PDA

View Full Version : NFT-The "War On Drugs"-Isn't It Time to Re-think?


kcfanintitanhell
05-01-2001, 09:15 PM
This has been weighing heavily on my mind for a long time now, and I want to bring it up on this BB because I believe there is a broad base of political spectrum, combined with some very enlightened folks. I would really like some input.
Reading excerpts from Timothy McVeigh's interview, I'm sure people recoiled in horror(and well we should) at his referral to "collateral casualties", meaning the daycare center . But he's going to pay the price in two weeks(as well he should). So who is held accountable when "collateral casualties" include a 38 year-old mother and a six-month old baby shot down over Peru? And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Less than five miles from my house a 64 year-old man was shot to death in his own living room in front of his wife by the police, who belived they were busting a coke dealer, but had the wrong address. I don't have any exact figures but my guess is "collateral casualties" number in the hundreds of thousands: not to mention the secondary casualties-the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill for building hundreds of new prisons to accomodate all these non-violent criminals. I really believe we lost this war a long time ago-anybody have any suggestions?

ChiefGator
05-01-2001, 09:58 PM
The drug war is why we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world. We have obviously failed at the drug war. Children are doing drugs before they drink alcohol. Personally, I am a libertarian, but I think some drugs definitely need to be legalized. I really don't care if someone snorts enough coke to die, or gets a little high on some pot. Doesn't hurt me, I don't care.

I don't what it will take for the politicos to realize they have lost (and the Americans locked up have lost) the drug war. It is impossible to stop the demand, but it is possible to jack the price up so high that we create the cartels in Nicaragua, gang warfare over turf, etc...

Nader addressed this issue quite a bit during his campaign... not that many Americans got to hear what he had to say or anything.

Mark
Going back to Football....

Frazod
05-01-2001, 10:23 PM
I see a great parallel between the war on drugs and a line from Monty Python's Holy Grail:

"Everyone told me I was daft to build a castle in the swap, but I built it anyway, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one - that sank into the swamp. I built a third - that one burned down, fell over and then sank into the swamp. BUT the fourth one stayed up...."

And you can bet the fourth one will sink right on top of the other three.

This is modern day prohibition. It has failed, it continues to fail, and it always will fail. You cannot legislate people's primal desires. Just as prohibition spawned organized crime, the drug war spawns gang crime, which is far deadlier. This is, simply put, insanity.

Legalizing (but controlling) the use of drugs would devastate crime in this country. There would be problems with this, just as there are today with alcohol abuse, but overall a small price to pay for the benefit of no longer watching our castles (and tax dollars) endlessly sinking into the swamp of futility.

Our government should wake up, smell the reality, and do the right thing.

Tomahawk 11
05-02-2001, 12:02 AM
The funny things I have been hearing lately. "Legalize drugs" and "make it legal to carry concealed weapons". I think America is scarey enough as it is.

How about these methamphetamine labs. The best way to find one is to wait for it to blow up and people are killed and injured and deadly toxins are released into the neighborhood. Would legalizing this stuff make that go away? I would think that after legalizing it you would still have the self-proclaimed chemists that would rather make thier own stuff than pay the upgraded prices to buy it off of a corporate dealer. Can't you just hear them saying "they don't make the stuff strong enough"?

I see the point about alcohol and prohibition. I really believe that if tobacco were found for the first time today, knowing all that we know about it now it wouldn't be legalized in the first place. Look at all of these medical expenses and tobacco settlements from this "legalized" drug.

As far as people doing cocaine "not hurting anyone", that is a little off. Even if you legalize it, you still have the addiction and the coke head spending every last dime on the stuff, regardless of the price. So, this addict now has to steal in order to be able to support his addiction. Same as when it is illegal.

I know of several instances of people being loaded on PCP and taking the lives of people while in rampages. One in which a man on PCP was shot several times in the chest before the officer finally had to shoot him in the head. Even then the doper said "nice shot". More than one head shot to stop him, that is nuts.

