalize em and see what happens.

GAFinch
12-04-2011, 10:26
At least half of the population of our prisons are there for non-violent drug crimes, and violent felons are being given early release to make room for more.

70% of prisoners test positive for once a week or greater drug use when they first go in.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 10:27
No fail at all. Legalize em and see what happens.

Cool. Back it up. How does a black market "underground" develop absent government intervention?

NMG26
12-04-2011, 10:29
De-criminalize drug use across the board and stop making total abstinence a condition for employment, health care, and social services in the form of mandatory drug testing, for starters. Recognize the difference between the recreational pot smoker and the daily heroin addict. Stop treating a voluntary behavior as both a lifelong disease and a criminal activity. Stop lying to children in an attempt to scare them into adopting a totally-abstinent lifestyle. Recognize, at a federal level, the genuine medicinal applications of marijuana. Admit and accept as a society that a small percentage of that society is going to act irresponsibly in their consumption of mind-altering substances, while the overwhelming majority of those who do so, do so moderately.

+1

Pie in the sky?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHUD2XmLN4







:)

GAFinch
12-04-2011, 10:32
The war on drugs was winning, which is why drugs, including pot and meth, moved down to Mexico. It's the lax immigration enforcement that allowed the Mexican cartels to gradually gain size and power. Of course, that's the real reason many people don't want illegal immigration made illegal again.

Vanilla-gorilla
12-04-2011, 10:33
I always get a good laugh when I read the local paper's story of a marijuana eradication operation.

99% of the time, it's a group of 10-12 overweight cops, all dressed in tactical gear with ATV's and a helicopter, posing with a small growing operation.

I would guess they spend thousands of dollars to wipe out a few plants.

This is a great example of waste.

Ha. Yep thats how they do it.

Danny Reid
12-04-2011, 10:46
Easy. Say we legalize it all tomorrow. In the libertarian world, that would be the end of it. That isn't reality, though. Hand in hand with legalization would come regulation. Color me dubious, but when I think of addicts the thought that they are the sort to operate within specific constraints seems a bit goofy.

Who knows? Maybe some crackheads and Meth users may be willing to go through proper channels in order to get their fix once it's legalized, but I kinda doubt it.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 10:52
I would consider decriminalization but as far as employment goes I think that should be left up to employers. Unless someone can show that the F16 driver does as well after testing positive. As far as medical use of marijuana if the guys at Brigham and Womens, Cleveland Clinic, Reagan, Bethesda, MGH etc. decide it has benefit, I agree.
The medical industry has a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal.

bigleaf
12-04-2011, 10:56
The war on drugs was winning, which is why drugs, including pot and meth, moved down to Mexico. It's the lax immigration enforcement that allowed the Mexican cartels to gradually gain size and power. Of course, that's the real reason many people don't want illegal immigration made illegal again.

I just don't know...

Consider this: A light plane with an unknown cargo leaves Cuba and heads toward the US. Do you think it'll make it to shore? A similar plane takes off from Mexico or Colombia. Somehow, it lands in Florida or Texas or Arizona and unloads its cargo to waiting accomplices. What's the difference? They're both invading. They're both, by law, a threat. But one has great propaganda value in its interdiction, and the other brings lots of money to all of the participants... the hunters and the hunted, both.

The war on drugs, like government subsidies to oil companies or factory farms is a redistribution of wealth from you and I to wealthy folks. It's theft. And I contend that the war on drugs is tearing this country apart. No other country in the world... not Red China, not Iran, not Myanmar... has as high a percentage of its own citizens in prison as the USA. And it's that silly war on drugs that's to blame. Time to end that war.

As an aside, I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of thought and the tone of discourse in this thread. Once in a while, I get very tired of the unthinking and poorly expressed comments of some GTers. It makes me sad for the future of our country, if ignorance and bigotry are accepted as normal. But then I read through a thread like this, or one of the technical threads, and my faith is restored. Thanks, ya'll.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 11:00
The war on criminals doesn't work so well either but you must always continue to fight. To say we should end the war on drugs is like saying we just lay down and give up.
Fighting an unwinnable war against the behaviors of a significant portion of a nation's own citizens is foolish. People are going to do what they do whether you give up, or not.

Lethaltxn
12-04-2011, 11:00
No other country in the world... not Red China, not Iran, not Myanmar... has as high a percentage of its own citizens in prison as the USA.

In fairness, that's usually because they get a bullet or are beheaded. Just sayin.

M&P Shooter
12-04-2011, 11:02
So you think we should just continue on the same path? Or should we do something different, still maintaining the war on drugs? What do you think we should do?
Continue fighting and think of ways to achieve better gains for our efforts. I would say stiffer sentences would be a good start.

M&P Shooter
12-04-2011, 11:02
Fighting an unwinnable war against the behaviors of a significant portion of a nation's own citizens is foolish. People are going to do what they do whether you give up, or not.
Then why not murders and rapist go free also?

JackMac
12-04-2011, 11:06
Google..."guns and weed: the road to freedom" and watch the 16 part movie on youtube. The War on Drugs is a cash cow for LEO and to halt the war...would put a bunch of folks out of jobs. Although the Gov. could tax and regulate it like Alcohol and still make money. Who knows?

Christian944
12-04-2011, 11:09
I think the notion some Americans have that legalizing drugs would destroy our society is just way off. People who want drugs will get their hands on drugs. I would be willing to be that legalizing drugs would reduce the number of people who use it.

I think people are just afraid of change. I've never done any type of illegal drug and I dont even take pain killers. You could approach the drug problem the same way you can approach smoking. Just advertise against it.

The anti smoking advertising in the U.S. was very successful. I cam from Brazil and I've traveled other countries. The amount of people that smoke in the U.S. is very small compared to other countries. If people want to make bad choices let them, you cant change people they have to change on their own. Just make sure people are informed about the effects of drugs.

Christian944
12-04-2011, 11:13
Then why not murders and rapist go free also?

I would say because people who murder and rape are infringing on other peoples rights and well being. People who do drugs in my opinion are not, they are just harming themselves.

Sure you can make an argument that drugs are bad for our society and do harm other people but whether it is legal or illegal doesn't change that fact.

I think drugs are closer related to alcohol than they are to rapes and murder. You can live with alcohol being legal right?

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 11:24
Easy. Say we legalize it all tomorrow. In the libertarian world, that would be the end of it. That isn't reality, though. Hand in hand with legalization would come regulation. Color me dubious, but when I think of addicts the thought that they are the sort to operate within specific constraints seems a bit goofy.

Who knows? Maybe some crackheads and Meth users may be willing to go through proper channels in order to get their fix once it's legalized, but I kinda doubt it.

Oh. I see. Are regulations government involvement?

Lemme ask you though: how many illegal speakeasy joints are you aware of? Is bootlegging enough of a problem today to even register on anyone's priority list?

Speaking of prohibition, can you explain to me why the federal government needed a constitutional amendment to criminalize booze but doesn't need one to criminalize other drugs or marijuana ?

frank4570
12-04-2011, 11:28
Then why not murders and rapist go free also?

They are not a significant part of the population and all the rest of the population wants them in jail. Using illegal drugs is closer to using caffeine and alcohol, than it is to murder and rape.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 11:29
Then why not murders and rapist go free also?
If you are unable to distinguish between murder, rape and smoking a joint or selling a dime bag, there isn't much for me to tell you.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 11:31
Continue fighting and think of ways to achieve better gains for our efforts. I would say stiffer sentences would be a good start.

It would drive up the price with the risk. Maybe it would have the intended effect. Maybe something worse.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 11:31
Google..."guns and weed: the road to freedom" and watch the 16 part movie on youtube. The War on Drugs is a cash cow for LEO and to halt the war...would put a bunch of folks out of jobs. Although the Gov. could tax and regulate it like Alcohol and still make money. Who knows?
Here is another interesting watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CyuBuT_7I4

Bruce M
12-04-2011, 11:34
Good point. I'm going to see if I can steer it toward my original question.


I will attempt to keep as close as I can to your original question. I agree that we ought to try a wide variety of things to see what may actually work. If it does work keep going with it until a better idea comes along then lets experiment with that idea to see how well it works.


... Another friend cashed his Christmas Club check a couple years ago, got stopped for speeding on the way to the mall and had his $2500 confiscated by the police.
...One old guy cashed in a CD and took the money to a local car dealership to pay cash for a new car. The cops were called and they took his money too. According to the local newspaper, it cost him almost $5000 in lawyer fees to get his $30,000 back.

.... There is a little something missing from the versions of both these incidents. When money that is acquired legally is legally put into a thrift and then legally removed from a thrift, the police don't take it. If there is a relationship that can be drawn from the money to criminal activity, that is different.


The medical industry has a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal. I am not doubting that some drug companies may wish to keep marijuana illegal. That's why I picked some of the best hospitals - the ones that are on the cutting edge of what is new and untried; the hopsitals and physicians that other physicians will send themselves or family members to for critical issues, and let them decide if or when to prescribe marijuana.

bobbman
12-04-2011, 11:35
The "asset forfeiture" statutes of the war on drugs have become a tremendous cash cow for the police agencies. How many "interdiction" cars do you see sittting between the lanes on the intersate? Those guys are trying to stop cars headed back with money, no "profit" in siezing drugs that you just ahve to destroy!

If drugs were free or low cost it would eliminate the profit potential and consequently the illegal trafficking pretty darn quick. Those criminals aren't stupid, if they can't make any money at something they ain't gonna do it.

This massive "war" has worked as well as most government programs, and it's time to try another approach.

Zonny
12-04-2011, 11:37
What we need to crack down on, is the Dr.s that write scripts for everyone with a fart crosswise. :upeyes:

Danny Reid
12-04-2011, 11:50
Yes. Regulations are government involvement. And I assure you, there would be regulations involved.

Now, if it were a simple matter of straight out decriminalization...with no regulation of any sort involved, it would be interesting to see what happens.

Government however never allows anything to be that simple. Kind of why we will never have a flat tax. Simple, yes. But too many people would be put out of work ( lawyers, accountants).

Bren
12-04-2011, 11:51
I am personally of the opinion that we need a drastically different approach to dealing with drugs. So that is my view.

My question is for the people who are in favor of continuing the war on drugs.
Bear with me for a second. I think the war on drugs is only having a very small effect toward the goal of preventing americans from getting drugs.

Allow me to disagree, looking at what I know about it and the example of alcohol prohibition, I think it is actually HELPING Americans get drugs that wouldn't be available, but for the war on drugs. As with alcohol during prohibition, it also makes using drugs an act of rebellion and "cool." I seem to recall that Chicago had hundreds of times more bars operating during prohibition than before.


I would guess for every $1 worth of drugs we prevent, $100 gets through. And it costs us $100 in resources to keep out that $1.

Again, that's where we differ - I say for every $100 we spend, we drive up the price of the drug just a little, make it more profitable, especially to those outside the US, and we actually increase the supply and willingness of people to risk smuggling it in.

Example ('scuse me while I make this up): Corn is more useful than marijuana, but it is plentiful, so you don't see people in Mexico and California smuggling corn into the U.S. Marijuana, on the other hand, is easy to grow (grows wild in places around here), but because of the demand and the artificial shortage created by the war on drugs, it is much more valuable in smaller quantities. In turn, that makes it easier for people to grow a profitable quantity that they can carry across town in the trunk of a car, instead of a tractor-trailer.

Bren
12-04-2011, 12:03
Then why not murders and rapist go free also?

Why not put gun owners in prison?

Murder and rape are conduct that harm others - owning the gun used in the murder and rape is not and it can be used legally or illegally.

Committing murder and rape while under the influence of drugs (or, directly because of the war on drugs, to get drugs) are specific crimes already. Drugs can be used with or without committing other crimes, so why not take the pro-freedom approach and penalize the harmful conduct, like we do with guns. Paternalistic laws against possession and use have no place in a country that claims to be free. That doesn't eman we wouldn't still punish DUI/murder/rape/or even disorderly conduct by drug users.

GoonGlock21
12-04-2011, 12:10
Every person that says "hey whats the worst that can happen if u just make it legal?"
or "it that persons problem if there on drugs" Has not grown up with a drug addicted parent, or realize the damage a drug addicted parent does to there child. These notions are delusions of people who just want to hang back and smoke some pot, not taking into effect it has on people around the country.

Lampshade
12-04-2011, 12:13
Every person that says "hey whats the worst that can happen if u just make it legal?"
or "it that persons problem if there on drugs" Has not grown up with a drug addicted parent, or realize the damage a drug addicted parent does to there child. These notions are delusions of people who just want to hang back and smoke some pot, not taking into effect it has on people around the country.

Last I checked, drugs were illegal and plenty of parents were still addicts, not to mention the fact that making drugs legal doesn't abrogate other legal obligations parents have with regards to caring for their children.

Singapore decriminalized all drugs for personal use and the number of users who they have going through treatment has increased. If harm minimization is your goal, prohibition is clearly not the answer.

GoonGlock21
12-04-2011, 12:16
I wonder what the number of users looks like........

Lampshade
12-04-2011, 12:19
I wonder what the number of users looks like........

Proportionally, far less than what we have here.

NMG26
12-04-2011, 12:19
Every person that says "hey whats the worst that can happen if u just make it legal?"
or "it that persons problem if there on drugs" Has not grown up with a drug addicted parent, or realize the damage a drug addicted parent does to there child. These notions are delusions of people who just want to hang back and smoke some pot, not taking into effect it has on people around the country.

I have a stepchild sitting in jail right now for what he did because of his alcoholism. The sale and ease of getting alcohol pisses me off. Illegalizing it, or more regulation, whould not have changed his choices, or the present end result.

His time in jail is the longest he has stayed sober in years. When he gets out, I have no Idea if he will be able to win against his disease. He wants to. Will he? No Idea.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 12:26
Every person that says "hey whats the worst that can happen if u just make it legal?"
or "it that persons problem if there on drugs" Has not grown up with a drug addicted parent, or realize the damage a drug addicted parent does to there child. These notions are delusions of people who just want to hang back and smoke some pot, not taking into effect it has on people around the country.
I haven't smoked pot since the Carter administration, and was heavily invested in the 12-step movement for nearly thirty years. Your argument is similar to the ones posited by anti-gunners who consistently predict blood in the streets whenever pro-2A legislation is proposed.

Agent6-3/8
12-04-2011, 12:27
I always get a good laugh when I read the local paper's story of a marijuana eradication operation.

99% of the time, it's a group of 10-12 overweight cops, all dressed in tactical gear with ATV's and a helicopter, posing with a small growing operation.

I would guess they spend thousands of dollars to wipe out a few plants.

