War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

End the war brah.....seriously... time to release our POWs..... seriously brah

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110601/ts_yblog_thelookout/global-leaders-call-for-a-major-shift-to-decriminalize-drugs"]Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs - Yahoo! News[/URL]

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Legalize it!

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Not only can it not be won, it was never a fair fight to begin with. From the beginning of time humans have sought ways to alter their reality. Decriminalizing is the only smart way to "fight" drugs. Locking people up is just silly and a huge waste of $$ and resources.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Are we saying like all drugs or just like pot? Becasue if meth was legal we have a nation of zombies.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

I'm all for legalizing weed, but not stuff like coke, heroin, etc. The harder stuff should be decriminalized though.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

It is and has always been a public health issue. Regulate - but don't prohibit - its production, marketing and availability. Penalize it's "misuse" ([I]i.e.[/I] driving, working, etc. while stoned; selling to minors; increased penalties for committing crimes while on regulated drugs, etc.). If you want to safely sit in your abode, smoke a billion joints, and ruin your life, fine - so long as your stupidity doesn't endanger me or mine.

Problem, of course, is two fold:

First, regardless of how well regulated, drugs will always have a large blackmarket b/c regulation is costly and adds to the cost of the product (who is going to know if I got my pot from a licensed seller or my neighbor growing plants illegally downstairs? - If I do so, am I fined? Do I go to jail? etc.). Also, sort a subsidiary of this, will all narcotics be legal? Arguably, some drugs may simply be unsafe regardless of regulation - Can I buy meth? PCP? While not "Reefer Madness", users of these drugs may not be able to effectively insulate their "altered reality" from the rest of us.

Second, and the larger problem I think, is that drug use has public health implications beyond it's immediate use. While the public harm is not as obvious, addiction is a costly drain. Readily accessible narcotics increase the likelihood of additiction and a resultant increased cost for both treatment of the addiction and for medical "injuries" resulting from the addiction. (Yes, I know alchohol and tobacco already create this and they are legal. Just pointing out we would be creating more such risks/costs).

While "decriminalization" always seems like a panacea, it is not the end all and be all. New and different costs will occur, some forseeable, some not.

With that said, and again, you want to smoke some pot in your house? Knock your bad self out.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Mattyk;805405]I'm all for legalizing weed, but not stuff like coke, heroin, etc. The harder stuff should be decriminalized though.[/quote]

Wait, if we are not "legalizing ... stuff like coke", but we are decriminalizing it, what are you suggesting? Can I snort coke in my house or not? Can I carry it around with me? Can I get a license to sell it? What about meth? Can I be arrested for mere possession? If I can possess it, I guess I can use it? Do I have to use it in a supervised manner or can I use it in my home? Around my kids? Around your kids?

etc. etc. etc.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;805413]Wait, if we are not "legalizing ... stuff like coke", but we are decriminalizing it, what are you suggesting? Can I snort coke in my house or not? Can I carry it around with me? Can I get a license to sell it? What about meth? Can I be arrested for mere possession? If I can possess it, I guess I can use it? Do I have to use it in a supervised manner or can I use it in my home? Around my kids? Around your kids?

etc. etc. etc.[/quote]

For starters: reduce the severity of the penalties for possession, and definitely don't toss people in prison for using.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;805412]It is and has always been a public health issue. Regulate - but don't prohibit - its production, marketing and availability. Penalize it's "misuse" ([I]i.e.[/I] driving, working, etc. while stoned; selling to minors; increased penalties for committing crimes while on regulated drugs, etc.). If you want to safely sit in your abode, smoke a billion joints, and ruin your life, fine - so long as your stupidity doesn't endanger me or mine.

Problem, of course, is two fold:

[B]First, regardless of how well regulated, drugs will always have a large blackmarket b/c regulation is costly and adds to the cost of the product (who is going to know if I got my pot from a licensed seller or my neighbor growing plants illegally downstairs? - If I do so, am I fined? Do I go to jail? etc.). Also, sort a subsidiary of this, will all narcotics be legal? Arguably, some drugs may simply be unsafe regardless of regulation - Can I buy meth? PCP? While not "Reefer Madness", users of these drugs may not be able to effectively insulate their "altered reality" from the rest of us. [/B]

Second, and the larger problem I think, is that drug use has public health implications beyond it's immediate use. While the public harm is not as obvious, addiction is a costly drain. Readily accessible narcotics increase the likelihood of additiction and a resultant increased cost for both treatment of the addiction and for medical "injuries" resulting from the addiction. (Yes, I know alchohol and tobacco already create this and they are legal. Just pointing out we would be creating more such risks/costs).