There is a big problem when a plane of innocent people is shot down. I just don't think that legalizing it will make it all better. There are some serious changes that need to be made.

philfree
05-02-2001, 12:19 AM
People have consumed achohol and other drugs in every civilization as far back as history has been recoreded. Why would anyone think that some legislation would stop it in our country?

PhilFree

DenverChief
05-02-2001, 12:27 AM
Tomahawk, I like the way you think but I think it is time to end the "vietnam" here in america we will NEVER win the drug war. Have you seen the movie "Traffic"?...Very realistic..They have more money to spend on drugs and transportation than we do as a COUNTRY!...another thing to think about is that the gov't doesn't want the war to end, it means more tax dollars and more jobs, if the war ends less tax dollars and less police,corrections officers,prisons,probation officers, ETC ETC...I know it's an odd point but think about it how many officers in your city (KC?)are on the "Drug Task Force"? maybe 70-80? now take that nationwide and increase it X2 for larger cities like LA, NY, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta...ETC ETC...This is a capitalist country and it's all about making jobs and money, hence the war on drugs....I personally feel there are drugs that need to be legalized; Marijuana, Cocaine and Mushrooms and things that need to remain illegal; LSD, PCP, Ketamine and Crack. No Crack and Cocaine are not the same Crack is a drug that has many different drugs in it as well as a slight hint of cocaine. This makes it much more dangerous to the person using it because of the impurities in it.

LapDog
05-02-2001, 12:47 AM
T11,

I like your point about tobacco. If we legalize it, we need to make it illegal to advertise it and paste a billion warning labels along with an anti-drug advertising campaign similar to the one already in existence.

Regarding the meth labs, most of them <I><B>would</B></I> go away. Meth would be so cheap that people would just buy it. People don't make their own whiskey/tequila/vodka, even though it's pretty expensive. Cigarettes have shown that even if these items are heavily taxed, people still tend to buy them instead of making them. It's just too inconvenient.

Even the people who would make their own meth would have MUCH smaller labs with a lot less material since there would be no market for them to sell to. Would you buy and drink a stranger's homemade liquor just to save a few bucks? Even if these labs blew up, I hope the explosions would be smaller and less dangerous.

LapDog
choosing not to repeat the arguments for concealed weapons

LapDog
05-02-2001, 12:48 AM
grrr...
so much for proofreading


That was supposed to be "If we legalize drugs", not "If we legalize tobacco".

47mack
05-02-2001, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by LapDog


If we legalize it, we need to make it illegal to advertise it and paste a billion warning labels along with an anti-drug advertising campaign similar to the one already in existence.



That makes absolutely no sense. Why make it illegal to advertise it? If it is good enough to legalize, it should be good enough to advertise. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Lightning Rod
05-02-2001, 08:39 AM
We have had this debate several times so I will give the cliff notes version of my answer.
The founding principal of this country was supposed to be freedom. Specifically the freedom to choose how to live your life. I do not believe I am my brother’s keeper, and I do not want to make him do what is “GOOD” for him. I am also very weary of society deciding for me what I should and should not do. I believe that I’m best suited to make my own decisions. I want to make them and I am responsible for the consequences of my actions. If someone wants to smoke crack, be a prostitute, ride a motorcycle with out a helmet, drive a car not wearing their seatbelt, go sky diving, eat red meat, and drive a car that gets crappy gas mileage, it is not mine nor is it the Governments concern. Now naturally those on the opposite side of this debate will point out that we do not live in a vacuum and our actions affect others. This is entirely correct. I don’t think it is ok to drive a car while under the influence or run around firing a gun in the air. I do however think that if we are to error it should be on the side of personal freedoms.

ChiefGator
05-02-2001, 12:25 PM
It reminds me of hate crimes in a way... There is no special need to seperately convict certain crimes. Reckless Driving should be prosecuted to its fullest. Endangerment by driving could be even worse. I don't care if it is the little old lady that can't drive or the drunk bastard, if someone is consistently swerving into my lane, let's get him off the road.