This is a great example of waste.


As a LEO I can confirm that marijuana erad is a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources. At least in my neck of the woods. Really, I wouldn't lose any sleep if marijuana was legalized.


If the government was really interested in winning "the war on drugs", they'd seal the southern border and execute trafficers...

mike1956
12-04-2011, 12:27
I have a stepchild sitting in jail right now for what he did because of his alcoholism. The sale and ease of getting alcohol pisses me off. Illegalizing it, or more regulation, whould not have changed his choices, or the present end result.

His time in jail is the longest he has stayed sober in years. When he gets out, I have no Idea if he will be able to win against his disease. He wants to. Will he? No Idea.
Prohibitive legislation is no substitiute for responsible behavior.

craig_o
12-04-2011, 12:38
I am personally of the opinion that we need a drastically different approach to dealing with drugs. So that is my view.

My question is for the people who are in favor of continuing the war on drugs.
Bear with me for a second. I think the war on drugs is only having a very small effect toward the goal of preventing americans from getting drugs. I would guess for every $1 worth of drugs we prevent, $100 gets through. And it costs us $100 in resources to keep out that $1.
That is a terrible return on our money. And it looks to me like we are losing ground. We are not winning.

So if you support the war on drugs, how do you see this going? Are you comfortable with continuing down the same path and just hoping for the best?

Incarceration doesn't work, and we're making all the wrong guys rich.

Alcohol prohibition didn't work, and neither does this drug prohibition.

Fallout
12-04-2011, 13:12
I love the phrase victimless crime.

Based on my experience I would venture to say that 80-90 percent of crime is committed by people who are currently under the influence or attempting to obtain drugs. Drug users and those attempting to obtain drugs are the ones who are burglarizing your homes, your vehicles, Robbing your son your daughter who is working a part time job at a store. Stealing anything metal that isnt bolted down. Causing the Fatality accident that kills your son, daughter friend. Carries out the assaults, murders, rapes, I could go on and on. Most dont understand the concept until something happens to them and even then they only get a small glimpse at the darkside of things. I have had a front row seat to those effected by this victimless crime for the last 11 years.

If you allow the unregulated and uncontrolled use of any mind altering substance abuse is going to happen. You can argue that legalizing it and taxing it and regulating it like prescription medication would be more beneficial. Has that been effective with Prescription Narcotics? Prescription Diversion is at an all time high and is so widespread and rampant that it is hard to quantify. It is a taboo subject and doesnt get a lot of media attention because like alcohol abuse many take part in it and it doesnt have the same stigma that someone who abuses meth or heroin imparts.

In texas around 8 years ago the shift became apparent for drug offenders. TDCJ the Texas prison system was over capacity. So they shifted from incarceration to rehabilitation for not only drug abusers but drug dealers. Most first second and third time Drug Offenders that would normally be sent to prison (Serious level charges) not small user quantities are sent to a program called SAFP. This is a 6 month to 1 year long intensive drug rehabilitation program. What have the results been? Pretty poor, 70 to 80 percent recidivisim rate for offenders in my area I dont have access to statistics state wide.

So is rehabilitiation the answer? Maybe it would work elsewhere but currently it is not working here. When you break down the mechanics of addiction you see that unless someone is forced to change they wont and unless they are removed from the enviroment that enabled them in the first place the are unlikely to succeed at remaining clean.

So all that being said what do we do?

There are many theories to the best way of policing. Typically police are reactive in nature. They "Respond" to crimes instead of preventing them. Not only because of Manpower constraints but because they dont have crystal balls to tell them where the next murder is going to occur.

We can attribute a large amount of All crime to drug abuse and distribution so we can take the proactive stance of treating the symptoms of Burglary, Theft, Assault, Murder, Rape. And in doing so prevent some of these from happening.

Another talking point that people love to spout is the "Theft" by the government in regards to asset forfeiture. Asset Forfeiture is probably one of the most effective tools at preventing the Distribution of Illegal Narcotics. The most simple way of looking at it is If you take their money they cant buy the dope to put it on the street. Illegal drugs are relatively cheap at the point of distribution. The markup comes down the road. It is also hard to control the point of origin since it usually originates for some drugs in other countries. So what do you do? You target them where it counts. The vehicles, houses, jewelery, boats, and cash that they funnel all their illicit proceeds into. In one fell swoop you can knock out a dope dealers rainy day fund and reset them to Square 1. If you can prove that the property was obtained by legitimate means you will usually get it back. So If you call taking something that was obtained by illegitimate means theft than I would call into question your value system.

Ljunatic
12-04-2011, 13:36
While I might agree that the war on drugs is a failure, does anyone really believe that drug traffickers or their clients are going to go get a job and buy their drug of choice from the new boss?

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 13:55
Drugs should be decriminalized. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to criminalize them.

Users should bear the full weight and responsibilities of their choices with no social aid from public monies for rehabilitation.

It's real difficult to enjoy liberty within the confines of a socialist system.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 14:03
While I might agree that the war on drugs is a failure, does anyone really believe that drug traffickers or their clients are going to go get a job and buy their drug of choice from the new boss?

If drugs were made legal the price would go through the floor. Criminals would have no interest in competing with corporations.

The Hawk
12-04-2011, 14:04
I like the idea that K. Kiser said his Dad suggested. When drugs are confiscated, poison said drugs, then put them back on the street. Yeah, it is a tough idea, but I think it would work.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 14:04
If drugs were made legal the price would go through the floor. Criminals would have no interest in competing with corporations.

Well, bootlegging led to NASCAR. Perhaps the outta work narcotics peddlers can come up with some spectator sport?

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 14:05
I like the idea that K. Kiser said his Dad suggested. When drugs are confiscated, poison said drugs, then put them back on the street. Yeah, it is a tough idea, but I think it would work.

Government-sponsored murder of its citizens?

frank4570
12-04-2011, 14:09
I like the idea that K. Kiser said his Dad suggested. When drugs are confiscated, poison said drugs, then put them back on the street. Yeah, it is a tough idea, but I think it would work.

Intentionally murdering a bunch of innocent people is worth it to prevent them from using recreational drugs? Shall we poison alcohol as well?

american lockpicker
12-04-2011, 14:11
If the government controlled drugs and anyone could buy them at say a pharmacy it would kill the cartels. I wouldn't mind using coke or x but I'm not going to break laws or buy from criminals to do it. :/

frank4570
12-04-2011, 14:18
I love the phrase victimless crime.

Based on my experience I would venture to say that 80-90 percent of crime is committed by people who are currently under the influence or attempting to obtain drugs. Drug users and those attempting to obtain drugs are the ones who are burglarizing your homes, your vehicles, Robbing your son your daughter who is working a part time job at a store. Stealing anything metal that isnt bolted down. Causing the Fatality accident that kills your son, daughter friend. Carries out the assaults, murders, rapes, I could go on and on.


At least half of that is all about people getting money for artificially expensive drugs.
No argument though that people under the influence of stuff will do things they wouldn't normally allow themselves to do. And that most definitely includes alcohol.






If you take their money they cant buy the dope to put it on the street.

I would say that isn't working.

The Hawk
12-04-2011, 14:21
Intentionally murdering a bunch of innocent people is worth it to prevent them from using recreational drugs? Shall we poison alcohol as well?

Hmmm. Alcohol is not illegal. Drugs are illegal. Not sure what recreational use constitutes. I do see your point though. Like I said, tough decision.
Heck, I really do not know what the answer is. I do know that I plan on having a couple adult beverages tonight. I'll ponder this and get back to you later.

HollowHead
12-04-2011, 14:30
Unless someone can show that the F16 driver does as well after testing positive.

You do know that the USAF administers medical quality meth to it's pilots? It was a huge story a few years ago when a flight of -15s took out a Canadian platoon. HH

frank4570
12-04-2011, 14:31
Heck, I really do not know what the answer is. I do know that I plan on having a couple adult beverages tonight. I'll ponder this and get back to you later.

Then you would be the perfect example of the average, normal person who doesn't have a freak out just because you have a drug in your system.
Like most people, you have a few beers and enjoy your evening. That's all.
Mostly it wouldn't matter much what you have in your system, you would still be the same person.

OIFx2
12-04-2011, 14:50
If drugs were decriminalized - not only would the prices drop drastically, but the quality and safety of the product would improve drastically. You wouldn't have to worry what your coke or x is being cut with or if someone laced your weed.

The only laws that should be in place are laws that protect us from the actions of others. I don't need the government to make laws in an effort to protect me from myself....

You could argue that most of our crime is commited by drug users in an effort to secure more drugs. I would then argue that those crimes are commited due the the fact that drugs are illegal, and therefore are expensive and sometimes dangerous to procure.

Christian944
12-04-2011, 15:12
I have a stepchild sitting in jail right now for what he did because of his alcoholism. The sale and ease of getting alcohol pisses me off. Illegalizing it, or more regulation, whould not have changed his choices, or the present end result.

His time in jail is the longest he has stayed sober in years. When he gets out, I have no Idea if he will be able to win against his disease. He wants to. Will he? No Idea.

If being a drunk is a disease so is being fat.

Time for pharmaceutical companies to make some 'drugs' that will manage your 'disease'.

Lampshade
12-04-2011, 16:01
If you allow the unregulated and uncontrolled use of any mind altering substance abuse is going to happen. You can argue that legalizing it and taxing it and regulating it like prescription medication would be more beneficial. Has that been effective with Prescription Narcotics?

Has prohibition been effective at dealing with other drugs?

Not sure where you got the idea that legalization means use is unregulated and uncontrolled either, I'm pretty sure there are regulations and controls in place with regard to alcohol use, which is a legal drug.

Ljunatic
12-04-2011, 16:59
If drugs were made legal the price would go through the floor. Criminals would have no interest in competing with corporations.

WOW...maybe we could the same with every product by having the government take it all over.

Stuff would be so cheap, maybe even FREE!

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 17:05
WOW...maybe we could the same with every product by having the government take it all over.

Stuff would be so cheap, maybe even FREE!

Incredibly dumb comment

Ljunatic
12-04-2011, 17:09
Incredibly dumb comment

SORRY,

i AM DRUNK OR STONED...

forget which

american lockpicker
12-04-2011, 17:13
WOW...maybe we could the same with every product by having the government take it all over.

Stuff would be so cheap, maybe even FREE!

If we could get the government to eliminate CEOs and shareholders we could at least reduce cost of things.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 17:14
WOW...maybe we could the same with every product by having the government take it all over.

Stuff would be so cheap, maybe even FREE!
Works with food stamps.

Ljunatic
12-04-2011, 17:17
Works with food stamps.

Drug stamps...I like it

clancy
12-04-2011, 18:02
There is a little something missing from the versions of both these incidents. When money that is acquired legally is legally put into a thrift and then legally removed from a thrift, the police don't take it. If there is a relationship that can be drawn from the money to criminal activity, that is different.


Go to your car dealership of choice with $20,000 or more in cash and see what happens. Get stopped by the police and have them find $1000 or more on you if you are searched, and again, see what happens. See how much it costs you to get it back. The cops can(I am not saying they always will) take it and make you prove it is legally yours.

zoyter2
12-04-2011, 18:03
The war on drugs will NEVER end as long as it brings millions and millions of dollars to the coffers of the politicians and police. Neither of which really care one way or another about actually WINNING a war on drugs.

Bren
12-04-2011, 18:09
The war on drugs will NEVER end as long as it brings millions and millions of dollars to the coffers of the politicians and police. Neither of which really care one way or another about actually WINNING a war on drugs.

Actually, that's where you and some others are wrong. The money that comes in to the government mostly doesn't go to the individual officers and definitely doesn't go to the individual politicians, who actually have all of the control over it (you'd be surprised how little they care what the police think about things, unless it is useful for publicity).

What keeps the WOD going isn't the money the government gets, it's the VOTES te politicians get. In short, you (collectively) keep it going. It's not just the WOD, either. Legislating against crime gets that frightened 80% to vote for them, no matter how silly the law is. We have legislators writing laws to oppose things they heard about happening in other countries, that are not know to have ever happened in KY. Why? Not fear of a crime wave, but just the fact that nothing gets votes from the herd like saying you passed "tough new criminal laws" at election time. Drugs crimes are just an easy target, like sex offenders and a few other hot topics.

BrazosCoTX
12-04-2011, 18:24
The "war" on drugs, as currently being waged, is a failure. Gotta change something.

That said, I say throw no money at the treatment. Users gonna use (relapse). Employers should test, and deny employment for those who demonstrate any evidence of being high on the job. Want some stoner managing your 401k, or trying to find a vein in your arm to start an IV, or flying your plane, or teaching your kid? Let the drug users starve. No whining when they get a load of 00 buck while burglarizing my house, looking for something to pawn to support their habit.

BTW -- I work in a field in which we refer users for drug treatment. Most fail to complete the treatment, as they would rather use and take the jail time. And I'm talking about alcoholics a spart of this population, too.

vikingsoftpaw
12-04-2011, 18:45
The thing I've never figured out is a country like Holland - no "War on Drugs" (to say the least) over there but the Dutch don't seem to be falling apart. Heck, seems they have their country more together than Italy or Greece and I haven't heard of them needing a bailout.

Or maybe its just all the tourists that go there for drug holidays??

One must factor in the culture. The Dutch are a monoculture. The U.S. is a melting pot, so to speak. Basically, the Dutch are all on the same page. There is social pressure to make something of yourself and not be a slacker.

TN.Frank
12-04-2011, 18:58
They can no more win the war on drugs then they did winning the war on alcohol. They'd be better off spending the money on "just say no" programs in schools and drug treatment programs.

Brucev
12-04-2011, 19:09
[QUOTE=frank4570;18240674]I am personally of the opinion that we need a drastically different approach to dealing with drugs. So that is my view. You have many who share your opinion.

My question is for the people who are in favor of continuing the war on drugs.
Bear with me for a second. I think the war on drugs is only having a very small effect toward the goal of preventing americans from getting drugs. I would guess for every $1 worth of drugs we prevent, $100 gets through. And it costs us $100 in resources to keep out that $1.
That is a terrible return on our money. And it looks to me like we are losing ground. We are not winning. You are correct.

So if you support the war on drugs, how do you see this going? I do not support the "war on drugs." Are you comfortable with continuing down the same path and just hoping for the best? No.

DIXIE DUCK
12-04-2011, 19:12
End it, and if you want to start another war fight it against substance abuse and addiction.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 19:14
Actually, that's where you and some others are wrong. The money that comes in to the government mostly doesn't go to the individual officers and definitely doesn't go to the individual politicians, who actually have all of the control over it (you'd be surprised how little they care what the police think about things, unless it is useful for publicity).