While "decriminalization" always seems like a panacea, it is not the end all and be all. New and different costs will occur, some forseeable, some not.

With that said, and again, you want to smoke some pot in your house? Knock your bad self out.[/quote]


1. Why are drugs on the black-market inherently expensive? Even buying prescription drugs costs a pretty penny.
2. Would you rather buy alcohol and cigarettes from your neighbor downstairs or some guy on a corner or state liquor store and grocery stores?
3. Black-market drug producers have costs beyond the cost of the drugs themselves. How much less could these cost be compared to Phillip Morris and Pfizer?
4. Will making drugs legal increase consumption? How would legalization compare to current state of affairs?
5. Are soft drugs really a gateway to hard drugs?
6. What can we learn from are certain EU countries like the Netherlands and Spain and their drug policies?
7. Have you seen "Reefer Madness?"

[YT]bM_vLk1I6G4[/YT]

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Just seems like a terrible idea if you ask me. Making drugs like coke, meth, and heroine legal just seems like a great way to cause problems. I'm still reminded of an episode of bait car where a crazy guy on meth stole a car and went crazy while driving it.

Pot should probably be legal, but having experienced living next to and with pot heads it's not something I'm exactly eager to legalize. Plus the legalize pot movement overreaches when explaining the benefits of marijuana.

For example how it would replace narcotic pain relievers even though the only type of pain pot has been proven to relieve is nagging pain like arthritis and nerve pain. Not extreme pain that people experience after surgery.

I guess part of it is because Pot is more popular with the alternative medicine crowd that vilify doctors and think that Chiropractors and acupuncturist are legitimate medical professionals. So all of a sudden pot can treat everything from pain to color blindness. And people seem to be willing to run with it because for years the side effects of pot use have been overstated, so people making claims opposite of the "establishment" get the benefit of the doubt.

In the end pot is probably one of the most overrated plants on Earth. According to some it's the solution to a medical encyclopedic worth of illnesses and conditions as well as the perfect raw material to help industry reduce cost. When in fact it's simply a recreational drug that can help with a narrow scope of medical symptoms, while avoiding the type of damage that comes with long term use of drugs like alcohol.

Like I said probably should be legal but also just as dangerous might be the outrageous claims coming from the legalize pot movement.
[QUOTE]
Medical marijuana has been promoted for "compassionate use" to assist people with cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma. Scientific studies show the opposite is true; marijuana is damaging to individual with these illnesses. In fact, people suffering with AIDS and glaucoma are being used unfairly by groups whose real agenda is to legalized marijuana.

· AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.

· Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancers-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than tobacco.

· Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma[/QUOTE]

Also before you call me a hypocrite remember I don't drink (anymore) and I would fully support making cigarettes illegal. I only say this because the most common response to my "indifference" on pot seems to be "what about alcohol, how can you support alcohol/cigarettes and not pot?"

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

^

Was the guy crazy because he was on meth or was he on meth because he was crazy? Like matty said I think its more about not putting people in prison for simple position or making people crimes more severe if committed on a regulated drug (ie armed robbery vs. robbery).

So my Grammy and others with arthritis or nerve pain shouldn’t have all treatment possibilities afforded to them?

And people that receive relief from chiropractors or acupuncturist should be dismissed and put on prescriptions drugs or forced into surgery or some other form of therapy?

You probably think hackie sacks are overrated too, don’t you brah?

Do you support making cigarettes illegal because you cant/couldnt control yourself from smoking or because others need to be controlled from marginally harming themselves overtime?

I just think your reasons sound selfish. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to treat my body the way I want to treat it?

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=saden1;805426]1. Why are drugs on the black-market inherently expensive? Even buying prescription drugs costs a pretty penny.[/quote]

I believe [I]prescription[/I] drugs are more costly then legally purchased prescription drugs b/c they have limited production, high demand and incur black market costs for eluding regulation. IMO, these are not factors relevant to a continuing black market for illegal drugs as there is already a large unregulated industry producing such drugs (which would probably not survive in a heavily regulated market arena), demand for black market drugs would decrease as the demand for legal drugs increased, and the cost to elude regulation is already built into the current price of illegal drugs. Do you believe, if pot were legalized, that it's black market costs would go up? I strongly doubt it. Moonshine is cheaper than a shot of Jack. Why pay more and risk criminal penalties when I can probably get a better product with fewer legal and/or health risks from a regulated vendor?