If someone kills someone else, and someone else kills someone else for "hate", I really don't care. They should have the same punishment. If someone was "temporarily insane," then I want him off the street too. I don't like people that can become temporarily insane.

You used to be able to buy cocaine over the counter. And believe me, people wouldn't have to rob banks to support a coke habit. The price would drop to where it was reasonable, like a 6-pack, or a carton of cigs. I am not advocating the USE of drugs, mind you, just the freedom. I have used drugs in my past, certainly wouldn't ever again, but support the right to use. Also, I think we would really undermine our crime rates by doing so. Also, we could increase our workforce by allowing the huge percentage of Americans behind bars for having a couple tabs to be released.

Mark

duncan_idaho
05-02-2001, 12:31 PM
This country is founded on the principles of freedom, and the right to do whatever you want... so long as it doesn't hurt another.

As stated, people on drugs often do crazy things... and things like Cocaine and PCP and meth can not be used in moderation like alcohol and cigarettes. A man who has had two beers is not anywhere near as dangerous as a man who has snorted two lines of coke.

What it boils down to is: legalizing drugs would be the same as telling our kids that it is ok to do drugs, even though it isn't.

Alcohol, Tobacco: drugs that can be used in moderation.

Cocaine, PCP, LSD: drugs that cannot

Mark M
05-02-2001, 12:31 PM
This topic has been re-hashed (pun acknowledged but not intended) on this board, but here's my take:

Legalize it. Everything.

MM
~~Waiting for 420 to roll around (again, pun acknowledged but not intended).

Mark M
05-02-2001, 12:39 PM
Duncan--
Have you ever done coke? I have (not proud, don't anymore), and can say that for me two beers makes me more out of control than two lines.

And to say that making it legal "tells kids its okay" just doesn't jive. How many parents tell their kids it's okay to smoke or drink? Very few. It's education about drugs, not prohibition that will help curb the problem. People (or at least those that I know) tried drugs for two reasons: 1. It was illegal and a rush to get away with it, almost more than the drugs themselves; 2. They didn't know how it would affect them and wanted to find out.

If I were to have children here's what I'd tell them:
"I can't watch you 24 hours a day. If you want to do drugs it's your choice. But before you do, do me this favor: Watch someone who is on the drug. See how they act, what they do and what they say. I guarantee if you see some drunk idiot stumbling and puking on himself, you won't want to get that drunk. If you see some guy trying to peel his skin off because the PCP he took made him think he was an orange (which I have) you won't do it. If you see someone who has been up for a week straight due to meth, you won't do it. Know what you're getting into."

Just my opinion here.

really gotta go now. My co.'s monitoring software is going to catch me. Check back later.

MM
~~Been there, done that, wouldn't do most of it again.

duncan_idaho
05-02-2001, 12:45 PM
Mark,

No I haven't done coke... I don't even smoke, although I have been known to partake of an alcoholic beverage from time to time.

I think when there are societal barriers to certain things, it does send a message to kids that the banned thing is harmful to them. It doesn't always work, but oh well, nothing is perfect. As long as its illegal, parents (to a degree) can stay away from certain elements.

It's a medically proven fact that drugs like cocane and heroin are far more harmful and addictive than alcohol or tobacco.

Parents tell their kids its ok to do things not just by words, but by actions. When you see a parent drink or smoke in front of you, thats a signal that it is ok!

Gaz
05-02-2001, 01:11 PM
The State has no business legislating what consenting adults do to themselves or each other. Decriminalize it all and do not concern yourself with what the addicts might do. Drop the hammer on anyone who operates a car under the influence or steals to support his/her habit. Drug use is not a defense for bad behavior. If you choose to take drugs and commit a criminal act under the influence, you can pay the penalty.

