this is your war on drugs

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're not related, then why was Paey's home raided by a paramilitary swat team used for drug enforcement?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again. I didn't say they weren't related.

[/ QUOTE ]

You confused me with this:
[ QUOTE ]
No, at least for me, when people refer to the "war on drugs" people are referring to Nixon's declaration in 1971, the establishment of the DEA in 1973, laws and court rulings such the forfeiture of assets established by law in 1978, the rise of the Columbian drug cartel in the 80's, the interdiction efforts of the US government during this time period, etc. Don't think this really has that much to do with US government regulations on medicine, how medicine is practiced, and the designation of which drugs should be issued by prescription. The "war on drugs" to me anyway is more about government efforts to stop illegal drug use and how they've encroached on individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

And many other comments that seemed to imply you think of prescription drug enforcement and other drug enforcement as two different issues. My mistake.

But given that you are now saying that *are* related, I'm basically confused.

natedogg

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with that? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you to be saying that you don't have a problem with people using drugs recreationally (please correct me if my understanding is inaccurate).


[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me say that if I had to choose my passion on the issue on a scale from 1-10, it would probably be about a 3.

That being said, my stance comes purely from the fact that I believe, and have seen from my own experiences, the amount of money wasted, and the deaths of both officers and offenders, caused by the war on drugs, and certainly not because I hold the belief that everyone has a natural right to use drugs.


[ QUOTE ]
You're also stating that 98% of the people incarcerated for drug offense are incarcerated for purely recreational drug use. Wow, that seems really high, but I suppose you are probably correct.

Let me ask you this, please: do you have a problem with the law that would incarcerate such a huge number of rec drug users? And further, do you feel (as I do) that police officers and prosecutors are acting immorally by enforcing such immoral laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

As stated above, I do not think the laws are immoral, just poorly thought out and impossible to enforce.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, do you think (as I do) that the prisons and jails are unsafe and that no non-violent, recreational drug user should be put into, or forced to remain in, such an unsafe environment? And that it is criminal to force them (and others who similarly have done nothing horrible against society nor seriously victimized anyone) into such an environment?

I think all police officers, prosecutors, prison guards and even judges who act to place non-violent, non-dangerous "criminal" offenders behind bars are acting more imorally, and are also in effect greater criminals themselves, than are the lawbreakers whom they are imprisoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prisons are dangerous places, but danger is a relative term. I would say your average non violent drug offender is in no more or no less danger than anyone else. Prisons aren't like what you see on TV. 90% of the time, everything is running pretty smooth, no one is attacking anyone, and everyone is relatively civil to one another.

Finally, let me close in saying that my opinions can be changed pretty quickly on the drug laws. My positions actually vary between the position stated above, and Ann Coulters position, which is this:

[ QUOTE ]
my position on drugs was to refuse even to discuss drug legalization until I don't have to pay for the food, housing, transportation and medical care of people who want to stay home all day shooting up heroin.

~Ann Coulter

link


[/ QUOTE ]

So before I really jumped totally gung-ho behind this hardcore libertarian "End Oppressive Drug Laws Now!" campaign, I'd really like to see some hard evidence that the cost of enforcement would be more than the cost of the upkeep of addicts.

As for the marijuana laws, I make an exception to that, and agree that those laws should be taken off the books, however, I stand by my statement that enforcing the law is not immoral, in and of itself.

I've dealt with drug dealers on a very personal basis on many occasions, and one thing that seems to be overlooked or ignored by many who make these arguments that arresting drug dealers is immoral is that drug dealers are usually opportunistic criminals. I know that may not be the case for every dealer, but a large majority of the drug dealers I've had dealings with either currently were, or had been involved in other criminal dealings.

Al Capone is a perfect example, and people love to bring up prohibition and compare it to the war on drugs, but the fact of the matter is that Capone, and many other bootleggers, were involved in tons of other "real" criminal activity, on top of the illegal whiskey they were manufacturing and distributing.

So, in closing, I would love to get rid of the drug laws, but I would love to do that because I believe they are a waste of money and police resources, and not because I feel some sympathy for drug users, or that they have a natural right to use.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace.

Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.

But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%.

The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I feel like one sided accounts are nothing more than attempts at manipulation.

Edit: Out of curiosity what do you think regarding prescription drugs? Should we have them? Sort of an open ended question and I realize that you might believe that the system could be improved so I'm not saying it couldn't be improved upon. I'm just asking you about the practice of having some drugs available only via prescription. I also understand if you choose not answer due to the risk of facing a "firestorm" from some posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally don't care either way, my only concern concerning prescription drugs, is that unlike your corner dealer, Pfizer has the money and resources to run huge ad campaigns, and target those too stupid to consult a doctor regarding medical care, causing them to unintentionally hurt themselves.

As to people who knowingly abuse prescription drugs, as long as I don't have to pay for their rehabilitation and general welfare, have at it!