[quote=saden1;805426]2. Would you rather buy alcohol and cigarettes from your neighbor downstairs or some guy on a corner or state liquor store and grocery stores?[/quote]

Depends on the neighbor - I got this one guy up the street who has some kick a** stuff. But I agree, quality control is a key benefit in regulated drugs.

[quote=saden1;805426]3. Black-market drug producers have costs beyond the cost of the drugs themselves. How much less could these cost be compared to Phillip Morris and Pfizer?[/quote]

Yes & No. The actual production cost of most drugs is minimal compared to the selling price. Drug companies, however, routinely include costs for R&D and development which is extensive. IMO, the cost to a Pfizer of getting currently illegal drugs approved for public consumption would be probably be pretty high. I would imagine, because of the inherent risks presented by such drugs, that it would be higher than the average (maybe not, but still it is an expensive proposition, a study in 2003 put a drug's To Market Cost at over $802 Million: [url]http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/dimasi2003.pdf[/url]). And that's not including final marketing costs, etc. to Pfizer. I suppose, that b/c drug companies inflate their price to cover past R&D and To Market Approval costs, they could start selling the drugs at loss-leader situation to drive out the black markets by taking advantage of the benefits of mass production and initially charging cost of production only.

Not having been an illegal drug seller, not sure what costs they would have beyond the cost of manufacture and a .45 caliber.

[quote=saden1;805426]4. Will making drugs legal increase consumption? How would legalization compare to current state of affairs? [/quote]

Legitimate question but also begs the question - legalization of what? Coke? Meth? Pot only? I think, as to pot, most countries are seeing that consumption is not increased. How would it compare to the current state of affairs? Just not sure - I imagine that it would immediately (and drastically) lower the amount on enforcement. Likewise, lot less people with criminal records walking around. For the long term indirect public health costs, I am just not sure it ends up a plus or minus. As I said, the immediate governmental costs would be different (regulatory agencies v. law enforcement) and, likewise, I think the long term public health costs would be different than we face by criminalizing drugs. Not sure how, but narcotics are still generally toxins whether legal or illegal.

Ultimately, I think, long term, the overall costs for legalizing [I]pot[/I] would be less but not as drastically so as some would believe.

[quote=saden1;805426] 5. Are soft drugs really a gateway to hard drugs?[/quote]

Don't know. I am sure there is legitimate research to demonstrate both sides of the coin on that issue. My general understanding and belief is that, generally, they are not but may be so for some people.

[quote=saden1;805426]6. What can we learn from are certain EU countries like the Netherlands and Spain and their drug policies? [/quote]

6. Probably a whole hell of a lot. Again, the economics of scale (small, homogenous countries v. US) may make a difference. Maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[quote=saden1;805426]7. Have you seen "Reefer Madness?"[/quote]

7. Yes, I have seen Reefer Madness both sober and stoned (many many many years ago). Can't access the clip at work but it is an eff'ing hilarious movie. I used the reference to illustrate that, while I am not suggesting mass destruction will automatically ensue from legalizing certain drugs, there certain drugs that are truly dangerous to both the user and the public if legalized for unsurpervised use.

Really, as to pot, I think legalization and regulation are the way to go. As to the harder drugs, not sure. Lots of variables out there, and I am unconvinced that, as to the more powerful narcotics, regulation ultimately relieves the indirect long term public health costs any better than law enforcement currently does.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=mlmpetert;805456]I just think your reasons sound selfish. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to treat my body the way I want to treat it?[/quote]

'cause my tax dollars will likely be paying for your cancer treatments while your stoned ass hasn't worked a day in 20 years. :FIREdevil

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;805467]'cause my tax dollars will likely be paying for your cancer treatments while your stoned ass hasn't worked a day in 20 years. :FIREdevil[/quote]


Why do folks always point out it is their tax money when it is going to something wasteful but never say their tax money is being used for something good?