As far as legalization indicating that something is okay, it is the parents’ job to tell a child what is and is not morally okay. That is not a proper function of government.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hoisting that ol’ Libertarian banner.

LapDog
05-02-2001, 01:24 PM
47mack-

I don't fully understand your perspective, but I agree that it may not make sense to make advertising it illegal. To me, that might be an infringement on free speech, which would be bad.

What I was thinking at the time was if the large companies could bring their full advertising and marketing to bear on the consumer, we would end up with many addicts. Just like cigarettes, the advertisers would find a way to make it so cool to do drugs, that virtually every teen and pre-teen would be into it. I'd hate to see that happen.

So, I was thinking there needs to be some limitation on marketing the stuff.

LapDog
not sure where to draw the line

mlyonsd
05-02-2001, 01:24 PM
gaz,

I respect your position but would like to know what a libertarian thinks would be the correct punishment for operating a MV while under the influence.

Say somebody driving a car that had just smoked weed strikes and kills a pedestrian.

Would capital punishment be fitting?

KCTitus
05-02-2001, 01:39 PM
This is where I diverge from my more conservative stances, but I do think it would be better off if it was decriminalized.

That said, I also believe that if you want to essentially eliminate something, give the goverment control over it and regulate it.

It's either legalize it or stop with the facade of the legality of smoking cigarettes.

Baby Lee
05-02-2001, 01:42 PM
"Drop the hammer on anyone who operates a car under the influence."

Just playing devil's advocate, but wouldn't the truly libertarian thing to do be to only punish those who actually wreck, run over hygrangia's, etc.?

Gaz
05-02-2001, 01:42 PM
I will give you A Libertarian perspective [mine], but I cannot give you THE Libertarian perspective. As we are all contrary, independent cusses, I doubt you could get more of a consensus than “personal responsibility” and “less government” out of us.

I would not establish a separate punishment scale, but would automatically enforce the maximum penalty allowed by law. I doubt that would be capital punishment for manslaughter, but if that were the maximum penalty for that crime, then so be it.

The only exception would be for the poor guy who was kidnapped, drugged against his will, escaped and then fled captivity in a borrowed car.

xoxo~
Gaz
Giving lots of latitude, but making folks responsible for the results.

Gaz
05-02-2001, 01:48 PM
Just playing devil's advocate, but wouldn't the truly libertarian thing to do be to only punish those who actually wreck, run over hygrangia's, etc.?

The driver endangers others by operating the vehicle.

I am willing to let anyone risk any amount of damage to himself or consenting adults, but the other drivers and pedestrians did not choose to have their lives endangered. The drunk/stoned/etc. driver made that decision for them by choosing to operate a vehicle under the influence. That, IMO, is what makes it unacceptable behavior, punishable by the State.

xoxo~
Gaz
Once again issuing the “A Libertarian Vs The Libertarian” caveat.

mlyonsd
05-02-2001, 01:51 PM
Make the punishment for killing someone while driving under the influence a crime punishable by death I'd be for it.

Until then our weak judicial/penalty system isn't ready to handle it and I don't want any of my family at anymore risk then they are.

(believes legalizing drugs will lead to more driving while under the influence problems)

BIG_DADDY
05-02-2001, 01:59 PM
Here comes the contrary Libertarian viewpoint. The war on drugs and all other laws that protect us from ourselves are just freaking stupid. We had 200K people locked up in this country in 79 and are now over 2M. Continuing this madness will take us over the 100B mark to house these guys. There just drug addicts. To lock them up and turn them into criminals so that we can then release them back into society is crazy. That is also the parties general opinion.

BIG DADDY

Thinks Gaz keeps sliding back to his conservative roots

Baby Lee
05-02-2001, 02:00 PM
Can't the endangerment of society argument extend to what we have now?
Some drunks can navigate from bar to home without incident. Some can't.
Some junkies can feed their monkeys without stealing everything that isn't tied down. Some can't.
Some users get a mellow high. Some go into a homicidal rage.
Some are gregarious drunks. Some are angry drunks.
etc., etc.
On the issues of incidental crimes, and assaults, you say punish the crime when it happens, not the drug use that 'might' lead to it. But when a car is involved, you turn into 'Joe Protector.'