[hmkpoker]

This goes out to all the people that are saying drugs should be illegal:

You need to get out and do some drugs.

Seriously. Drugs are not the demons they are made out to be.

People are not the suicidal lemmings you think they are. Making something legal doesn't mean that everyone is going to do it. The reason why most people don't do heroin is because they know that it's bad for your body, highly addictive, and causes a horrible comedown. The negative consequences of heroin usage are unsettling, and constitute pretty good reason to avoid it. They're responding to an inherent incentive. This is why most people with access to heroin (average drug users) don't do it.

Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to assume that people will completely ignore the incentive of an unlikely negative outcome (negative effects of drug use), but will respond to an even more unlikely outcome (being the victim of the War on Drugs)

Why aren't DXM and whippet abuse problems in this county? Every sixth grader knows that you can get messed up on cough syrup and whipped cream cans. Hell, you can get messed up on huffing pain thinner, yet people are voluntarily electing not to do it.

[John Kilduff]

Thanks for your thoughtful and responsive post.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with that? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you to be saying that you don't have a problem with people using drugs recreationally (please correct me if my understanding is inaccurate).


[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me say that if I had to choose my passion on the issue on a scale from 1-10, it would probably be about a 3.

That being said, my stance comes purely from the fact that I believe, and have seen from my own experiences, the amount of money wasted, and the deaths of both officers and offenders, caused by the war on drugs, and certainly not because I hold the belief that everyone has a natural right to use drugs.


[ QUOTE ]
You're also stating that 98% of the people incarcerated for drug offense are incarcerated for purely recreational drug use. Wow, that seems really high, but I suppose you are probably correct.

Let me ask you this, please: do you have a problem with the law that would incarcerate such a huge number of rec drug users? And further, do you feel (as I do) that police officers and prosecutors are acting immorally by enforcing such immoral laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

As stated above, I do not think the laws are immoral, just poorly thought out and impossible to enforce.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, do you think (as I do) that the prisons and jails are unsafe and that no non-violent, recreational drug user should be put into, or forced to remain in, such an unsafe environment? And that it is criminal to force them (and others who similarly have done nothing horrible against society nor seriously victimized anyone) into such an environment?

I think all police officers, prosecutors, prison guards and even judges who act to place non-violent, non-dangerous "criminal" offenders behind bars are acting more imorally, and are also in effect greater criminals themselves, than are the lawbreakers whom they are imprisoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prisons are dangerous places, but danger is a relative term. I would say your average non violent drug offender is in no more or no less danger than anyone else. Prisons aren't like what you see on TV. 90% of the time, everything is running pretty smooth, no one is attacking anyone, and everyone is relatively civil to one another.

Finally, let me close in saying that my opinions can be changed pretty quickly on the drug laws. My positions actually vary between the position stated above, and Ann Coulters position, which is this:

[ QUOTE ]
my position on drugs was to refuse even to discuss drug legalization until I don't have to pay for the food, housing, transportation and medical care of people who want to stay home all day shooting up heroin.

~Ann Coulter

link


[/ QUOTE ]

So before I really jumped totally gung-ho behind this hardcore libertarian "End Oppressive Drug Laws Now!" campaign, I'd really like to see some hard evidence that the cost of enforcement would be more than the cost of the upkeep of addicts.

As for the marijuana laws, I make an exception to that, and agree that those laws should be taken off the books, however, I stand by my statement that enforcing the law is not immoral, in and of itself.

I've dealt with drug dealers on a very personal basis on many occasions, and one thing that seems to be overlooked or ignored by many who make these arguments that arresting drug dealers is immoral is that drug dealers are usually opportunistic criminals. I know that may not be the case for every dealer, but a large majority of the drug dealers I've had dealings with either currently were, or had been involved in other criminal dealings.

Al Capone is a perfect example, and people love to bring up prohibition and compare it to the war on drugs, but the fact of the matter is that Capone, and many other bootleggers, were involved in tons of other "real" criminal activity, on top of the illegal whiskey they were manufacturing and distributing.

So, in closing, I would love to get rid of the drug laws, but I would love to do that because I believe they are a waste of money and police resources, and not because I feel some sympathy for drug users, or that they have a natural right to use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised that your passion on this issue is only a 3. I cant think of many more obvious, crucial problems that could INSTANTLY solve so many problems as stopping the War on Drugs. Getting worked up over abortion, gun laws, pretty much everything else we talk about, is FAR less important than ending the war on drugs. Prisons instantly become less crowded. Billions of dollars are saved. And thats without even getting into POTENTIAL positives like, say, drug use going down or becoming safer. After the war in Iraq, there really arent many bigger issues than this. You mention all those negatives in your first paragraph almost as if in passing but those are pretty huge IMO.