George Carlin use to say: "Your stuff is stuff other peoples stuff is sh*t."

Example:

"Got move move my stuff today."
"Got help a buddy move his sh*t today."

Kind of the same train of thought with tax dollars.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=mlmpetert;805456]^

[QUOTE]Was the guy crazy because he was on meth or was he on meth because he was crazy? Like matty said I think its more about not putting people in prison for simple position or making people crimes more severe if committed on a regulated drug (ie armed robbery vs. robbery). [/quote]

Hard drugs like meth and coke have been proven to literally destroy the brain to the point where parts of the brain responsible for basic decisions (like not punching someone because they didn't get your order right at McDonalds) are eroded. Maybe going after the users that have done nothing besides use is the wrong COA however the people that push these drugs need to be sent to jail.

[quote]So my Grammy and others with arthritis or nerve pain shouldn’t have all treatment possibilities afforded to them?
[/quote]

Not saying that. However what the legalize pot movement will try to get people to believe is an effective treatment for all forms of pain and should serve as a replacement for narcotics. To me thats a big jump and an overstatement thats main purpose is to get people to join a cause under false pretenses.

[quote]And people that receive relief from chiropractors or acupuncturist should be dismissed and put on prescriptions drugs or forced into surgery or some other form of therapy?[/quote]

Maybe I'm biased against chiropractors and acupuncturist but thats because I've heard stories about promises of cures for everything from arthritis to cancer and people being charged more then they would have to pay for legitimate medical procedures backed by science and peer reviewed research. Obviously not every chiropractor and accupuncturist promises to cure cancer. However Chiropractic has been proven to be nothing more then a dangerous form of massage by legitimate medical journals. Accupuncture's benefits have only proven to be therapeutic/placebo and unnecessarily risky.

It shouldn't be illegal to perform chiropractic or acupuncture however more people should be informed of the risk, and it most certainly should be illegal for both types of practitioners to claim to treat diseases for which there is no medical evidence that they can provide treatment.

[quote]You probably think hackie sacks are overrated too, don’t you brah?
[/quote]

Hackie sacks only marginally improve hand-eye coordination. People that use them should be put to death.

[quote]Do you support making cigarettes illegal because you cant/couldnt control yourself from smoking or because others need to be controlled from marginally harming themselves overtime?
[/quote]

Part of it is experience. I ended up very sick in part because of Cigarettes, which is obviously a big part my fault. However the fact of the matter is while pot has some medical benefits, cigarettes have virtually zero. And even though it makes money from sin taxes and the like it also force others to pay inflated health care cost. Still it's a pointless drug that even as a legal substance causes more harm then good.

Then again at this point the only real way to fight against cigarettes is to have it further labeled as a social stigma, more then it already is. Making them illegal would be an ineffective deterrent.

[quote]I just think your reasons sound selfish.
[/quote]

I never said my reasons weren't selfish. And though I didn't clearly state them as such I did infer with my "not in any rush to legalize pot" statement. Granted part of my reasons fall under the "for the good of society" column. However I won't deny that part of my reasons are in fact selfish.

[quote] Why shouldn’t I be allowed to treat my body the way I want to treat it?[/quote]

You should. However I, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be allowed to overstate, or even outright lie, to get you to join my cause or undertake a certain form of treatment. In many cases thats what I see from the legalize pot movement, and while we're at it many alternative medicine practitioners (of course the topic of this thread is the war on drugs so I'll digress on said topic until an appropriate thread is created).

Then again simply saying "I want to get high while not destroying my liver" might not be as politically effective as "hey look, a treatment for cancer and glaucoma that big pharma doesn't want you to know about."

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Canadian Science shows the inherent dangers (yes I think this is an awesome video!)

[YT]sHzdsFiBbFc[/YT]

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[QUOTE=mredskins;805471]Why do folks always point out it is their tax money when it is going to something wasteful but never say their tax money is being used for something good?[/QUOTE]

First, I was joking. Sorry, once again, forgot to put on the sarcasm font.

Second, my tax dollars go to many, many good things. Too numerous to name. So, b/c the vast majority is well spent [ [I]just saying that to piss off firstdown and CRed[/I] ;) ], I and others should just ignore what they believe to be wasteful spending of public funds? If I consider it a misuse of public funds to subsidize the self-destructive habits that have no public health value, am I not entitled to voice such an opininon? And when I do, why do I have to add a disclaimer about all the good things my tax dollars go to?