BIG_DADDY
05-02-2001, 02:05 PM
Gaz,

I should have read further down before posting. I though you were referring to drug possession not DUIs. Sorry mon.

Gaz
05-02-2001, 02:15 PM
JC-Johnny-

If someone wants to indulge in alcohol or cocaine or heroin and enjoy his/her high, I do not care. I do not care if they stay home, roam the streets or attend a football game. They are not endangering the lives or property of others.

That is why I have no problem with your friendly drunk or your junkie who does not steal to support his habit. They endanger no one but themselves and have my blessing.

However, when they operate a vehicle in an impaired condition, they have crossed the line from endangering self and consenting adults to endangering those who have not given their consent. It is this violation of informed consent that differentiates the situations.

I also "drop the hammer" on the mean drunk who starts a bar fight or the junkie who steals to support his habit. In both cases, consent was missing, as it is when a drunk/stoner/junkie/recreational user takes the wheel of a mass of momentum.

xoxo~
Gaz
Enjoying the novelty of being a protector.

oleman47
05-02-2001, 02:16 PM
There was a great show about drugs on the history channel a week or so ago. That drink, sassparilla sp was half morphine, as were most all patent medicines. As late as 1950 you could buy cough medicine that was mostly codiene. The drugs were not fully outlawed until Nixon, anti hippie thing. Although the use of derivatives of morphine were declining in use.
The drug war is very expensive and for many is the symbol of a repressive gov't. We have been far to narrow and sanctimonious on this issue.
Had some morphine before and after operations, put me to sleep. Had no feeling of being high, or addicted, just going to sleep. Wouldn't be good way to drive.
If I smoke one cig, I want a truck load.

Lightning Rod
05-02-2001, 02:22 PM
Obviously we can't deal in absolutes. The fact that we do live in a society means we have certain responsibilities to each other. It is a clearly foreseeable event that a drunken person operating a vehicle can cause immediate substantial and irreparable harm to an innocent bystander. I have no issue with this being against the law.
Naturally you can extrapolate any action to show possible harm to others but we have taken it too far. The likelihood of an individual doing harm to others smoking a joint on their back porch is not very strong. Many good people have died fighting for the freedoms that many of us now give away out of fear, intolerance or a belief in their moral superiority. This is truly sad.

Mark M
05-02-2001, 04:04 PM
Duncan--
It's a medically proven fact that drugs like cocane and heroin are far more harmful and addictive than alcohol or tobacco.

Not to be an a$$, but nicotine has been proven to be the most addictive drug available out there. Also, anything over 3mg of pure nicotine taken at once will kill a person.

I smoke cigarettes and have tried a lot of stuff (no crack, no heroin, no ... well, that's about it) and cigarettes are easily more addictive, although it takes longer to get hooked. It all depends on the person. I've partied an been fine. Friends of mine got hooked on coke bad, and one even died. It's more the person than the drug, IMO.

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.
-Rudyard Kipling

MM
~~Going home now ... will be back tonight.

Rausch
05-02-2001, 04:04 PM
It is truth that the few european countries that have legalized drugs which are illegal here have significantly lower violent crime and crime in general.

Why?

Because Joe Moron who refuses to get off the crack can't afford it on his own anymore, he can't borrow any more, and has " bottomed out." Now, this poor fella has the life expectancy of a house fly but insists on smoking dope. So what is a poor dope head to do? Steal, from homes, businesses, or private citizens. Which ever is easiest at the time.

Now, poor John Taxpayer is suffering due to Joe's lack of intellectual fiber and addiction. John get's his TV and stereo stolen, window busted, and his whife is scared for the kids.