However, you did say about 5 times that you dont think drug users have a right to use drugs and I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that. It seems to me like they most certainly and most obviously do.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that your passion on this issue is only a 3. I cant think of many more obvious, crucial problems that could INSTANTLY solve so many problems as stopping the War on Drugs. Getting worked up over abortion, gun laws, pretty much everything else we talk about, is FAR less important than ending the war on drugs. Prisons instantly become less crowded. Billions of dollars are saved. And thats without even getting into POTENTIAL positives like, say, drug use going down or becoming safer. After the war in Iraq, there really arent many bigger issues than this. You mention all those negatives in your first paragraph almost as if in passing but those are pretty huge IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm totally unconcerned as to whether drug usage goes up or goes down, and I'm even more unconcerned about drug usage becoming safer. Most of the reason I'm wavy about drug legalization is that, as I stated in my first post, I want the US welfare system dismantled, and when I say dismantled, I mean leveled, nuked, gone from American existence.

Then, my passion for dismantling the drug laws will go to about 9.


As to the "prisons becoming less crowded", as stated, I have little reason to doubt most who would be released if all the drug laws went away tomorrow would soon be back for other offenses.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that your passion on this issue is only a 3. I cant think of many more obvious, crucial problems that could INSTANTLY solve so many problems as stopping the War on Drugs. Getting worked up over abortion, gun laws, pretty much everything else we talk about, is FAR less important than ending the war on drugs. Prisons instantly become less crowded. Billions of dollars are saved. And thats without even getting into POTENTIAL positives like, say, drug use going down or becoming safer. After the war in Iraq, there really arent many bigger issues than this. You mention all those negatives in your first paragraph almost as if in passing but those are pretty huge IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm totally unconcerned as to whether drug usage goes up or goes down, and I'm even more unconcerned about drug usage becoming safer. Most of the reason I'm wavy about drug legalization is that, as I stated in my first post, I want the US welfare system dismantled, and when I say dismantled, I mean leveled, nuked, gone from American existence.

Then, my passion for dismantling the drug laws will go to about 9.


As to the "prisons becoming less crowded", as stated, I have little reason to doubt most who would be released if all the drug laws went away tomorrow would soon be back for other offenses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what? You mentioned Al Capone, and his other illegal activities. What were those? Gambling? Drugs? I mean, what are these drug users going to be doing and why do you think they'd all (or even a huge percentage of them) be back in jail for other offenses?

Also, why dont you include the drug war as part of the welfare state? Its basically the same impetus. People are too stupid to take care of themselves they need the government to protect them. Its just the vinegar, whereas most welfare is the honey.

[adios]

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing away with prescription drugs would IMO mean a bring about a sea change in the way medicine was practiced in this country. If you eliminate the DEA, forfeiture of assets, etc., the things that the War on Drugs brought about that would IMO have far less impact on how medicine was practiced. True that in certain instances the War on Drugs does involve prescription drug usage but it seems to me that most of the time that's not the case it seems to me. Also many prescription drugs are not of interest to DEA and law enforcement types because there's little to no black market for them. So IMO the war on drugs is peripheral issue when we're talking about doing away with prescriptions, something that will completely change the medical industry in the U.S. IMO.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that your passion on this issue is only a 3. I cant think of many more obvious, crucial problems that could INSTANTLY solve so many problems as stopping the War on Drugs. Getting worked up over abortion, gun laws, pretty much everything else we talk about, is FAR less important than ending the war on drugs. Prisons instantly become less crowded. Billions of dollars are saved. And thats without even getting into POTENTIAL positives like, say, drug use going down or becoming safer. After the war in Iraq, there really arent many bigger issues than this. You mention all those negatives in your first paragraph almost as if in passing but those are pretty huge IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm totally unconcerned as to whether drug usage goes up or goes down, and I'm even more unconcerned about drug usage becoming safer. Most of the reason I'm wavy about drug legalization is that, as I stated in my first post, I want the US welfare system dismantled, and when I say dismantled, I mean leveled, nuked, gone from American existence.

Then, my passion for dismantling the drug laws will go to about 9.


As to the "prisons becoming less crowded", as stated, I have little reason to doubt most who would be released if all the drug laws went away tomorrow would soon be back for other offenses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what? You mentioned Al Capone, and his other illegal activities. What were those? Gambling? Drugs? I mean, what are these drug users going to be doing and why do you think they'd all (or even a huge percentage of them) be back in jail for other offenses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Capone did gun down seven people with automatic weapons with their backs turned, and no I don't give a [censored] if he wasn't indicted. I've read the FBI reports, and formed my own conclusions from that. Mob history is a passion of mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why dont you include the drug war as part of the welfare state? Its basically the same impetus. People are too stupid to take care of themselves they need the government to protect them. Its just the vinegar, whereas most welfare is the honey.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've stated, if you want to end both similtaneously, I say lets do it. The truth is, I'd instantly call you an idiot if you were to tell me you honestly belief that illegal drug use is not higher amongst those on welfare than the rest of American society. Just from that alone, you can make the assumption that drug usage is already costing the working American public money.