Just as mlpertert's "reasons sound selfish" to you, yours (if you weren't joking) smacked a little of unjustified entitlement to me. You can treat your body any way you want to - just don't then expect the rest of us to bear the costs for you idiocy.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;805477][quote=mlmpetert;805456]^



Hard drugs like meth and coke have been proven to literally destroy the brain to the point where parts of the brain responsible for basic decisions (like not punching someone because they didn't get your order right at McDonalds) are eroded. Maybe going after the users that have done nothing besides use is the wrong COA however the people that push these drugs need to be sent to jail.



Not saying that. However what the legalize pot movement will try to get people to believe is an effective treatment for all forms of pain and should serve as a replacement for narcotics. To me thats a big jump and an overstatement thats main purpose is to get people to join a cause under false pretenses.



Maybe I'm biased against chiropractors and acupuncturist but thats because I've heard stories about promises of cures for everything from arthritis to cancer and people being charged more then they would have to pay for legitimate medical procedures backed by science and peer reviewed research. Obviously not every chiropractor and accupuncturist promises to cure cancer. However Chiropractic has been proven to be nothing more then a dangerous form of massage by legitimate medical journals. Accupuncture's benefits have only proven to be therapeutic/placebo and unnecessarily risky.

It shouldn't be illegal to perform chiropractic or acupuncture however more people should be informed of the risk, and it most certainly should be illegal for both types of practitioners to claim to treat diseases for which there is no medical evidence that they can provide treatment.



Hackie sacks only marginally improve hand-eye coordination. People that use them should be put to death.



Part of it is experience. I ended up very sick in part because of Cigarettes, which is obviously a big part my fault. However the fact of the matter is while pot has some medical benefits, cigarettes have virtually zero. And even though it makes money from sin taxes and the like it also force others to pay inflated health care cost. Still it's a pointless drug that even as a legal substance causes more harm then good.

Then again at this point the only real way to fight against cigarettes is to have it further labeled as a social stigma, more then it already is. Making them illegal would be an ineffective deterrent.



I never said my reasons weren't selfish. And though I didn't clearly state them as such I did infer with my "not in any rush to legalize pot" statement. Granted part of my reasons fall under the "for the good of society" column. However I won't deny that part of my reasons are in fact selfish.



You should. However I, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be allowed to overstate, or even outright lie, to get you to join my cause or undertake a certain form of treatment. In many cases thats what I see from the legalize pot movement, and while we're at it many alternative medicine practitioners (of course the topic of this thread is the war on drugs so I'll digress on said topic until an appropriate thread is created).

Then again simply saying "I want to get high while not destroying my liver" might not be as politically effective as "hey look, a treatment for cancer and glaucoma that big pharma doesn't want you to know about."[/quote]

Nice post.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

About as stupid as the "War on Terrorism" and about as affective too.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

I love gov't spending, and GMScud is an awesome mod. (one of these statements is not true;))

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Damn, I thought you liked GMScud. You're a hard, hard man. But then, you're probably stoned and texting as you drive home right now.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Why you gotta be putting my private life out there. I'm on the way to pick up my gov't check at the same time. It's all good.


[/sarcasm]

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

So back on topic, is the war on drugs worth it or not? I think it's obviously been proven to be a giant failure, so what's the next step?

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Mattyk;805505]So back on topic, is the war on drugs worth it or not? I think it's obviously been proven to be a giant failure, so what's the next step?[/quote]Your original statements are on point. Legalize weed (age 21), tax the $hit out of it. Illegal disti should get the same punishment as illegal cig disti. Possesion of hard drugs (coke, heroin, meth, etc.) mandatory treatment then escalate to criminal penalities. Disti of hard drugs...nail 'em just like now.

Declare a state of emergency along the border with Mexico and deploy troops, not National Guard, active duty troops. First destroy (lock-up or kill) the gangs and drug cartels in U.S., next use diplomacy (major financial sanctions) to get the Mexican gov't to clean up its act and fight the battle on their side of the border. With the firepower of the U.S. military behind them, they'll be more likely to stand up to the drug cartels.