Now, in a much different world we cut those free for whom it is obvious rehabilitation is not working or choose not to partake in it. Fine, let 'em rot. Let them go to a specialized health clinic to get free needles, their junk at a much lower and affordable cost, and all without HAVING to rob John Taxpayer. So crime is lower, and now there are no drug dealers. Why deal something that you can buy cheaper at a clinic? Do you see tobacco or alcohol dealers?

Joe Moron can continue to waste his life as he see's fit, but by signing up for the free junk he looses his drivers liscense...No druggies on the roads...

Standard drug tests still apply for employment, you don't want someone screwed up flying your plane. But the druggie is now safer and so is the common man.

BIG_DADDY
05-02-2001, 05:59 PM
Brad,

If Joe Moron is stealing, he will be caught soon and I have no problem with locking him up for that. As far as the tax payers are concerned we have over 2 million people locked up in this country. 70% for drug related offenses. That is 1.4 million times over 30k a year to house. Tax burden = $42,000,000,000. Bottom line, your concern for the tax payer doesn't hold water.

Rausch
05-02-2001, 11:30 PM
That type of statistic backs up my claims. Other issues not even mentioned ARE the cost of housing soo many "criminals." Another is the expense of hospitilization, the welfare paid to families because either mom or dad or both are too busy getting fried to put food on the table. Then there is hud housing due to above parents. There is also the possibility of future costs to families due to the poor upbringing of the children of these druggies.

The ugly truth is: the govt can make money off this both in taxes on the products and the sale of the drugs themselves, similar to prostitution in Vegas and nation wide "Lottery" drawings. Lotto is gambling, which many others are opposed to. But the govt has found a way to take something that can potentially ruin a person's life and have at least a LITTLE good come of it by a percentage of earnings going to schools.

I'm not talking about some pot head, I mean crack and heroine and meth and other hard core drugs. These drugs just don't let go of people, and the best idea in my mind is minimizing the damage these users can do to others.

Again, it seems a good idea to me, and we would be doing so not so some high school kid can repeat Cheech and Chong scenes, but to minimize the damage done to others.

I didn't mean to insult ya' or anything, just offering a different viewpoint. :-)

kcfanintitanhell
05-02-2001, 11:55 PM
It seems that a good percentage of the American public feel that some change is in order: so exactly WHO are the politicos trying to appease by continuing this absurd stance? Just read where the newly appointed "drug czar" wants to channel money earmarked for drug rehab and education into construction of new prisons-I just don't get it.

ChiefGator
05-02-2001, 11:55 PM
There is a culture around the illegal drugs. It is the culture that will not let you go. And it is the exact culture of the "dark side" versust the rest of the world. Nietzsche said, when you write a law, you CREATE criminals, and this is exactly what you do here. I have done Heroine, Coke, Extasy, etc... The drugs never drew me back in.. the "drug culture" did. This is exactly what the Gov't stokes in their legislation.

To say these drugs are more addictive than Alcohol or Tobacco is hogwash. Those drugs had a more corporate backing, so they were able to stop laws to overturn them.

The drug war is a farce. It is, in fact, a farce to engage in wholesale war, and to support the "great rebels" in Central America. I think, at best , it was created as a foreign policy decision we are still paying for. Meanwhile, we make the cartels in Central America rich, and also fund the governments to do minimal actions against them.

Meanwhile, our Prez. was a coke addict.

Ridiculous..

Mark

ChiefGator
05-02-2001, 11:57 PM
kcfanintitanhell

I don't know, but California just passed a resolution that first time offenders be sent to Re-Hap, instead of being locked up with murderers, etc..

Mark

Rausch
05-03-2001, 12:05 AM
I have a friend that is a heroine addict. Or at least, he was. He's probably dead now...


But from his description(which is all I can go on, never having used the drug AFTER HEARING his description) it's not addictive by nature, but once you've felt THAT good, normal life just doesn't compare. I don't see how it could. THAT'S why I would never use it. I'm the type of dork who'd get addicted.