What keeps the WOD going isn't the money the government gets, it's the VOTES te politicians get. In short, you (collectively) keep it going. It's not just the WOD, either. Legislating against crime gets that frightened 80% to vote for them, no matter how silly the law is. We have legislators writing laws to oppose things they heard about happening in other countries, that are not know to have ever happened in KY. Why? Not fear of a crime wave, but just the fact that nothing gets votes from the herd like saying you passed "tough new criminal laws" at election time. Drugs crimes are just an easy target, like sex offenders and a few other hot topics.

Very insightful. I'll have to add that into the memory banks.

mike1956
12-04-2011, 19:15
Drug stamps...I like it
Yeah, except they would probably swap them 2/1 for smokes at the local convenience store.

Restless28
12-04-2011, 19:28
The War on Drugs is nothing more than a tool to empower and grow the enforcers of our society and to give politicians more power over our liberty.

It's an abject failure for everyone but the enforcers and politicians.

Take those billions of dollars wasted on this fake war and use it prevent and treat addiction, not grow the government.

billyblooshoes
12-04-2011, 19:30
I don't belive in treatment at all, to me that makes it look like a drug addict has a illness which they do not... A drug addict has a deficit of responsibility, accountability, concern toward others, healthy concern for themselves, and just all-around complete lack of judgement and a surplus of selfishness...

I like the appraoch my Dad has always mentioned... When drugs are confiscated, just poison the crap and put it back out on the streets... It will only kill who it needs to, and drugs will quickly start to carry a pretty lethal reputation and maybe it'll act as a deterrent... If it's not a deterrent, who gives a $h** cause it will just kill the ones that can't head a warning...

There comes a point with a serious problems that ya got to lose compassion, and just fix the ********** problem... I say F'em -- killem all...
It's time responsible and contributing citizens get all that they deserve from the society in which we've conributed to...

BTW - I've never smoked a joint in my life, but I don't think weed is a real big deal that needs to soak up much of our tax $$...

im surprised no one has anything to say about this genius post. chock full of pure ignorance.

explain responsible white-collar drug addicts then? good job, takes care of family, essentially isnt directly hurting anyone but himself, but happens to be addicted to say pain killers or cocaine. or how about a guy who makes six figures as is CEO of a finance company, that is an alcoholic? takes care of his kids, is a good dad, good to his wife, comes to work every day on time, but when he drinks, he drinks to get drunk and ends up getting hammered, once his kids and wife are secure and in bed. again, essentially not directly hurting anyone but himself.

should we just "f-em, kill 'em all too" with these guys? you sound like you woulda been better off with the SS in the 40's.

but then you go on to state that you dont think weed is a big deal, which although it may not be in your opinion, is still an illegal narcotic.

you're post is pure fail.

Restless28
12-04-2011, 19:35
im surprised no one has anything to say about this genius post. chock full of pure ignorance.

explain responsible white-collar drug addicts then? good job, takes care of family, essentially isnt directly hurting anyone but himself, but happens to be addicted to say pain killers or cocaine. or how about a guy who makes six figures as is CEO of a finance company, that is an alcoholic? takes care of his kids, is a good dad, good to his wife, comes to work every day on time, but when he drinks, he drinks to get drunk and ends up getting hammered, once his kids and wife are secure and in bed. again, essentially not directly hurting anyone but himself.

should we just "f-em, kill 'em all too" with these guys? you sound like you woulda been better off with the SS in the 40's.

but then you go on to state that you dont think weed is a big deal, which although it may not be in your opinion, is still an illegal narcotic.

you're post is pure fail.

No. He and his father's logic borders on insanity, endorsing mass murder.

Crazee.

frank4570
12-04-2011, 19:39
One must factor in the culture. The Dutch are a monoculture. The U.S. is a melting pot, so to speak. Basically, the Dutch are all on the same page. There is social pressure to make something of yourself and not be a slacker.

That is a HUGE difference between them and us. Cultural differences are very important to the big picture.

dwhite53
12-04-2011, 19:53
When you fight a war you FIGHT A WAR!!

If we were serious about this we we'd have tanks and troops in Mexico and Columbia. We don't. We'd be burning down houses, bombing the estancias of the dealers, and taking prisoners.

This isn't a war, we actually even supply the enemy with guns (Fast and Furious). This is a joke. It keeps a lot of money flowing and law enforcement people employed.

We need to just legalize it and deal with it. You could shut down every one of these drug cartels overnight, end the violence, and save countless lives.

It's been forty years and the problems gotten WORSE. Eventually you have to stop.

All the Best,
D. White

Bruce M
12-04-2011, 20:10
Go to your car dealership of choice with $20,000 or more in cash and see what happens. Get stopped by the police and have them find $1000 or more on you if you are searched, and again, see what happens. See how much it costs you to get it back. The cops can(I am not saying they always will) take it and make you prove it is legally yours.


So if you're stopped by the police and only have $975 they won't take it? I don't suppose you have any statute, policy or any actual reference on this do you?

tantrix
12-04-2011, 20:12
Out of curiousity what drastically different approach do you suggest?

Shutting the whole damn 'war on drugs' down would be a start.

RyanBDawg
12-04-2011, 20:17
I love when I am at a sporting event or watching one on TV and there are at least 2-3 commercials advertising alcohol every commercial break..

Hell, there are going to be people at that stadium/arena that aren't going to make it home from the game alive directly because of alcohol..

Baseball players can use tobacco during the games..

Yea, this makes sense... Let's ensure that tens of thousands of people die, and hundreds of thousands more are deemed criminals and thrown into an overcrowded failure of a prison system..

Yep, the US government has got this stuff figured out..

RyanBDawg
12-04-2011, 20:23
Not to mention that we should air drop LSD onto Afghanastan and Pakistan, along with some various jam band CD's, they would go from Allah Akbar, to far out bro in a matter of hours!

Bam, conflict over..

holesinpaper
12-04-2011, 20:24
I don't belive in treatment at all, to me that makes it look like a drug addict has a illness which they do not... A drug addict has a deficit of responsibility, accountability, concern toward others, healthy concern for themselves, and just all-around complete lack of judgement and a surplus of selfishness...

I like the appraoch my Dad has always mentioned... When drugs are confiscated, just poison the crap and put it back out on the streets... It will only kill who it needs to, and drugs will quickly start to carry a pretty lethal reputation and maybe it'll act as a deterrent... If it's not a deterrent, who gives a $h** cause it will just kill the ones that can't head a warning...

There comes a point with a serious problems that ya got to lose compassion, and just fix the ********** problem... I say F'em -- killem all...
It's time responsible and contributing citizens get all that they deserve from the society in which we've conributed to...

BTW - I've never smoked a joint in my life, but I don't think weed is a real big deal that needs to soak up much of our tax $$...

Your dad is a sociopath. You're once removed from one.

holesinpaper
12-04-2011, 20:33
Go to your car dealership of choice with $20,000 or more in cash and see what happens. Get stopped by the police and have them find $1000 or more on you if you are searched, and again, see what happens. See how much it costs you to get it back. The cops can(I am not saying they always will) take it and make you prove it is legally yours.


You are giving out incorrect information that could get people into trouble.

The mandated cash 'reporting' amount at car dealerships is $10,000 last time I checked. There's a qualifier for lesser amounts: "suspicious activity."

The same applies to banks with another exception: most banks make special note of cash transactions above somewhere between $2,000 and $3,500. But 10k and above is mandatory, in fact, they usually consider anything close to 10k mandatory.

It gets worse, take out 10k via two or more deposits spaced several day apart, and if the bank is doing it's job you will get reported.

It gets worse than that. Try to deal with USPS money orders (which the post office treats as cash) and buy or cash too many: bingo you're reported.

It gets worse than that. Carry any "suspicious" amount of cash and bingo, it can be confiscated -- without any due process, or recourse to reclaim it.

It gets worse: try to leave the country with 10k of cash in your pocket and bam, you're in trouble.

1984.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 20:34
im surprised no one has anything to say about this genius post. chock full of pure ignorance.

explain responsible white-collar drug addicts then? good job, takes care of family, essentially isnt directly hurting anyone but himself, but happens to be addicted to say pain killers or cocaine. or how about a guy who makes six figures as is CEO of a finance company, that is an alcoholic? takes care of his kids, is a good dad, good to his wife, comes to work every day on time, but when he drinks, he drinks to get drunk and ends up getting hammered, once his kids and wife are secure and in bed. again, essentially not directly hurting anyone but himself.

should we just "f-em, kill 'em all too" with these guys? you sound like you woulda been better off with the SS in the 40's.

but then you go on to state that you dont think weed is a big deal, which although it may not be in your opinion, is still an illegal narcotic.

you're post is pure fail.

He and his dads ideas are moronic. He's describing state-sponsored murder of citizens. How do you respond to that kind of evil?

Why go thru the song and dance of poison and just let the cops execute anyone caught with drugs?

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 20:37
You are giving out incorrect information that could get people into trouble.

The mandated cash 'reporting' amount at car dealerships is $10,000 last time I checked. There's a qualifier for lesser amounts: "suspicious activity."

The same applies to banks with another exception: most banks make special note of cash transactions above somewhere between $2,000 and $3,500. But 10k and above is mandatory, in fact, they usually consider anything close to 10k mandatory.

It gets worse, take out 10k via two or more deposits spaced several day apart, and if the bank is doing it's job you will get reported.

It gets worse than that. Try to deal with USPS money orders (which the post office treats as cash) and buy or cash too many: bingo you're reported.

It gets worse than that. Carry any "suspicious" amount of cash and bingo, it can be confiscated -- without any due process, or recourse to reclaim it.

It gets worse: try to leave the country with 10k of cash in your pocket and bam, you're in trouble.

1984.

I know and it is a travesty beyond words that the citizenry tolerates this.

holesinpaper
12-04-2011, 20:59
I know and it is a travesty beyond words that the citizenry tolerates this.

Oh, it gets better. AFAIK by law & policy they are not allowed to tell you this information. Clear and transparent.

Restless28
12-04-2011, 21:01
I know and it is a travesty beyond words that the citizenry tolerates this.

Agreed.

All someone needs to do, is to think, to see how much of our liberty and freedom has been stolen.

As someone else pointed out, it is depressing to see so many people on a gun-oriented forum espouse no value in property rights or disparage anyone who supports a political candidate who stands firm for liberty and personal freedom.

Bruce M
12-04-2011, 21:07
...It gets worse than that. Carry any "suspicious" amount of cash and bingo, it can be confiscated -- without any due process, or recourse to reclaim it.

...

1984.


There may be a substantial difference between reporting transactions to the IRS and having cash consfiscated. I will ask again - do you have any statute or policy or reference to seizure of cash from someone?

holesinpaper
12-04-2011, 21:17
There may be a substantial difference between reporting transactions to the IRS and having cash consfiscated. I will ask again - do you have any statute or policy or reference to seizure of cash from someone?

Seriously? Do you live in a cave?

Get pulled over with any "suspicious" amount of cash, and the LEO can seize it and use it. You do not necessarily have any recourse to get it back -- no due process.

There have been countless cases. Google it yourself, or start by searching riddit, boingboing or digg to save some time.

War on Drugs is about power, control, and money -- it's not actually about drugs per say (imho).

id1otbox
12-04-2011, 21:18
IMO we are failing drastically and no offense to any hard working LEOs out there but it seems to me that our government is supporting a fake industry in a sense. I think there are two reasons why we haven't stopped. For one thousands of people would be unemployed. Two; any president, mayor, or governor who downsizes the 'war on drugs' will be torn apart by the media the second their is a incident. An incident that would most likely occur anyone but now all the sudden it has the medias attention.

With all that aside. Here are some facts:

Money spent on the war on drugs this year:(as of this post)
Federal: $14 billion
State: $23.8 billion
Total:$37.8 billion
On a rate of about $500/sec

People Arrested for Drug Law Offenses this Year: 1,547,016
Someone is arrested for violating a drug law every 19 seconds.


People Incarcerated for Drug Law Offenses this Year: 10,059

...Soo $37.8 billion dollars for 10k incarcerations. So about $3.7 million per incarceration and that doesn't even include the cost of having that person in prison for whatever sentence they got. IMO that is a incredible waste of money.


http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
its scary watching the clock tick away and watching our nation debt tick away as well.

id1otbox
12-04-2011, 21:22
Not to mention that we should air drop LSD onto Afghanastan and Pakistan, along with some various jam band CD's, they would go from Allah Akbar, to far out bro in a matter of hours!

Bam, conflict over..


^^priceless :rofl::rofl::rofl:

id1otbox
12-04-2011, 21:23
When you fight a war you FIGHT A WAR!!

If we were serious about this we we'd have tanks and troops in Mexico and Columbia. We don't. We'd be burning down houses, bombing the estancias of the dealers, and taking prisoners.

This isn't a war, we actually even supply the enemy with guns (Fast and Furious). This is a joke. It keeps a lot of money flowing and law enforcement people employed.

We need to just legalize it and deal with it. You could shut down every one of these drug cartels overnight, end the violence, and save countless lives.

It's been forty years and the problems gotten WORSE. Eventually you have to stop.

All the Best,
D. White

Agreed

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 22:14
Agreed.

All someone needs to do, is to think, to see how much of our liberty and freedom has been stolen.

As someone else pointed out, it is depressing to see so many people on a gun-oriented forum espouse no value in property rights or disparage anyone who supports a political candidate who stands firm for liberty and personal freedom.

Heck, many here don't even understand the Second Amendment and support "sensible" gun laws.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 22:17
Actually, that's where you and some others are wrong. The money that comes in to the government mostly doesn't go to the individual officers and definitely doesn't go to the individual politicians, who actually have all of the control over it (you'd be surprised how little they care what the police think about things, unless it is useful for publicity).

What keeps the WOD going isn't the money the government gets, it's the VOTES te politicians get. In short, you (collectively) keep it going. It's not just the WOD, either. Legislating against crime gets that frightened 80% to vote for them, no matter how silly the law is. We have legislators writing laws to oppose things they heard about happening in other countries, that are not know to have ever happened in KY. Why? Not fear of a crime wave, but just the fact that nothing gets votes from the herd like saying you passed "tough new criminal laws" at election time. Drugs crimes are just an easy target, like sex offenders and a few other hot topics.

Fewer criminals = smaller budgets = fewer cops and fewer toys

The war on drugs benefits police in the same way that any justification for additional resources benefits any government agency.

Sharky7
12-04-2011, 22:24
What are you comparing the "War on Drugs" to? How do you know it is ineffective? What is your expected results from it?