Tax revenue will help our financial situation, less folks in jail decreases gov't spending and puts more people into the workforce/economy, lives will be saved on both sides of the border. The folks who want to smoke weed will still do it, those that don't won't. I don't believe there will be any statistically verifiable difference in overall U.S. health.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805486]About as stupid as the "War on Terrorism" and about as affective too.[/quote]Um....OK. You're right, stopping at least 30 terrorist plots since 9/11 and saving thousands of lives is stupid and ineffective:

[URL]http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/b2405_figure1_2.pdf[/URL]

- I'd say the U.S. Intel community and NSWDG were pretty damn effective in killing Bin Laden.

- Folks in Afghanistan who were living under Taliban rule don't think the War on Terrorism is stupid.

- I also would imagine the folks in Iraq that had been through Saddam's rape and torture rooms don't think the War of Terrorism is stupid. Pretty sure the Kurds would agree too.

- The War on Terrorism won't be over in our lifetimes. As long as there are Muslim extremists who believe violence is the way to advance their religion and is the way to paradise, and there are Muslim leaders willing to manipulate/exploit them to advance their agendas, we will be a target and it won't be over.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Mattyk;805505]So back on topic, is the war on drugs worth it or not? I think it's obviously been proven to be a giant failure, so what's the next step?[/quote]

Not worth it. I mean prohibition didn't work and I see this war on drugs headed in the right direction.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Mattyk;805505]So back on topic, is the war on drugs worth it or not? I think it's obviously been proven to be a giant failure, so what's the next step?[/quote]

Just out of curiosity do you mean virtually every part of the "war?" Or just the part that puts users in jail?

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

It seems to me that switching from criminalizing to regulating drugs will be a major undertaking in terms of the structural reboot. Laws will need to be changed, policies develeped and regulations written. Then of course their are the funding issues - certain vested interests won't want to "close down" and hand over their jobs to a bunch of bureaucratic regulators.

Part of the problem in "decriminalizing drugs" is that it is one of these things where the devil really is in the details. All of the steps to do so require developing consensus and detailed decision making that would be difficult to attain in the best of times. In the current political atmosphere of combat politics, I am thinking it is downright impossible ("My opponent, JoeShmoe (no relation to JoeRedskin) wants to legalize drugs - your neighbor's house could be a crack house!!!" etc., etc.). It is politically easier to simply maintain the status quo, even if it has some unsatisfactory results.

For all these reasons and for some that have been said before, we are simply never going to "decriminilize drugs". Law enforcement will always be present at some level. In Portugal, usage, possession and aquisition are decriminalized but, apparently, not sale or production. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal_2001_decriminalization_of_drug_use]Portugal 2001 decriminalization of drug use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
In the Netherlands, it is still a misdeamenor to possess cannabis or produce it for personal use.

I agree the current enforcement system has serious flaws. I just don't know that there is any easy answer to fix it. I think the start may be to allow possesion, in home use (and I mean "in home" - my porch is literally 2 feet away from my neighbors, I don't want him smoking pot while my kids are eating dinner) and production for personal use of cannabis below a certain THC level. I thinks this will unclog some courts and stop creating a class of youths with criminal records. It won't, however, stop the crack heads, cocaine cartels or the Afghani opium trade.

Again, I have no problem with the general concept of not clogging the courts with possession of pot crimes. I think I may even agree to it as far as possession of crack - but not sure on that one. I just don't think "decriminalize it" is the panacea some seem to think it is.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

Nobody said a fix is easy, but the current way is seriously flawed, costly, and ineffective. Something needs to change. Obviously a gradual change is necessary. Start with legalizing weed and go from there. I think that's the route we're slowing heading anyway.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805530][QUOTE=NC_Skins;805486]About as stupid as the "War on Terrorism" and about as affective too.[/quote]

Um....OK. You're right, stopping at least 30 terrorist plots since 9/11 and saving thousands of lives is stupid and ineffective:

[URL]http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/b2405_figure1_2.pdf[/URL]

- I'd say the U.S. Intel community and NSWDG were pretty damn effective in killing Bin Laden.

- Folks in Afghanistan who were living under Taliban rule don't think the War on Terrorism is stupid.

- I also would imagine the folks in Iraq that had been through Saddam's rape and torture rooms don't think the War of Terrorism is stupid. Pretty sure the Kurds would agree too.

