[mike1956]

Originally Posted by JackMac

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]

Originally Posted by frank4570

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.

Originally Posted by clancy

... 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.

Originally Posted by mike1956

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]

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]

What we need to crack down on, is the Dr.s that write scripts for everyone with a fart crosswise.

[Danny Reid]

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]

Originally Posted by frank4570

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]

Originally Posted by M&P Shooter

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]

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]

Originally Posted by GoonGlock21

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]

I wonder what the number of users looks like........

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by GoonGlock21

I wonder what the number of users looks like........

Proportionally, far less than what we have here.

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by GoonGlock21

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]

Originally Posted by GoonGlock21

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]

Originally Posted by Restless28

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]

Originally Posted by NMG26

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]

Originally Posted by frank4570

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ljunatic

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]

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]

Originally Posted by frank4570

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]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

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]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

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]

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. :/