Is effective to you complete and absolute removal of drugs from our Earth? If you think that can be done - you are truly wrong. Almost every street drug has origins in plants. Cocaine, Heroin, Cannabis. Even if heroin is not made from the poppy plants, people will still smoke opium or any of the other byproducts of the plant to induce opiate effects.

They have prohibition on theft, but people still steal. Some people will always steal. If we had no laws and consequences for stealing - what would our society be like? Is our laws on theft failing?

Drugs are still the number one motivator for almost all crimes. Especially heroin and other opiates, but other drugs as well such as stimulants like cocaine, crack cocaine, meth create changes in the brain. Even after a few days use of heroin, your body will begin to create additional opiate receptors and will require more and more of the drug to produce the same euphoric effects. If you are unable to obtain heroin, your body will begin physical, mental, and emotional withdrawals.

To avoid withdrawals and also the needs, desire, and urges to obtain and use drugs are the number one motivator for crimes. You can make drugs legal, but until you can make them free, addicts will still need money to buy their dope. Most addicts can not retain jobs and will steal, rob, kill, or prostitute themselves for money to feed their addictions.

I live in a world of addicts. As a police officer I interview and deal with drug addicts who will do almost anything to get the money to get their dope. People who talk about legalizing all drugs are naive and do not understand drug addiction. The laws on drugs will help keep numbers down - but nothing will ever "Solve" the problem.

Can we take different approaches? Absolutely. Education, community enrichment and job growth, partnership and enforcement with source countries, medication and counseling, etc will all help keep our numbers down. Keeping the numbers down help keep the society clean and keeping your neighborhood so you want to live in it.

DanaT
12-04-2011, 22:25
Why not put gun owners in prison?

Murder and rape are conduct that harm others - owning the gun used in the murder and rape is not and it can be used legally or illegally.

Committing murder and rape while under the influence of drugs (or, directly because of the war on drugs, to get drugs) are specific crimes already. Drugs can be used with or without committing other crimes, so why not take the pro-freedom approach and penalize the harmful conduct, like we do with guns. Paternalistic laws against possession and use have no place in a country that claims to be free. That doesn't eman we wouldn't still punish DUI/murder/rape/or even disorderly conduct by drug users.

Whpo took over your computer. 1st you agree with me and then you write something that I agree with. This can't be Bren.

-Dana

Lampshade
12-04-2011, 22:35
You can make drugs legal, but until you can make them free, addicts will still need money to buy their dope. Most addicts can not retain jobs and will steal, rob, kill, or prostitute themselves for money to feed their addictions.

The Netherlands actually has a program where they supply free heroin to addicts.

Its actually been very successful in both reducing overall financial costs as well as related crime.

chewybaca67
12-04-2011, 22:37
I don't belive in treatment at all, to me that makes it look like a drug addict has a illness which they do not... A drug addict has a deficit of responsibility, accountability, concern toward others, healthy concern for themselves, and just all-around complete lack of judgement and a surplus of selfishness...

I like the appraoch my Dad has always mentioned... When drugs are confiscated, just poison the crap and put it back out on the streets... It will only kill who it needs to, and drugs will quickly start to carry a pretty lethal reputation and maybe it'll act as a deterrent... If it's not a deterrent, who gives a $h** cause it will just kill the ones that can't head a warning...

There comes a point with a serious problems that ya got to lose compassion, and just fix the ********** problem... I say F'em -- killem all...
It's time responsible and contributing citizens get all that they deserve from the society in which we've conributed to...

BTW - I've never smoked a joint in my life, but I don't think weed is a real big deal that needs to soak up much of our tax $$...

That's what Treatment in the Southwest pretty much is. Teaching things you listed. Can't speak for other parts of the country. Poisoning drugs? Pretty absolutist view, easy to follow and obey that kind of thinking. Kill all them well meaning teens who are experimenting? Seems like a shortcut to thinking. But that's the purpose of absolutism of any politic or belief. One does not have to think. Just obey.
Legalizing it? That may very well intensify the "drug wars." I'm sure all the drug cartels are just gonna give up their profits to pay Federal taxes and all the gangs are just gonna give sellin' it up so they can finally go to college. We are a cluster **** of interconnected webs all pulling in different directions. It's not like "the Government" is a homonegous unified entity all rolling foward for the same goal of the American dream. Their all fractured as well, different and competing agendas with plenty of folks who still work hard, trying to make the best out of a bad situation. My clinical suggestion? Gaurd your freedom, be a good parenting role model (do as I do, not as I say), find balance in contradiction (meaning adapt to crisis without emotions leading the charge) and the world will turn.

Sharky7
12-04-2011, 22:39
The Netherlands actually has a program where they supply free heroin to addicts.

Its actually been very successful in both reducing overall financial costs as well as related crime.

Canada also has a trial program that has been underway for the last 5+ years or so. It will be interesting to see the correlation between their participants and their trend for crime during the program and the rest of their stats.

Some people seem to really seek out opiate type drugs for other problems such as depression, motivation, energy,etc. I could see how it could reduce crime for addicts who are in deep into the drug. If they are able to "keep the sick off" without having to prostitute or rob, that might be the time for them to start learning to cope on their own. Suboxone has also been getting more and more popular in the US.

chewybaca67
12-04-2011, 22:40
Oh yeah, and these other countries that do have drugs legalized are like the size of the State I live in without such a diverse and classist population. Pretty soon all our hard earned tax money will go to Medicaid to pay for some lame ass's addiction.

Lampshade
12-04-2011, 22:44
Pretty soon all our hard earned tax money will go to Medicaid to pay for some lame ass's addiction.

You will be paying less than what you pay to fund the WoD.

certifiedfunds
12-04-2011, 23:09
Oh yeah, and these other countries that do have drugs legalized are like the size of the State I live in without such a diverse and classist population. Pretty soon all our hard earned tax money will go to Medicaid to pay for some lame ass's addiction.

So end Medicaid. :dunno:

chewybaca67
12-04-2011, 23:33
So end Medicaid. :dunno:

As pleasing as that sounds, it would never be as easy as it sounds. But at least it could be more selective. And I doubt that it would lesson the cost of taxes much. Any profits would likely get sucked in fight the newer war on drugs. Maybe. I don't use any illicit drugs and think that weed is far less criminal than all the other stuff out there. DUI's on weed are still DUE's though. What ever the decision and outcome, I''l be curious to see what happens.

chrisw
12-04-2011, 23:43
As it stands now, until my 65th birthday I will be drug tested regularly by employers/FAA and I have absolutely no problem with that. That being said, I truly believe there is no reason whatsoever to continue to prohibit marijuana and not only decriminalization but actual legalization should occur. Make it legal and tax it at a rate of 200%-300%. Use tax to reduce the margins and commercialize it. Use the revenue for a whole lot of things. This would also result in a loss of income for criminal enterprizes. Win win win.

M&P Shooter
12-05-2011, 05:13
Paternalistic laws against possession and use have no place in a country that claims to be free.
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it touches IMO,

Bren
12-05-2011, 05:35
So end Medicaid. :dunno:

Agreed once again. Or at least severely cut it back. The "we have to fight drugs because of the public healthcare ccost" is an absolutely BS argument. We voluntarily decided to pay for the healthcare and now we use that as a justification for the WoD? The same argument is used for motorcycle helmet laws, "we are justified in taking away your freedom, because we chose to pay for medical care for some people."

Bren
12-05-2011, 05:38
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it touches IMO,

I agree. That may surprise you, if you don't think hard about what I wrote. I don't like drug users and I don't use drugs. However, the best way to punish only those who deserve it is to legalize drugs and let them punish themselves. That way also hurts non-drug users the least and eliminates the violant crime of the drug black market, that spills over onto the rest of us.

Whpo took over your computer. 1st you agree with me and then you write something that I agree with. This can't be Bren.

-Dana

It only seems that way, because I didn't point out things like liberals eliminating themselves from politics through their drug use, or how I would take away any public healthcare funding for drug related conditions, etc.

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 05:40
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it touches IMO,

I take it you never drink coffee, beer, nicotine, opiate prescription medications, etc..

I also take it that you never knew anyone in your life that struggled with addiction..

Tell me what kills more people every year, alcohol or every other drug combined..

Frankly you make me sick.. I think dumb-ass people who make dumb-ass comments should be punished too.. But alas, its not illegal to be an ignorant jerk-off..

certifiedfunds
12-05-2011, 05:50
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it touches IMO,

Some of them are top-level contributors to society. Why do you want to punish them?

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 05:51
Some of them are top-level contributors to society. Why do you want to punish them?

Yea, like the last two Presidents (ok bad example.. but they both used to do blow, weed, and booze back in the day)

And Clinton didn't "inhale" :rofl:

Steve Jobs also cited dropping acid as one of the best decisions of his life, and so on and so forth..

Humans have been doing drugs since before recorded history..

I am more worried about the ones that take the attitude of ole corncob up my butt.. Either they are a self-hating drug addict, or they are just a bad person..

certifiedfunds
12-05-2011, 05:58
Yea, like the last two Presidents (ok bad example.. but they both used to do blow, weed, and booze back in the day)

And Clinton didn't "inhale" :rofl:

Steve Jobs also cited dropping acid as one of the best decisions of his life, and so on and so forth..

Humans have been doing drugs since before recorded history..

I am more worried about the ones that take the attitude of ole corncob up my butt.. Either they are a self-hating drug addict, or they are just a bad person..

I've listed here before the uber successful marijuana users I am personally friends with. MD, EE with MBA, owns a chain of assisted living centers across the southeast....those types.....For the life of me I just can't figure out what they need to be punished for?

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 06:04
I've listed here before the uber successful marijuana users I am personally friends with. MD, EE with MBA, owns a chain of assisted living centers across the southeast....those types.....For the life of me I just can't figure out what they need to be punished for?

Yea, and every alcohol commercial focuses on the fact that if you drink this whiskey you are refined and intelligent, if you drink this beer you are fun and outgoing, the life of the party. If you drink corona then you are looking for relaxation. If you drink this vodka you are stylish and independent..

Every person in America from the age of 5 on sees these commercials, yet that is perfectly fine. But the plant that has existed since before humans ever even came on the scene.. Nope, evil, people who use it are evil, they will smoke weed once and then bam, the next day they will be a murdering, thieving junkies.. :faint:

I will never understand how people's brains work.. Its unbelievable to me.

http://freedom-pictures.com/images/remember-prohibition.jpg

tantrix
12-05-2011, 06:04
If the feds decide to make money off of it, you can believe the "war on drugs" will be over with very quickly. Tax it like tobacco and alcohol, problem solved. But they won't end it because millions of narc agents and such would lose their jobs, not to mention it would cause public uproar.

Why...

Because having a "war on drugs" makes for good PR...it's gives the general public the idea that we're actually accomplishing something.

Why...

Because they named it perfectly to get the sheeple to support it. A "war". Anytime you say the word "war" people feed into it because they automatically think that anything we declare war on is bad. So, a "war" on drugs means any drug that's deemed illegal by the .gov is the enemy.

frank4570
12-05-2011, 06:17
I never looked it that way before. Very interesting.


If the feds decide to make money off of it, you can believe the "war on drugs" will be over with very quickly. Tax it like tobacco and alcohol, problem solved. But they won't end it because millions of narc agents and such would lose their jobs, not to mention it would cause public uproar.

Why...

Because having a "war on drugs" makes for good PR...it's gives the general public the idea that we're actually accomplishing something.

Why...

Because they named it perfectly to get the sheeple to support it. A "war". Anytime you say the word "war" people feed into it because they automatically think that anything we declare war on is bad. So, a "war" on drugs means any drug that deemed illegal by the .gov is the enemy.

Bruce M
12-05-2011, 07:27
Seriously? Do you live in a cave?

Get pulled over with any "suspicious" amount of cash, and the LEO can seize it and use it. You do not necessarily have any recourse to get it back -- no due process.

There have been countless cases. Google it yourself, or start by searching riddit, boingboing or digg to save some time.

War on Drugs is about power, control, and money -- it's not actually about drugs per say (imho).


No I do not live in a cave. However, as little as I get out, I also do not live solely on the internet. Here, seizure of cash or other property is governed by FSS 896 FSS 560 et. al. and Title 31. Before the cash or other property is forfeited an Adverserial Preliminary Hearing must be held within ten days and a Complaint/Petition for Forfeiture must be filed within 45 days. There are some other requirements also. Long before the cash or other property is actually forfeited to the state and/or federal government, (and it tends to not be used directly by the LEOs that seized it but rather goes into trust funds which are also controlled by statute) attorneys at a couple different levels and at least a couple court hearings occur. A nexus between the cash or other property and felony activity must be established. To suggest there is no recourse or no due process sounds very much like common internet "wisdom" however in the real world it works just a touch differently. Unless the officer committed a crime and stole the money, when someone tells you the police took their money for no reason, a substantial part of the story is missing.

Lampshade
12-05-2011, 07:44
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it touches IMO,

A man like this cannot be reasoned with, because he is not in touch with reason and reality.

Its no different than believing that only violent thugs own guns. Both claims are objectively false.

DanaT
12-05-2011, 08:59
I agree.It only seems that way, because I didn't point out things like liberals eliminating themselves from politics through their drug use, or how I would take away any public healthcare funding for drug related conditions, etc.

Once, again, see I agree.

What I woulddo, is anyone over 18 legalize drugs but with the condition if they OD, they diein the street unless they can pay for their hospital care. They commit crimes while on drugs, then it would be treated like committing a small crime with firearms, what may go from stealing $20 an a ticket is now an automatic felony with a minimum sentence because drugs were involved.

Get caught knowingly selling drugs to someone under 18, get a nice drug injection.

Tax the stuff.

As much as I don't believe in the drug use, taxing and regulating it is the way to go. When someone has health issue because of their drug use it is their responsibility to pay or no treatment.

-Dana

DanaT
12-05-2011, 09:07
I agree
It only seems that way, because I didn't point out things like liberals eliminating themselves from politics through their drug use, or how I would take away any public healthcare funding for drug related conditions, etc.

One of the things that REALLY screwed this country up has been eluded to in this thread but no said outright.

At somepoint, emergency medicalcare became a RIGHT. Emergency care cannit refuse treatment based upon payment. It even because a right for foriegn nationals who are not in the country legally.

What has happened is that now when care is needed, regardless if it is a real emergency or not, one simply goes to the emergency room. Since the flu is now an emergency, they have to at least see the patient.

This moves straight into the drug related world. Have drug issues, its now an emergency.

Why is it MY problem to pay for SOMEONE ELSES bad decisions?