- The War on Terrorism won't be over in our lifetimes. As long as there are Muslim extremists who believe violence is the way to advance their religion and is the way to paradise, and there are Muslim leaders willing to manipulate/exploit them to advance their agendas, we will be a target and it won't be over.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. The comparison between: (1) the attempt to stop people from voluntarily using mind altering drugs and (2) the attempt to stop people from killing innocent civilians is flawed on so many levels.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Mattyk;805575]Nobody said a fix is easy, but the current way is seriously flawed, costly, and ineffective. Something needs to change. Obviously a gradual change is necessary. Start with legalizing weed and go from there. I think that's the route we're slowing heading anyway.[/quote]

I am pretty much in agreement with you as to this statement.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Mattyk;805505]So back on topic, is the war on drugs worth it or not? I think it's obviously been proven to be a giant failure, so what's the next step?[/quote]

its not worth and its really obvious.

The next step is changing perception of the issue. Government needs to look at it (drug use) is a health issue/epidemic not a crime issue. The black market creates the criminal element.

Im more of a decriminalization of marijuana similar to the netherlands than full out legalization. But id take full legalization vs a criminal record for a joint = that sh*t is absolutely effing crazy. Hallucigens, some designers drugs decriminalize for those too.

I would not be in favor of any type of legalization of herion, cocaine or crystal methamphetimine. The potential devastation to communities would be horrible.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Chico23231;805603]its not worth and its really obvious.

The next step is changing perception of the issue. Government needs to look at it (drug use) is a health issue/epidemic not a crime issue. The black market creates the criminal element.

Im more of a decriminalization of marijuana similar to the netherlands than full out legalization. But id take full legalization vs a criminal record for a joint = that sh*t is absolutely effing crazy. Hallucigens, some designers drugs decriminalize for those too.

I would not be in favor of any type of legalization of herion, cocaine or crystal methamphetimine. The potential devastation to communities would be horrible.[/quote]

Agreed with all your points.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Chico23231;805603]its not worth and its really obvious.

The next step is changing perception of the issue. Government needs to look at it (drug use) is a health issue/epidemic not a crime issue. The black market creates the criminal element.

Im more of a decriminalization of marijuana similar to the netherlands than full out legalization. But id take full legalization vs a criminal record for a joint = that sh*t is absolutely effing crazy. Hallucigens, some designers drugs decriminalize for those too.

I would not be in favor of any type of legalization of herion, cocaine or crystal methamphetimine. The potential devastation to communities would be horrible.[/quote]

Good points.

Portugal has taken to viewing addiction as a health issue rather than a crime issue, as you say, and has done some serious decriminalization. Contrary to the arguments of naysayers, they have found that decriminalization actually makes drug use, and especially drug abuse, go down.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805530]Um....OK. You're right, stopping at least 30 terrorist plots since 9/11 and saving thousands of lives is stupid and ineffective:

[URL]http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/b2405_figure1_2.pdf[/URL]

- I'd say the U.S. Intel community and NSWDG were pretty damn effective in killing Bin Laden.

- Folks in Afghanistan who were living under Taliban rule don't think the War on Terrorism is stupid.

- I also would imagine the folks in Iraq that had been through Saddam's rape and torture rooms don't think the War of Terrorism is stupid. Pretty sure the Kurds would agree too.

- The War on Terrorism won't be over in our lifetimes. As long as there are Muslim extremists who believe violence is the way to advance their religion and is the way to paradise, and there are Muslim leaders willing to manipulate/exploit them to advance their agendas, we will be a target and it won't be over.[/quote]

Oh god, it's hilarious watching Americans swallow everything they're spoon fed. Americans also thought we could win a war on drugs back in the 70s and 80s too, and here we are today. How's that going by the way? Let's look at the money spent on this "war on drugs" and it hasn't changed one bit. Same as the war on terrorism. It's a sham. Plain and simple. Even George Bush says we can't win it, and he's the guy that started this faux war.

[url=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/ns/today/t/bush-you-cannot-show-weakness-world/]Exclusive interview with President Bush - TODAY.com[/url]
[quote]Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: [B]I don’t think you can win it.[/B] But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way.[/quote]

Let's see what a military general thinks about the war on terror.

[quote]"I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, at a news conference in New York organized by Democrats.