Now, that said, England is flirting with legalization with it's "heroine demestics" to mixed results. Crime is only slightly down, might be unrelated, but theft is down by 22%...That is significant.

If you want to waste your life, fine. I would just like to see the chances of you making mine less enjoyable deminish.

And I usually vote REPUBLICAN!

Gaz
05-03-2001, 09:38 AM
Putting aside my anti-control perspective for a moment, here is another reason to end the “War on Drugs.”

We cannot win.

As long as drugs can be manufactured in tiny labs, as long as our borders are open, as long as we have a free [theoretically] society, you cannot win a “War on Drugs.”

You cannot stop it coming in. You cannot stop people from wanting it. You cannot stop people from making it.

You cannot win.

The only thing you can do is make it more difficult to obtain and therefore more expensive. Making it more expensive makes it more profitable, hence more violence as people who do not mind breaking the law fight over control of the trade.

We tried Prohibition once before. It was a dismal failure, just as the “War on Drugs” is a colossal failure. Stop throwing money down this pit. Decriminalize drugs and focus on preventing people from hurting each other, rather than trying to keep them from hurting themselves.

xoxo~
Gaz
Quickly abandoned his protector mantle and returned to fiscal responsibility.

BIG_DADDY
05-03-2001, 11:22 AM
GAZ,

Great freakin post. Nuff said.

kcfanintitanhell
05-03-2001, 07:13 PM
Great posts, everyone. The consensus is overwhelming that the war on drugs is unwinnable and should be terminated, replaced by a more sensible approach to the problem, and a hopeful return to an environment where truly bad people are the only ones behind bars. Now.....if the responses are indicative of a wide spectrum of political and social beliefs.....how do we get the point across to the idiots that orchestrated this agenda and get them to listen?

Tomahawk 11
05-04-2001, 12:18 AM
I just read in the last Rolling Stone issue that the DARE program has made statements admitting that the program is a failure. They are getting a 13.7 million dollar grant to "bring the curriculum up to date and to scientifically evaluate its usefulness."

The article also said that there are some other drug education programs that are out there, but they can't get off of the ground because of DARE's reputation and backing by the federal gov't.

The issue also had another article about the recent DEA raids on Raves. They are going after them under a bill called the "crack-house" bill. It was introduced by a Democrat. (huh?). They are going after the club owners and promoters of Raves. The amount of emergency room visits due to the use of Ecstasy is on the rise.

You know, I was thinking today about this post and some things I read. I don't even remember who posted the ideas, but there was something along the lines that the only reason the drug war continued was because it created jobs for law enforcement. Then later it was said that we should legalize drugs so we could make more jobs for americans (not an exact quote). I could be remembering this wrong, but don't both methods create the same thing? So for that reason (by itself) we really shouldn't change anything.

I do agree that there should be some changes made. The government should take after DARE and "update" the system. I am just really hesitant to legalization.

Brock
05-04-2001, 08:22 AM
So for that reason (by itself) we really shouldn't change anything.

Except for the fact that what I do in my own home is none of the government's damn business.

Gaz
05-04-2001, 08:26 AM
You cannot save everybody. Some folks are going to try drugs. Some of them will become physically or psychologically addicted. Some of them will turn to crime to support their habit. Some of them will die of it.

Sad, but unalterable. Some folks will slip under the waves and drown. It is a regrettable but eternal side effect of a free society. As long as citizens are free to make their own decisions, some of them are going to make bad decisions and suffer the consequences thereof.

The government should get out of the drug interdiction business and get back to the business for which it was created. Setting a moral benchmark and enforcing it under threat of incarceration [or worse if you are a “drug kingpin”] is not a proper function of government.

We need to stop protecting people from themselves and concentrate our resources on protecting people from each other and the environment.

xoxo~
Gaz
Willing to pay for his own mistakes, but not the mistakes of others.

Brock
05-04-2001, 08:29 AM
Beer has killed more people than my bong ever will.