There has been thread after thread about how someone else should pay for others poor decisions. A few days a ago a thread saying I should pay to insure myself against someone elses poor driving because they can not afford to replace a mercedes they run into (I don't have a M-B btw).

Now, I should pay for drug re-hab for people.

The amount of money I pay out is amazing and what do I get for it? Hell, I can't even get smooth streets to drive on...

-Dana

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 13:10
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it [they] touches IMO.,

Says the uneducated man, who can't use proper grammar and punctuation.

You must be on drugs. Or you're just a useless drag on the productive, educated members of society.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 13:21
Now, I should pay for drug re-hab for people.

The amount of money I pay out is amazing and what do I get for it? Hell, I can't even get smooth streets to drive on...

-Dana

You're right.

It makes way more sense to spend all that money just shoving them into cells. That produces long term positive changes (in the drug addicts, and society).

As a bonus, it's much cheaper to fund the interdiction/enforcement/court/prison system than anything that involves real rehab for drug abusers.

(That was sarcasm, in case you missed it)

While I agree society should not pay for drug addict rehabilitation, it's stupid to pay more for the current incarceration 'solution' because we are irrationally adhering to a failed battle plan.

Assuming we'll always be forced to pay one way or another, pick something that maximizes freedom and also happens to cost less.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 13:28
No I do not live in a cave. However, as little as I get out, I also do not live solely on the internet. Here, seizure of cash or other property is governed by FSS 896 FSS 560 et. al. and Title 31. Before the cash or other property is forfeited an Adverserial Preliminary Hearing must be held within ten days and a Complaint/Petition for Forfeiture must be filed within 45 days. There are some other requirements also. Long before the cash or other property is actually forfeited to the state and/or federal government, (and it tends to not be used directly by the LEOs that seized it but rather goes into trust funds which are also controlled by statute) attorneys at a couple different levels and at least a couple court hearings occur. A nexus between the cash or other property and felony activity must be established. To suggest there is no recourse or no due process sounds very much like common internet "wisdom" however in the real world it works just a touch differently. Unless the officer committed a crime and stole the money, when someone tells you the police took their money for no reason, a substantial part of the story is missing.

You're stuck in 1977.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14643085/police-profiting-off-drug-trade

laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture

"Administrative forfeiture is the process by which property may be forfeited to the United States without judicial involvement. Federal seizing agencies perform administrative forfeitures. Seizures must be based on probable cause. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in 19 U.S.C. ß 1607. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512253265073870.html?

He is one among thousands of Americans in recent decades who have had a jarring introduction to the federal system of asset seizure. Some 400 federal statutes—a near-doubling, by one count, since the 1990 2x more statues added in 20 years -- all expanding the government's ability to seize assets. Yeah, great idea that WoD.

I could go on with examples nearly forever.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 13:31
I am more worried about the ones that take the attitude of ole corncob up my butt.. Either they are a self-hating drug addict, or they are just a bad person..

http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2008/10/rushcigar.jpg

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 13:41
Here, seizure of cash or other property is governed by FSS 896 FSS 560 et. al. and Title 31. Before the cash or other property is forfeited an Adverserial Preliminary Hearing must be held within ten days and a Complaint/Petition for Forfeiture must be filed within 45 days. There are some other requirements also. Long before the cash or other property is actually forfeited to the state and/or federal government, (and it tends to not be used directly by the LEOs that seized it but rather goes into trust funds which are also controlled by statute) attorneys at a couple different levels and at least a couple court hearings occur. A nexus between the cash or other property and felony activity must be established. To suggest there is no recourse or no due process sounds very much like common internet "wisdom" however in the real world it works just a touch differently.

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/11/26/yakima-police-kept-quiet-about-record-money-seizure


Police never held a news conference or issued a news release on the seizure, nor would they elaborate on it when asked after word leaked out of the police department days later. To learn more, the Yakima Herald-Republic filed a public records request.


Officials now say they kept the case under wraps in part out of fear that someone would file a bogus claim for the cash that could have tied the money up in court for yearsAhh yes, the police keep the money secret until after the deadline has passed (for claiming it) just so they can up the odds of keeping it. Genius!

http://union-bulletin.com/stories/2011/10/06/breaking-appeals-court-upholds-walla-walla-cash-seizure-decision
10 percent of the cash will go to the state under a requirement of state law and the rest will be used by the city for the war on drugs.90% of the seized cash goes directly to police and city coffers. You are wrong about so much.

DanaT
12-05-2011, 14:38
You're right.

It makes way more sense to spend all that money just shoving them into cells. That produces long term positive changes (in the drug addicts, and society).

As a bonus, it's much cheaper to fund the interdiction/enforcement/court/prison system than anything that involves real rehab for drug abusers.

(That was sarcasm, in case you missed it)

While I agree society should not pay for drug addict rehabilitation, it's stupid to pay more for the current incarceration 'solution' because we are irrationally adhering to a failed battle plan.

Assuming we'll always be forced to pay one way or another, pick something that maximizes freedom and also happens to cost less.

You missed my point. I said earlier that I think the drug addicts should be able to have their drugs but I shouldn't be required to pay for their medical costs. If the commit a crime (i.e. robbery) on drugs then it should be do not pass go. Let them have them. But if they commit a crime while on the drugs or because of the drugs, then the wrath of society should be placed on them.

My point is I pay lot of taxes and get very little from it. I shouldn't be paying for yet another program that is based upon another persons actions.

-Dana

Lampshade
12-05-2011, 14:43
You missed my point. I said earlier that I think the drug addicts should be able to have their drugs but I shouldn't be required to pay for their medical costs. If the commit a crime (i.e. robbery) on drugs then it should be do not pass go. Let them have them. But if they commit a crime while on the drugs or because of the drugs, then the wrath of society should be placed on them.

I assume you feel the same way about alcohol.

DanaT
12-05-2011, 14:55
I assume you feel the same way about alcohol.

Yes. Why should I pay for someone else's problems with alcohol? It causes a lot of medical conditions and stupidity.

There is one difference between alcohol and other drugs. For millenia alcohol has been cultural. It was used in winters to have calories and nutrients from the grain/fruit that wouldn't store and it also was used to purify water.

Like it or not, some historical behaviors are what they are. That does not mean we have to accept new poor behaviors because some old ones are part of culture.

-Dana

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 14:57
If the commit a crime (i.e. robbery) on drugs then it should be do not pass go.

I agree with that 100%. I might even go so far as to make drug use in that context a sentence enhancer -- if only because that tactic would appeal to law and order types.

As to medicare, if you have a socialist program of wealth re-distribution then it ought to go to everyone. Sure that isn't fair, but then it already isn't fair.

frank4570
12-05-2011, 14:57
Drug users should be punished because they are nothing more then a pathetic parasite that destroys everything it touches IMO,

Just like every person who drinks a beer is a worthless drunk.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 14:58
Yes. Why should I pay for someone else's problems with alcohol? It causes a lot of medical conditions and stupidity.

There is one difference between alcohol and other drugs. For millenia alcohol has been cultural. It was used in winters to have calories and nutrients from the grain/fruit that wouldn't store and it also was used to purify water.

Like it or not, some historical behaviors are what they are. That does not mean we have to accept new poor behaviors because some old ones are part of culture.

-Dana

An historical appeal? Geesh.

Is 2700 years historical enough for you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28034925/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/worlds-oldest-marijuana-stash-totally-busted/

Lampshade
12-05-2011, 14:59
Yes. Why should I pay for someone else's problems with alcohol? It causes a lot of medical conditions and stupidity.

Cool, just wanted to see if you were logically consistent, as many aren't.

I think your philosophy of "I only want to pay for the things which directly affect me" is pretty backwards and selfish, but at least you're logically consistent.

Obese people who suffer cardiac arrest should also be left to die too, right? Unless EMS can verify their assets before rendering aid?

What I woulddo, is anyone over 18 legalize drugs but with the condition if they OD, they diein the street unless they can pay for their hospital care.

I wonder, for instance, how this would be determined? No cash on your persons, EMS lets you expire?

Its really a silly, dystopian idea.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 15:00
Just like every person who drinks a beer is a worthless drunk.

Just the drunk ones. ;)

Lampshade
12-05-2011, 15:03
There is one difference between alcohol and other drugs. For millenia alcohol has been cultural. It was used in winters to have calories and nutrients from the grain/fruit that wouldn't store and it also was used to purify water.

That is a difference between alcohol and some other drugs, not all other drugs.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 15:09
That is a difference between alcohol and some other drugs, not all other drugs.

There's a problem with his underlying premise: "culture should never change."

Alcohol is ok, because it's always been ok.

Crystal Meth is not ok, because it has never been ok before.

Heart transplants are not ok, because they have never been ok before.

Women voting is not ok, because it has never been ok before.

Etc.

It's bad logic, and bad moral theory. Culture, like language, is dynamic.

Also, there's a medical problem with his viewpoint: alcohol is a drug. Ergo, there is no difference between alcohol and... other drugs (by definition, effect and practice).

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 16:55
That is a difference between alcohol and some other drugs, not all other drugs.

Yea, there is a difference.. Alcohol kills more people every year than all other drugs combined.. How many innocent people die every year due to accidents involving drunk drivers?

No other drug comes close in terms of the amount of deaths and injuries to innocent bystanders..

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 16:57
http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2008/10/rushcigar.jpg

Hahahaha.. Yep, a great example of a self hating drug addict who is also a very bad person..

But he got his pills by doctor shopping with a prescription and not off the street, so somehow that is different, and he should be afforded medical treatment for addiction while others should be as he put it....

"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up. -Rush Limbaugh"

DanaT
12-05-2011, 17:01
That is a difference between alcohol and some other drugs, not all other drugs.

Other than alcohol and tobacco (and tobacco is recent) what other drugs have been historically accepted in western society?

Also, a large difference is that people can drink wine/beer for the flavor and the intent is not to get a buzz or drunk. The ONLY reason for weed/coke/meth/etc is to get high.

Please enlighten me to a use of what we call "recreational" drugs used in/on the human body that is not used with the intent of getting high/stoned/a fix/ what ever you want to call "under the influence".

-Dana

DanaT
12-05-2011, 17:04
There's a problem with his underlying premise: "culture should never change."

<<SNIP>>>

It's bad logic, and bad moral theory. Culture, like language, is dynamic.


No. It is not bad logic. You can take a legal activity such as sex. Between a man and wife, society says it is acceptable. Between a man and a prostitute, it is not acceptable. There is actually no difference in the physical actions that make one right and one wrong but society has determined that one is acceptable and one isn't. This has many historical reasons (i.e. bastards generally were not well supported, etc).

-Dana

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 17:07
No. It is not bad logic. You can take a legal activity such as sex. Between a man and wife, society says it is acceptable. Between a man and a prostitute, it is not acceptable. There is actually no difference in the physical actions that make one right and one wrong but society has determined that one is acceptable and one isn't. This has many historical reasons (i.e. bastards generally were not well supported, etc).

-Dana


Prostitution is 100% legal in a number of countries around the world.. In fact it's commonly referred to as "the worlds oldest profession"

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 17:12
Other than alcohol and tobacco (and tobacco is recent) what other drugs have been historically accepted in western society?


Wow, you don't study history at all do you..

What other drugs have been accepted in western society? Uhhhh, all of them up until the early to mid 20th century..

You could go to any general store or pharmacy from the 1700s up until the 1920s or so any buy any drug, heroin, cocaine, laudanum, amphetamines, opium, cannabis, etc...

The first drug laws were aimed at immigrants and blacks..

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/showpics/bayer1901.gif

http://www.wine-blog.org/images/mariani_wine.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/sowhatsnew/images/1a9-a.jpg

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 17:22
In fact here is a reprint of the 1897 Sears catalogue in which you could buy cocaine, heroin, opium, laudanum, amphetamines, "nerve pills" for women, etc..

http://books.google.com/books?id=pavHOWOWKEEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1897+sears+roebuck+catalog&hl=en&ei=uoTYS72lK4OBlAeO9OSyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://teachertoys.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/3/6/403604/5514725.png

http://teachertoys.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/3/6/403604/5344400.png

http://teachertoys.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/3/6/403604/4672864.png

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 17:27
Cocaine is still approved for medical use as a numbing agent. It doesn't mean it was accepted as a social drug as a stimulant.

The amount of heroin that was in the cough agents is comparable to the same amount of codeine that is in today's prescribed cough syrup. Not as a social use opiate.

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 17:30
Cocaine is still approved for medical use as a numbing agent. It doesn't mean it was accepted as a social drug as a stimulant.

The amount of heroin that was in the cough agents is comparable to the same amount of codeine that is in today's prescribed cough syrup. Not as a social use opiate.

Yea, I'm sure nobody back then ever abused drugs or used any of those drugs solely to get high or anything. :upeyes:

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 17:31
Yea, I'm sure nobody back then ever abused drugs or used any of those drugs solely to get high or anything. :upeyes:

People still abuse them to get high today....not sure what your point is?

Bruce M
12-05-2011, 17:32
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/11/26/yakima-police-kept-quiet-about-record-money-seizure

Ahh yes, the police keep the money secret until after the deadline has passed (for claiming it) just so they can up the odds of keeping it. Genius!

http://union-bulletin.com/stories/2011/10/06/breaking-appeals-court-upholds-walla-walla-cash-seizure-decision
90% of the seized cash goes directly to police and city coffers. You are wrong about so much.

I am not sure elsewhere, but here the statute has no requirement for any press release/perp walk for the cash. There is however a requirement that anyone with a reasonable claim to the money be notified of the action to forfeit it in a timely manner, i.e. five days. I am unsure that an action in front of a Superior Court Judge and then in front of an appelate court of three justices really qualifies as "secret." The article that I read suggested that the money goes to the city for the was on drugs. Again, I can't comment on another jurisdiction, but here the money would go into a trust fund that is controlled by statute and as such has strict guidlelines for usage.


On a slightly related note I remain amazed at how accurate we presume the media to be when they report a story we like. But that might be the same media that refers to every handgun as a Glock and every long gun as an assault rifle or an AK47.

Further I am reasonably sure that most honest people do not transport tens of thousands of dollars in secret compartments in vehicles. But maybe some places are more dangerous than here.

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 17:34
People still abuse them to get high today....not sure what your point is?

That is my point... Humans have been using drugs and getting high since day one.. A government starting a "war" to attempt to get rid of this has been a 40 plus year running joke that has cost hundreds of billions and only made drug abuse and associated problems much, much worse..

If you want to get rid of drug use, then the only way to do that is by unabashed genocide upon the human race, and I don't think the US government is going to do that..

What is worse, selling heroin in the Sears catalog, or having a drug cartel sell it?

certifiedfunds
12-05-2011, 17:38
Nancy Reagan would LOVE heroin.

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 17:46
That is my point... Humans have been using drugs and getting high since day one.. A government starting a "war" to attempt to get rid of this has been a 40 plus year running joke that has cost hundreds of billions and only made drug abuse and associated problems much, much worse..

If you want to get rid of drug use, then the only way to do that is by unabashed genocide upon the human race, and I don't think the US government is going to to that..

Is the goal of the war to truly eliminate drug use on our Earth? Or simply to keep the numbers of addicts down and keep our society a better place? I made a post about this on the previous page. You can never eliminate all drugs.

When one nutcase goes on a shooting spree, it doesn't mean our laws on guns have failed and we need to make them stricter.

Nothing is ever 100%....People will always abuse drugs. It's always a balancing act between building a better and safer society and personal liberties and freedoms.

tantrix
12-05-2011, 17:46
People still abuse them to get high today....not sure what your point is?

His point is this. For some reason we 'society' think we are 'above' heroin, marijuana, cocaine, or any other drug normally used in the past (for both legitimate and recreational uses), but we are ok with selling alcohol legally and doctors over-prescribe narcotics every single day. Is alcohol a drug ? Yep. Are prescription narcotics a drug? Yep.

How much more hypocritical could we get...I can't really think of anything.

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 17:49
That is my point... Humans have been using drugs and getting high since day one.. A government starting a "war" to attempt to get rid of this has been a 40 plus year running joke that has cost hundreds of billions and only made drug abuse and associated problems much, much worse..

If you want to get rid of drug use, then the only way to do that is by unabashed genocide upon the human race, and I don't think the US government is going to do that..

What is worse, selling heroin in the Sears catalog, or having a drug cartel sell it?

I disagree. The majority of current street crime motivation is still money to obtain drugs.

You create more addicts - those addicts still need money to buy their dope. That money comes from you and me, either through our taxes or property crime.

Bruce M
12-05-2011, 17:50
You're stuck in 1977.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14643085/police-profiting-off-drug-trade

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512253265073870.html?

2x more statues added in 20 years -- all expanding the government's ability to seize assets. Yeah, great idea that WoD.

I could go on with examples nearly forever.

The statutes and policy I quoted are current, not from 1977. Even the link you provided above indicates that for a forfeiture to occur it has to proven in civil court that there is a nexus between the cash (or property) or proven in criminal court after a conviction. That is not 1977, that is currently the law. I can understand that you do not agree with the law, and I agree that the forfeiture laws have increased dramatically. However as was suggested in the original post that I responded to that the police can just take the money with no due process and keep it without proving a nexus to felonious activity is just not true.

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 17:53
I disagree. The majority of current street crime motivation is still money to obtain drugs.

You create more addicts - those addicts still need money to buy their dope. That money comes from you and me, either through our taxes or property crime.

The Netherlands has less of a percentage of its citizens using marijuana and even hard drugs than the United States does.. So that proves you wrong.. In fact study after study has proven that attitude wrong..

The legalization, or relaxation of drug laws have in most circumstances reduced crime..

You know what really costs you and I money? The 30,000 per year that it takes to keep a drug offender locked in prison..

It would actually be far cheaper to provide them with free drugs...

stevelyn
12-05-2011, 17:56
Alcohol prohibition didn't work and we changed that. We need to do the same with drugs.

tantrix
12-05-2011, 17:57
I disagree. The majority of current street crime motivation is still money to obtain drugs.

You create more addicts - those addicts still need money to buy their dope. That money comes from you and me, either through our taxes or property crime.

So, tell me how much of our tax dollars do we get back by paying the salary of millions of narcotics agents, and also incarcerating millions of people for something as stupid as possession w/ intent to distribute marijuana?

I haven't done ANY research at all, and I would bet we get back about 5-10% of what we spend. And people wonder why we are trillions of dollars in debt? Because we're dumbasses, that's why.

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 17:59
The Netherlands has less of a percentage of its citizens using marijuana and even hard drugs than the United States does.. So that proves you wrong.. In fact study after study has proven that attitude wrong..

The legislation, or relaxation of drug laws have in most circumstances reduced crime..

My facts are not "wrong." I work as a police officer in the Chicago area. We have done year after year study on our crime motivations to help combat our street crimes. Every year, "money to obtain drugs" is the motivation over 90% for all our categories.

Very few people will end up as prostitutes without a bad addiction. I talk hours on end with these people and hear their stories. I have NEVER arrested a prostitute without a drug problem.

Home invasions, vehicle burglaries, home burglaries, retail thefts etc. Mostly obtaining property to then pawn/resell/black market to then get money to buy their dope.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 17:59
Nancy Reagan would LOVE heroin.

Wasn't in the cards.

stevelyn
12-05-2011, 18:01
Easy. Say we legalize it all tomorrow. In the libertarian world, that would be the end of it. That isn't reality, though. Hand in hand with legalization would come regulation. Color me dubious, but when I think of addicts the thought that they are the sort to operate within specific constraints seems a bit goofy.

Who knows? Maybe some crackheads and Meth users may be willing to go through proper channels in order to get their fix once it's legalized, but I kinda doubt it.

Yeah.......... Just like drunks and alcoholics go through illegal channels to get booze. :upeyes:

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 18:03
My facts are not "wrong." I work as a police officer in the Chicago area. We have done year after year study on our crime motivations to help combat our street crimes. Every year, "money to obtain drugs" is the motivation over 90% for all our categories.

Very few people will end up as prostitutes without a bad addiction. I talk hours on end with these people and hear their stories. I have NEVER arrested a prostitute without a drug problem.

Home invasions, vehicle burglaries, home burglaries, retail thefts etc. Mostly obtaining property to then pawn/resell/black market to then get money to buy their dope.

The problem is, this becomes circular logic.



Drugs are illegal so they become expensive.
Addicts can't afford drugs so the steal.
Stealing addicts are proof drugs must be kept illegal.
We ratchet up the WoD so drugs become even more expensive.
Addicts steal more stuff.
See, this is proof drugs must remain illegal, give us more tax dollars and power/control please.

This logic does not hold water.

Your prostitution argument is also weak. Keeping prostitution in the black market will almost necessarily cause it to be linked to drug use for obvious reasons.

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 18:04
The Netherlands has less of a percentage of its citizens using marijuana and even hard drugs than the United States does.. So that proves you wrong.. In fact study after study has proven that attitude wrong..

The legislation, or relaxation of drug laws have in most circumstances reduced crime..

You know what really costs you and I money? The 30,000 per year that it takes to keep a drug offender locked in prison..

It would actually be far cheaper to provide them with free drugs...

Is that really the answer long term? Do you want to live in a socialist country? I am a firm believer in people working hard and providing for themselves in our society. I do not want to support addicts long term who are of no benefit to our society.

ocjackel
12-05-2011, 18:04
My facts are not "wrong." I work as a police officer in the Chicago area. We have done year after year study on our crime motivations to help combat our street crimes. Every year, "money to obtain drugs" is the motivation over 90% for all our categories.

Very few people will end up as prostitutes without a bad addiction. I talk hours on end with these people and hear their stories. I have NEVER arrested a prostitute without a drug problem.

Home invasions, vehicle burglaries, home burglaries, retail thefts etc. Mostly obtaining property to then pawn/resell/black market to then get money to buy their dope.

"Money to obtain drugs" is certainly a huge motivator for crime. However, what if the cost of their respective habits were suddenly reduced by 90%? (as it happened with the end of prohibition). Wouldn't these drug users who commit crimes to pay for their habit at the very least have to steal 90% less money to support their habit?

In other words, they could steal a 10th of what they are stealing now for the same "high".

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 18:06
The problem is, this becomes circular logic.



Drugs are illegal so they become expensive.
Addicts can't afford drugs so the steal.
Stealing addicts are proof drugs must be kept illegal.
We ratchet up the WoD so drugs become even more expensive.
Addicts steal more stuff.
See, this is proof drugs must remain illegal, give us more tax dollars and power/control please.

This logic does not hold water.

Drugs are the cheapest they have been in a while in Chicago.

$10 a bag of heroin

$100 for a jab which is 13 bags.

The problem is tolerance. You can get high all day off 1 bag your first few days.....you will always need more. It has nothing to do with government wars or oversight - it is simply science related to opiate addiction. You will always need more to obtain euphoric effects.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2011, 18:07
My facts are not "wrong." I work as a police officer in the Chicago area. We have done year after year study on our crime motivations to help combat our street crimes. Every year, "money to obtain drugs" is the motivation over 90% for all our categories.

Very few people will end up as prostitutes without a bad addiction. I talk hours on end with these people and hear their stories. I have NEVER arrested a prostitute without a drug problem.

Home invasions, vehicle burglaries, home burglaries, retail thefts etc. Mostly obtaining property to then pawn/resell/black market to then get money to buy their dope.

You ever read up much on "root cause"

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 18:08
Your prostitution argument is also weak. Keeping prostitution in the black market will almost necessarily cause it to be linked to drug use for obvious reasons.

It's not a prostitution "argument." It's just the truth from a street cop who sees it every day. If you are in the area, let me know and come on a ride along. :wavey:

Prostitution is not like Pretty Woman the movie. It's pretty gross...like I said I spend hours talking to these people.

frank4570
12-05-2011, 18:08
"Money to obtain drugs" is certainly a huge motivator for crime. However, what if the cost of their respective habits were suddenly reduced by 90%? (as it happened with the end of prohibition). Wouldn't these drug users who commit crimes to pay for their habit at the very least have to steal 90% less money to support their habit?

In other words, they could steal a 10th of what they are stealing now for the same "high".

Steal? Hell, if the price was reasonable people would just work a job half a day to get the money. Digging ditches or whatever. Why risk going to jail when you can get the money through legal means.

tantrix
12-05-2011, 18:08
My facts are not "wrong." I work as a police officer in the Chicago area. We have done year after year study on our crime motivations to help combat our street crimes. Every year, "money to obtain drugs" is the motivation over 90% for all our categories.

Very few people will end up as prostitutes without a bad addiction. I talk hours on end with these people and hear their stories. I have NEVER arrested a prostitute without a drug problem.

Home invasions, vehicle burglaries, home burglaries, retail thefts etc. Mostly obtaining property to then pawn/resell/black market to then get money to buy their dope.

Yea, you're also in the cesspool known as Chicago. I have worked several different branches of law enforcement in Louisiana all of my life, never anywhere else, and you're experiences don't exactly match up with mine. Many prostitutes chose that profession because they grew up in abusive homes, ran away, and needed an income. The drug problem came later after they were living on the streets, which is common.

By your account, you believe that most women become prostitutes because they are drug addicts...that isn't the case.

DanaT
12-05-2011, 18:09
$10 a bag of heroin

$100 for a jab which is 13 bags.



Well, we have established that 1) you a police officer 2) a drug user or 3) a drug dealer.:tongueout:

I don't know what a jab is nor the prices.

-Dana

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 18:09
My facts are not "wrong." I work as a police officer in the Chicago area. We have done year after year study on our crime motivations to help combat our street crimes. Every year, "money to obtain drugs" is the motivation over 90% for all our categories.

Very few people will end up as prostitutes without a bad addiction. I talk hours on end with these people and hear their stories. I have NEVER arrested a prostitute without a drug problem.

Home invasions, vehicle burglaries, home burglaries, retail thefts etc. Mostly obtaining property to then pawn/resell/black market to then get money to buy their dope.

Chicago also had a total gun ban for many, many years.. How did that work out? Well I'll bet there was zero gun crime in Chicago during the time of that gun ban, I mean it was the law and everything...

So again what is preferable, having needle exchanges, specified areas where addicts can shoot up in a supervised environment as many cities in Europe are doing (and have seen such associated crime drop as a result, because more addicts wind up entering rehab because of these programs) or continuing along the same road of a never ending cycle that we have right now?

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 18:14
And another thought.. All of you worried that drug legalization will lead to more people doing drugs, I can assure you that at no point in the history of America or the world for that matter have so many people been on drugs.. The prescription drug rates are astounding in this country, one in ten are on antidepressants, millions more regularly use powerful prescription narcotics.. Accidental OD rates have never been higher, etc..

Far, far more of a percentage of people are using drugs today (the majority perfectly legal prescriptions) advertised daily by multi-billion dollar drug companies on TV, Radio, and Magazines..

Hell, in the scheme of things, the Mexican cartels don't have anything on Bayer and Pfizer..

Sharky7
12-05-2011, 18:17
Chicago also had a total gun ban for many, many years.. How did that work out? Well I'll bet there was zero gun crime in Chicago during the time of that gun ban, I mean it was the law and everything...

So again what is preferable, having needle exchanges, specified areas where addicts can shoot up in a supervised environment as many cities.in Europe are doing (and have seen such associated crime drop.as a result, because more addicts wind up entering rehab because of these programs) or continuing along the same road of a never ending cycle?

The difference is I see the repeal of the gun ban decreasing crime.

We already have lots of addict relief and rehab programs. Methadone clinics, suboxone doctors, rehab centers, needle exchanges, etc.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2011, 18:20
It is just baffling to me. Ethanol prohibition is an exact parallel for this and folks refuse to see how it is exactly the same.

Even the "street cops from Chicago"

RyanBDawg
12-05-2011, 18:20
The difference is I see the repeal of the gun ban decreasing crime.

Well you just answered you own questions about the effectiveness of drug prohibition..

We all know the real reason why Chicago has such high crime rates, but it's not politically correct to say so, so I'll just keep my mouth shut..

Let's just say that rot and decay comes from the top in areas like that... Drug use is a symptom, not a cause.

If I grew up in such circumstances as many drug users in Chicago do, then I, you and many others would also probably wind up using hard drugs..

certifiedfunds
12-05-2011, 18:21
Well you just answered you own questions about the effectiveness of drug prohibition..

I think that's gonna fly right by him.

frank4570
12-05-2011, 18:26
Dude, would you just shut up?
Everybody knows that people using legal narcotics(scrips) are good people, and a person using pot is a dirty hippie commie.
Being an oxycotin junkie is ok if you look like corporate america. Not that hard to understand really.

And another thought.. All of you worried that drug legalization will lead to more people doing drugs, I can assure you that at no point in the history of America or the world for that matter have so many people been on drugs.. The prescription drug rates are astounding in this country, one in ten are on antidepressants, millions more regularly use powerful prescription narcotics.. Accidental OD rates have never been higher, etc..

Far, far more of a percentage of people are using drugs today (the majority perfectly legal prescriptions) advertised daily by multi-billion dollar drug companies on TV, Radio, and Magazines..

Hell, in the scheme of things, the Mexican cartels don't have anything on Bayer and Pfizer..

Mister_Beefy
12-05-2011, 18:59
the government gets too much money and derives too much authority from the war on drugs for them to ever give it up.

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 19:49
It's not a prostitution "argument." It's just the truth from a street cop who sees it every day. If you are in the area, let me know and come on a ride along.

Your nose is too close to the picture to actually see the whole image for what it is.

Your professional biases and preconceptions also make it nearly impossible, but the odds go up that you'll change -- after you retire (ala Norm Stamper).

holesinpaper
12-05-2011, 19:51
well you just answered you own questions about the effectiveness of drug prohibition..

roflmao

Sharky7
12-06-2011, 00:45
Yea, you're also in the cesspool known as Chicago. I have worked several different branches of law enforcement in Louisiana all of my life, never anywhere else, and you're experiences don't exactly match up with mine. Many prostitutes chose that profession because they grew up in abusive homes, ran away, and needed an income. The drug problem came later after they were living on the streets, which is common.

By your account, you believe that most women become prostitutes because they are drug addicts...that isn't the case.

I truly question your experience in law enforcement. No offense.....but you don't really have a handle on it.

There's a lot of different sub cultures to prostitution. Some runaways fall in with the juvenile pimps and end up on a "tour" of the US. I've talked to those for hours on end as well.

The majority of your street level prostitutes are there because of their addictions. They end up on the street due to burning bridges with their family members, spending all their money, and general being a mope that is addicted to drugs. Prostitution is one of the last things people will turn to and the last thing they can sell. Once they pawn off all their family's property, catch too many cases thievin', they sell their bodies. It's not a glamorous life and no one would turn to it because they "needed income."

I got a regular who washes herself after every job with a garden hose behind a gas station. Goes to the hospital at least 2 or 3 times a month from doing speedballs that cause her seizures.

Sharky7
12-06-2011, 00:53
Well you just answered you own questions about the effectiveness of drug prohibition..

We all know the real reason why Chicago has such high crime rates, but it's not politically correct to say so, so I'll just keep my mouth shut..

Let's just say that rot and decay comes from the top in areas like that... Drug use is a symptom, not a cause.

If I grew up in such circumstances as many drug users in Chicago do, then I, you and many others would also probably wind up using hard drugs..

I said the "difference" - re-read the statement. Allowing responsible citizens to carry a firearm to protect themselves I believe will help reduce crime in Chicago. Introducing addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine into local gas stations and convienent stores to be consumed by a larger amount of the population will just cause more crime related problems. Comparing the two is just ridiculous. Once you build your tolerance to heroin and need more and more bags each day to get euphoria - you still need to come up with more and more money. Addicts will always need money to buy their dope as their addiction takes hold. As I said earlier, the majority of our crime is already fueled by addicts attempting to get money to feed their addiction. Why create more addicts?

What do you expect out of the drug laws? You are never going to get 100% compliance....that was never what it was about or what is expected.

You can make seatbelt and speed limit laws and they will reduce traffic fatalities. Nothing is going to put a complete end to it though. You can eliminate all the traffic laws and see fatalities go up. You can also eliminate all of the drug laws and see more prevalant, easily accessable, and addiction go up. Drugs don't effect me - the social and criminals problems do though. Everyone has a choice on where they live - if people strive for no penalty drug use then they can move to a country to accomodate it.

Sharky7
12-06-2011, 01:12
Chicago also had a total gun ban for many, many years.. How did that work out? Well I'll bet there was zero gun crime in Chicago during the time of that gun ban, I mean it was the law and everything...



What are you trying to get at with statements like this? It just doesn't make any logical sense?

We have laws against theft and burglary too....It doesn't mean that we will never have a theft or burglary again in the United States. It is the law and everything...

Just because we have laws against drugs does not mean it will annihilate them off the Earth.

RyanBDawg
12-06-2011, 02:00
I said the "difference" - re-read the statement. Allowing responsible citizens to carry a firearm to protect themselves I believe will help reduce crime in Chicago. Introducing addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine into local gas stations and convienent stores to be consumed by a larger amount of the population will just cause more crime related problems. Comparing the two is just ridiculous. Once you build your tolerance to heroin and need more and more bags each day to get euphoria - you still need to come up with more and more money. Addicts will always need money to buy their dope as their addiction takes hold. As I said earlier, the majority of our crime is already fueled by addicts attempting to get money to feed their addiction. Why create more addicts?

What do you expect out of the drug laws? You are never going to get 100% compliance....that was never what it was about or what is expected.

Here is a question I like to ask people who retort back with this "why do you want to create more drug addicts" line..

If heroin was legal, would you use heroin? No? Yea, neither would the vast majority of people. The reason people steal, rob, etc to get money for drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal, therefore the price is very high and the demand must be met by criminal gangs which are violent themselves.. You know kinda like prohibition, the price of alcohol went up very high because it was illegal, there still was a demand for alcohol that was therefore met by criminal gangs who caused massive amounts of violence..

The war on drugs was never about eliminating drugs.. It's about power and money..

Or do you forget Iran Contra? Do you forget how much drugs the CIA put on the streets of this country to fund its black ops?

Do you forget how many guns and god knows what else our government sold to cartels?

Sorry but as a cop you work for the government, and the government has a vested interest in keeping the sham going..

There are a number of border agents and other law enforcement figures who are currently suing the government because they expressed their opinion that drug de-criminalization would lead to less violence along the border and in Mexico, and we're fired for expression this opinion to co-workers..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/01/border-patrol-agent-fired-sues-views-drug-war-mexico.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/officers-punished-for-supporting-eased-drug-laws.html?pagewanted=all

Yea, the government will throw your first amendment rights out the window when it comes to any criticizing of their idiotic, evil policies..

RyanBDawg
12-06-2011, 02:04
What are you trying to get at with statements like this? It just doesn't make any logical sense?

We have laws against theft and burglary too....It doesn't mean that we will never have a theft or burglary again in the United States. It is the law and everything...

Just because we have laws against drugs does not mean it will annihilate them off the Earth.

No, because throughout history drugs, mind altering substances, whatever you want to call them have been one of the driving factors to mankind, right up there with food and shelter.. There is no culture on earth which does not have a history of the use of mind altering substances..


How one mammal that will live for 7 or 8 decades can tell another mammal that they will be thrown in a cage for years because they put something in their body is, frankly, unacceptable, wrong, evil, wicked and every other negative I can think to describe it..

If someone hurts someone, steals, etc then they should be punished.. But the truth of the matter is that a huge number of people who go through the "legal system" every year are arrested for simply possessing drugs.. Then they have to pay court costs, fines, etc.. It's a money making racket..

certifiedfunds
12-06-2011, 06:06
I said the "difference" - re-read the statement. Allowing responsible citizens to carry a firearm to protect themselves I believe will help reduce crime in Chicago. Introducing addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine into local gas stations and convienent stores to be consumed by a larger amount of the population will just cause more crime related problems. Comparing the two is just ridiculous. Once you build your tolerance to heroin and need more and more bags each day to get euphoria - you still need to come up with more and more money. Addicts will always need money to buy their dope as their addiction takes hold. As I said earlier, the majority of our crime is already fueled by addicts attempting to get money to feed their addiction. Why create more addicts?

What do you expect out of the drug laws? You are never going to get 100% compliance....that was never what it was about or what is expected.

You can make seatbelt and speed limit laws and they will reduce traffic fatalities. Nothing is going to put a complete end to it though. You can eliminate all the traffic laws and see fatalities go up. You can also eliminate all of the drug laws and see more prevalant, easily accessable, and addiction go up. Drugs don't effect me - the social and criminals problems do though. Everyone has a choice on where they live - if people strive for no penalty drug use then they can move to a country to accomodate it.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh? Perspectives like this are truly frightening, not only because of the anti-American sentiments but also because of their statement on the effectiveness American public school system.

How about this?

My citizenship is as valid as yours. I demand the liberty I was promised. I demand that jackbooted thugs like Chicago cops stop enforcing unconstitutional laws. If you don't like it you're welcome to leave and find a country that welcomes your support of tyranny. There are lots of them.

Restless28
12-06-2011, 06:36
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh? Perspectives like this are truly frightening, not only because of the anti-American sentiments but also because of their statement on the effectiveness American public school system.

How about this?

My citizenship is as valid as yours. I demand the liberty I was promised. I demand that jackbooted thugs like Chicago cops stop enforcing unconstitutional laws. If you don't like it you're welcome to leave and find a country that welcomes your support of tyranny. There are lots of them.

Some people do not, and never will see how "free" we really are. Those people are really nothing more than useful idiots to the government, IMO.

Lampshade
12-06-2011, 08:09
You can also eliminate all of the drug laws and see more prevalant, easily accessable, and addiction go up.

Eliminate all of the drug laws? Where do you get the idea that legalization means such a silly thing?

Alcohol is legal, yet we have many laws about where and when it can be consumed and purchased. What you are suggesting is a false dichotomy.

Other countries that have decriminilized drug use have actually seen a reduction in addiction and related crimes.

Your assumption that things would get worse is unfounded.

Magnus2131
12-06-2011, 09:29
I can't really say how this will turn out but I really believe the stigma about drugs will disappear causing more people to try it that normally would not. I'm against more intoxicated people on the road. Time will tell.

Peace Frog
12-06-2011, 09:50
What we need to crack down on, is the Dr.s that write scripts for everyone with a fart crosswise. :upeyes:

The DEA is cracking down on those doctors...

There are people who genuinely need Schedule II prescriptions and the drug dealing doctors that write a script to anyone with a scratch are on their way to losing their license.

Peace Frog
12-06-2011, 09:53
I can't really say how this will turn out but I really believe the stigma about drugs will disappear causing more people to try it that normally would not. I'm against more intoxicated people on the road. Time will tell.
I doubt that.

I don't drink or use illegal drugs.

And if someone is DUI then throw the book at them the first time,not give them 3,4,5 or more chances...

frank4570
12-06-2011, 10:32
The DEA is cracking down on those doctors...

There are people who genuinely need Schedule II prescriptions and the drug dealing doctors that write a script to anyone with a scratch are on their way to losing their license.

I have scrips for my back injury and nerve damage in my feet. Getting pain killers is getting to be almost comical with all the hoops to jump through. The price of those hoops is not funny at all though. I have to get a piss test every 6 months now.

blk69stang
12-06-2011, 11:05
Decriminalization of drugs will not work until the public in general can recognize that people are responsible for the decisions they make, and that people have to live with the consequences of those decisions.

I.E., society in general needs to be able to see a strung-out addict lying face-down on the sidewalk and simply "step over" him, knowing that he's in that situation due to his own decisions, and not "feel the need" to get him some kind of help. Until society can do that and let the addict fail of his own accord, then legalization of drugs will only suck us further down the road to socialism and socialized medicine.

It's because of this socialist nanny-state mentality that we are not ready for the greater responsibility that comes with greater freedom.

OctoberRust
12-06-2011, 11:17
The war on criminals doesn't work so well either but you must always continue to fight. To say we should end the war on drugs is like saying we just lay down and give up.


Yea, because giving up on the war on alcohol in the early 1900's was such a bad idea. :upeyes:

OctoberRust
12-06-2011, 11:27
Continue fighting and think of ways to achieve better gains for our efforts. I would say stiffer sentences would be a good start.


So you're in favor of continuing something that's clearly a waste of money and is failing? They've already tried stiffer sentences, yet you want to impose this "zero tolerance" mentality again?

You're hypocritical, and why I say this is because you sound just like your liberal counter-parts that try to impose stricter gun control laws on us, even though we all know they do not and will not work.

reset
12-06-2011, 11:39
I think an interesting aspect of this will be the inevitable clash between medical pot users who are also gun owners. Currently, guns and pot don't mix in the eyes of Federal law. What happens when medical pot users obeying state laws are denied their second amendment rights? Can of complicated worms.

Sharky7
12-06-2011, 11:55
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh? Perspectives like this are truly frightening, not only because of the anti-American sentiments but also because of their statement on the effectiveness American public school system.

How about this?

My citizenship is as valid as yours. I demand the liberty I was promised. I demand that jackbooted thugs like Chicago cops stop enforcing unconstitutional laws. If you don't like it you're welcome to leave and find a country that welcomes your support of tyranny. There are lots of them.

Just because someone disagrees with you or has a different view point does not mean they are not "sharp." Personal attacks instead of intelligent rebuttals or conversations are actually obvious signs of those who struggle to communicate or don't have the intelligent thoughts to communicate. Lighten up. No need to get upset - just collect your thoughts and write a response with your ideas.

It's also a common theme when people don't agree with a law to claim it is "unconstitutional." You remind me of someone who thinks they can do anything they want and yell "It's a free country" or "Freedom of speech." There are still laws we must all follow. "Liberty" does not mean you have unlimited rights to do whatever it is you want. You still live in a society and there are laws and rules in effect.

Peace Frog
12-06-2011, 12:06
I have scrips for my back injury and nerve damage in my feet. Getting pain killers is getting to be almost comical with all the hoops to jump through. The price of those hoops is not funny at all though. I have to get a piss test every 6 months now.

I hear ya' I get Schedule II scripts from my pain block clinic and every three months have to give a urine sample.
Mine are for my back and shoulder.Within the next 6 months I'm getting a new shoulder...I dread it but I need it.

Oxycontin and Percocet do nada for me so I'm on Fentanyl more specifically Fentora.

frank4570
12-06-2011, 12:26
I hear ya' I get Schedule II scripts from my pain block clinic and every three months have to give a urine sample.
Mine are for my back and shoulder.Within the next 6 months I'm getting a new shoulder...I dread it but I need it.

Oxycontin and Percocet do nada for me so I'm on Fentanyl more specifically Fentora.

Yeah, I've had lots of people tell me that THC would work better, be less damaging to my body, and have less side effects. Not an option of course. I'm pretty concerned about what I am going to do when the pain killers start to destroy my liver. I'm on hydrocodone apap.

Good luck with the shoulder, sounds VERY painful.

OctoberRust
12-06-2011, 13:00
Yeah, I've had lots of people tell me that THC would work better, be less damaging to my body, and have less side effects. Not an option of course. I'm pretty concerned about what I am going to do when the pain killers start to destroy my liver. I'm on hydrocodone apap.

Good luck with the shoulder, sounds VERY painful.


Just FYI Hydrocodone = Vicodin most likely that's 5 or 7.5 MG

APAP = acetaminophen most likely in 500 or 750 MG.

hamster
12-06-2011, 13:06
I think an interesting aspect of this will be the inevitable clash between medical pot users who are also gun owners. Currently, guns and pot don't mix in the eyes of Federal law. What happens when medical pot users obeying state laws are denied their second amendment rights? Can of complicated worms.

This issue has been debated many times. The problems is that most glocktalk posters conflate a drug prescription with someone carrying while under the influence.

Just as with alcohol, the issue should be "is the person carrying under the influence."

frank4570
12-06-2011, 13:07
Just FYI Hydrocodone = Vicodin most likely that's 5 or 7.5 MG

APAP = acetaminophen most likely in 500 or 750 MG.

Yeah, I know. The bad thing is that the apap is what is bad for the liver, but it is the combination of the 2 together that works. I've tried the hydrocodone by itself and it just doesn't get the job done even in seriously jacked up doses. Strange, but it is what it is.

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 13:13
This issue has been debated many times. The problems is that most glocktalk posters conflate a drug prescription with someone carrying while under the influence.

Just as with alcohol, the issue should be "is the person carrying under the influence."

Its not illegal to carry while under the influence of some drugs in my state. Alcohol comes to mind.

hamster
12-06-2011, 13:22
Its not illegal to carry while under the influence of some drugs in my state. Alcohol comes to mind.

That is fine, I'm just trying to point out that in the minds of some of the glocktalkers here, the mere presence of a prescription = reefer madness.

holesinpaper
12-06-2011, 13:35
That is fine, I'm just trying to point out that in the minds of some of the glocktalkers here, the mere presence of a prescription = reefer madness.

I'm more worried about the posters above who are popping Oxy like candy, like Rush Limbaugh.

When they finally have to quit, they will realize just how bad withdrawal can be -- because they are physically if not psychologically, dependent (and they are probably psychologically dependent too).

6 months straight on Oxy. Good luck.

frank4570
12-06-2011, 13:37
I'm more worried about the posters above who are popping Oxy like candy, like Rush Limbaugh.

When they finally have to quit, they will realize just how bad withdrawal can be -- because they are physically if not psychologically, dependent (and they are probably psychologically dependent too).

6 months straight on Oxy. Good luck.

Oxycotin is NOT oxycodone or hydrocodone. Different drugs. You know that, right?

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 13:37
That is fine, I'm just trying to point out that in the minds of some of the glocktalkers here, the mere presence of a prescription = reefer madness.

I've been on Oxycodone by prescription for injuries before. By the time I got so high on them where it was unsafe for me to carry, it was also unsafe for me to get out of bed.

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 13:38
Oxycotin is NOT oxycodone or hydrocodone. Different drugs. You know that, right?

Uh, no. Oxycotin is the brand name for an Oxycodone drug.

frank4570
12-06-2011, 13:42
Uh, no. Oxycotin is the brand name for an Oxycodone drug.

I've got the stuff right here in my hand and I had a very long conversation with my doctor at the pain management center who told me they are not the same thing.

Sharky7
12-06-2011, 14:04
I've got the stuff right here in my hand and I had a very long conversation with my doctor at the pain management center who told me they are not the same thing.

Oxycontin contains oxycodone. Oxycodone is immediate release and lasts 4-6 hours. Oxycontin is the extended release form of oxycodone with a time release feature allowing you to take one pill to last 12 hours.

Oxycontin gets it's bad name from junkies who try and defeat the time release to obtain a greater high all at once.

frank4570
12-06-2011, 14:19
Oxycontin contains oxycodone. Oxycodone is immediate release and lasts 4-6 hours. Oxycontin is the extended release form of oxycodone with a time release feature allowing you to take one pill to last 12 hours.

Oxycontin gets it's bad name from junkies who try and defeat the time release to obtain a greater high all at once.

Let me see if I've got something mixed up then. I can tell you I've been prescribed both and the difference is obvious to me.

holesinpaper
12-06-2011, 14:52
Let me see if I've got something mixed up then. I can tell you I've been prescribed both and the difference is obvious to me.

I can't trust the opinion of someone under the influence.

:whistling:

(His point was: the physical effects of a drug can be different based on delivery method, but the drug can be the same. Instant release versus time released... but it's the same basic drug)

OctoberRust
12-06-2011, 15:05
Oxycodone = Percocet, minus the APAP that comes with Percocet, usually in 325 MG if memory serves me.

John Rambo
12-06-2011, 16:25
I've got the stuff right here in my hand and I had a very long conversation with my doctor at the pain management center who told me they are not the same thing.

Read the ingredients. Oxycodone is the narcotic. theres Oxycodone and Hydrocodone. Then theres several different things they're cut with. With those combinations they've made all kinds of different painkillers for different situations.

frank4570
12-06-2011, 16:39
Oxycontin contains oxycodone. Oxycodone is immediate release and lasts 4-6 hours. Oxycontin is the extended release form of oxycodone with a time release feature allowing you to take one pill to last 12 hours.

Oxycontin gets it's bad name from junkies who try and defeat the time release to obtain a greater high all at once.

Actually this all makes perfect sense it just seems counter intuitive. The doctors told me that when they tried switching people over to time release pain killers the patients complained it didn't work anymore and wanted higher doses, more of the drug to get a satisfactory result. That is also my experience. Oxycotin doesn't work as well, and has worse side effects. I find the stuff to be practically useless. A lower dose of oxycodone works better. A much lower dose of hydrocodone apap works a lot better than the others.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-09-2011, 05:56
Iíve observed that the hyperbole and slogans often lead to spurious relationships. One fallacy is Most of the criminals apprehended are drug users*, therefore (and conversely) all drug users are criminals. Hyperbolic TV and government marketing is often not interested in making distinctions between casual users, abusers, and addicts, and criminals. Addicts are the smallest category of user, but often get the most press.**

Thereís also the chicken and egg argument with drug use and crime. I once knew someone who worked on Wall St. She told me that a disproportionate number of people in her industry smoke cigarettes. Which would I conclude: Working on Wall St. leads to cigarette use, or cigarette use leads to a job on Wall St.? Does a drug user degenerate to prostitution or do prostitutes use drugs to ease their stress and problems? Maybe the two happen at the same time. A person might also ask if the groups of people likely to use drugs overlap with the groups likely to commit crimes. Does criminalizing drugs lead people to come in contact more frequently with other criminal elements? Would they necessarily interact with these criminal elements if their drug of choice was legal? What is different about the housewife ingesting pain killers versus the street thug ingesting pain killers?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Not saying these questions can be answered in a two sentence post, but the truth is often different than what the news presents.



<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
*Itís not really true that most people in prison committed their crime for drug money, but a lot of people will believe it anyway. The vast majority of people in prison did not commit their crime for drug money.

**Most people engaged in a singular activity are not abusers or addicts. That goes for illegal drugs, alcohol, sex, TV, internet, food, guns, etc.

Sharky7
12-09-2011, 16:54
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
*Itís not really true that most people in prison committed their crime for drug money, but a lot of people will believe it anyway. The vast majority of people in prison did not commit their crime for drug money.



Where are you getting your information on this? What is your experience? Is this a personal statistic you made up or did you get it from somewhere?

I can tell you that this is not true in my area. The motivation for the overwhelming majority of our crimes are committed to obtain money to then obtain drugs.

I also see a link between heavy addiction and the rate of criminal activity for individuals. We have "regulars" who drop off the radar and don't get arrested for a year or so. I always come to find out it is because they got clean. After they got clean, they were able to hold a regular job. They were no longer wasting hundreds a week on heroin and no longer had the stress of where they were going to come up with their money otherwise they would be sick in withdrawals.

Gangs, street crimes, drugs, prostitution, violence - all go hand in hand. Come do a week on my beat.

Sharky7
12-09-2011, 17:05
83% of Cook County inmates tested positive for drug use upon admission.

"Cocaine and heroin users — who often steal to feed their habits — are overrepresented among those caught committing property crimes, while marijuana users account for a disproportionate number of drug arrests."

Kerlikowske said the study shows that “drug addiction is too often the root of crime in our communities.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/5978519-418/worst-in-nation-83-percent-of-chicago-arrestees-have-drugs-in-system.html

certifiedfunds
12-09-2011, 18:49
83% of Cook County inmates tested positive for drug use upon admission.

"Cocaine and heroin users — who often steal to feed their habits — are overrepresented among those caught committing property crimes, while marijuana users account for a disproportionate number of drug arrests."

Kerlikowske said the study shows that “drug addiction is too often the root of crime in our communities.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/5978519-418/worst-in-nation-83-percent-of-chicago-arrestees-have-drugs-in-system.html

So I take it you see the wisdom of decriminalizing drugs now?

Kerlikowski is a moron Making that point.

Government makes the price of drugs high. If they weren't illegal addicts wouldn't be under constant pressure for money to feed their habit.

Sharky7
12-09-2011, 20:27
So I take it you see the wisdom of decriminalizing drugs now?

Kerlikowski is a moron Making that point.

Government makes the price of drugs high. If they weren't illegal addicts wouldn't be under constant pressure for money to feed their habit.

Drugs are dirt cheap. You can buy heroin for only $10 a bag....you can buy 13 bags of heroin for $100, it is called a "jab." A single bag of heroin is something that would keep you or me high ALL day long because we don't have a tolerance to large amount of opiates. The more frequent we use, the higher our tolerance goes up. We go from needing $10 a day to $100 a day within just a few weeks. Heroin is the cheapest and purest it has ever been.

How is there now "wisdom" to decriminalizing drugs?

Sharky7
12-09-2011, 20:33
So I take it you see the wisdom of decriminalizing drugs now?



Do some research on the drug "hubs" in the United States. Check out the corresponding high crime rates when large amount of street drugs are available.

certifiedfunds
12-09-2011, 22:07
Do some research on the drug "hubs" in the United States. Check out the corresponding high crime rates when large amount of street drugs are available.

:rofl:You just don't get it. The crime is because of the government imposed black market.

RyanBDawg
12-09-2011, 22:43
Drugs are dirt cheap. You can buy heroin for only $10 a bag....you can buy 13 bags of heroin for $100, it is called a "jab." A single bag of heroin is something that would keep you or me high ALL day long because we don't have a tolerance to large amount of opiates. The more frequent we use, the higher our tolerance goes up. We go from needing $10 a day to $100 a day within just a few weeks. Heroin is the cheapest and purest it has ever been.

How is there now "wisdom" to decriminalizing drugs?

The reason that the addicts use so much is because I am willing to bet that it is a very diluted form of heroin cut with god knows what, therefore they have to shoot much more to acquire the same high that they need when compared to a purer form of heroin..

You know that the government hands out a powerful, addictive drug on a daily basis for little to no charge don't you? It's called methadone, and it can kill you with an OD even faster than heroin.. The government is replacing one addiction (heroin, opiates) with another in methadone..

The reason why they keep doing this is that when a heroin addict become addicted to the legal methadone then associated drug related crime drops.. Why? Because methadone is legal and government subsidized, and just as deadly as heroin if more than the proper dosage is given..

So what you are saying is that it's ok for the government to give out an addictive, deadly drug to people so long as they aren't using the other deadly addictive drug?

What's the difference between having a clinic that gives out supervised heroin dosages for people vs supervised methadone doses for people..

Amsterdam has designated places (many of them run by churches in fact) where addicts can use a heroin dosage and use clean needles to shoot up.. They have found that associated crimes have been reduced, and the numbers of people entering rehab has risen because of the fact that they have greater access and information to drug rehabs because of the clinics that give out heroin dosages..

RyanBDawg
12-09-2011, 22:53
What would your solution be? We have been waging this "war on drugs" now for well over 40 years and not a single dent has been made in reducing drug usage.. In fact drug usage, especially with prescription drugs has risen massively over that time period.. Every report commissioned by the government itself has come back to the same conclusion "current drug laws are ineffective, the war on drugs should be ended"..

It's like using a table-spoon to drain the ocean.. Waging a war on your own citizens for what is a medical problem is very bad..

Sharky7
12-10-2011, 07:08
:rofl:You just don't get it. The crime is because of the government imposed black market.

Explain your logic behind that. There is some crime associated with the black market - but not your property crimes, thefts, and burglaries to obtain money to then obtain the drugs. Even without the black market, drugs will still cost money.

certifiedfunds
12-10-2011, 07:37
Explain your logic behind that. There is some crime associated with the black market - but not your property crimes, thefts, and burglaries to obtain money to then obtain the drugs. Even without the black market, drugs will still cost money.

When is the last time you worked a crime where someone burglarized a house to but MD20/20 or a case of natty light?

How much crime was involved in alcohol during prohibition? How violent was the business.

A heroin addict can hold a job and function fairly normally in society if he doesn't have to spend all day chasing a fix.

Sharky7
12-10-2011, 07:40
When is the last time you worked a crime where someone burglarized a house to but MD20/20 or a case of natty light?

How much crime was involved in alcohol during prohibition? How violent was the business.

A heroin addict can hold a job and function fairly normally in society if he doesn't have to spend all day chasing a fix.

What is your experience? Where do you get these statements from?

I don't think it's fair to compare alcohol and cannabis with heroin and cocaine. Just like we don't compare meth to caffeine.

Sharky7
12-10-2011, 07:48
Ryanbdawg.

The government does not give out methadone. Methadone clinics are for profit clinics that are approved for the use of opiate withdrawal. They are run by private companies and you provide a urine sample to show your dependence on opiates prior to approval. Methadone was never meant to be long term.

Methadone half life is much longer than heroin which allows only one dozing a day. In short term uses under medical watch, it can be effective in helping people get off heroin. I think suboxone is a much better drug though and should be used short term along with counseling.

Ususally starting doses are maxed at 40-60 of methadone, which is comparable of only 1-1.5 bags of Chicago heroin.

I enjoy intellectual conversation, but please do your research before posting. Don't post an argument and claim it as fact when it is not. How do I trust or believe anything else you write then?

Sharky7
12-10-2011, 07:52
What would your solution be? We have been waging this "war on drugs" now for well over 40 years and not a single dent has been made in reducing drug usage.. In fact drug usage, especially with prescription drugs has risen massively over that time period.. Every report commissioned by the government itself has come back to the same conclusion "current drug laws are ineffective, the war on drugs should be ended"..

It's like using a table-spoon to drain the ocean.. Waging a war on your own citizens for what is a medical problem is very bad..

Most drug cases are usually nolle pros already when the offender goes through drug court. Drug court involves treatment and is non criminal.

It takes an act of God to get prison time in chicago for drugs alone. It is already usually treated as a problem that someone needs help with.