Read more: [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/31/politics/main639709.shtml#ixzz1OKGnn3BB]Bush: U.S. Can't Win War On Terror - CBS News[/url]
[/quote]


You talk about the "folks in Iraq" that went through the rape and torture with Saddam, yet fail to realize that we have killed and injured more civilians in Iraq than Saddam ever has. Irony at it's best. I guess blowing up innocent civilians was in their best interest. After all, look how well they are doing now!!! /sarcasm off

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-10-07-blackwater-investigation_N.htm]Iraq: Blackwater shootings killed 17 - USATODAY.com[/url]

Blackwater, our paid mercenaries...lolol Iraq people are loving this freedom I tell ya!!!

Also, those Folks in Afghanistan are happy with the war on terror? Really? You know this how? You live in Afghanistan? You have family that does? Or you just parroting what the mass media is pushing you? I'm going with the latter.

Here is the deal. The media uses fear to pump into individuals like yourself to deter from the real issue at hand, which is the failing economy and the crooks stealing your money. Also, lets ask our self something. How many of these surrounding countries are currently being bombed by terrorist organizations of the extremist Muslims? Italy? Greece? Turkey? Russia? Spain? If they are, chances are it's due to their foreign policy. I imagine if we change our foreign policy, then this "war or terror" would fix itself.

What you are trying to fight is a "ideology" in the extremist Muslims, and you can't fight a ideology or a belief.



[quote][url]http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/b2405_figure1_2.pdf[/url][/quote]

Any evidence on any of these "foiled terrorists"? We've been keeping these "terrorist" locked up, tortured without showing any proof or putting them on trial. All that money spent on intelligence and people have still brought bombs on planes. It was just a miracle they didn't blow up due to the user's stupidity. Guess they were too busy putting devices on "terrorists" vehicles to actually use real intel.

[url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/03035211331/guy-finds-fbi-tracking-device-on-car-posts-pics-online-fbi-shows-up-demanding-it-back.shtml]Guy Finds FBI Tracking Device On Car, Posts Pics Online... FBI Shows Up Demanding It Back | Techdirt[/url]

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;805579]Thank you. The comparison between: (1) the attempt to stop people from voluntarily using mind altering drugs and (2) the attempt to stop people from killing innocent civilians is flawed on so many levels.[/quote]

Not flawed. I would imagine that drugs have killed more people than terrorism. Also, I'm willing to bet you that we've killed more innocent people than the people we are trying to stop. Irony. Doesn't matter if it's not our people though. **** those brown people!!! WHO NEEDS THEM? AMIRITE? (if you can't tell the last bit is sarcasm....well then)

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

back on topic. I find this hilarious.

[YT]bOobQ3TPhHU[/YT]

Obama calls for decriminalization on drugs and called the war on drugs a utter failure.


Fast forward now.

[quote]White House “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowske called the report “misguided.” Office of National Drug Control Policy spokesman Rafael Lemaitre added, “Making drugs more available as this report suggests will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe.”[/quote]


[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4xRPv.png[/IMG]

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805735]Not flawed. I would imagine that drugs have killed more people than terrorism. Also, I'm willing to bet you that we've killed more innocent people than the people we are trying to stop. Irony. [B]Doesn't matter if it's not our people though. **** those brown people!!! WHO NEEDS THEM? AMIRITE?[/B] (if you can't tell the last bit is sarcasm....well then)[/quote]I understand your sarcasm. However, do you believe people actually have the thoughts in bold? If so, who?

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=NC_Skins;805734]It's a sham. Plain and simple. Even George Bush says we can't win it, and he's the guy that started this faux war.

Let's see what a military general thinks about the war on terror.[/quote]It's funny all you've got is a couple of quotes taken out of context and sensationalized by the liberal leaning media (NBC, CBS) leading up to the 2004 election. Nothing I say or any fact I present will change your mind anyway.

[quote]You talk about the "folks in Iraq" that went through the rape and torture with Saddam, yet fail to realize that [B]we have killed and injured more civilians in Iraq than Saddam ever has[/B]. Irony at it's best. I guess [B]blowing up innocent civilians was in their best interest[/B]. After all, look how well they are doing now!!! /sarcasm off [/quote]As usual with you far lefties, all soundbyte, no factual correctness. Here's some facts, it's good to check them every once in a while.

[URL="http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Iran-Iraq"]Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides[/URL]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War"]Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Under Saddam a [I]very conservative[/I] estimate of 500K people died because of his actions. Since the end of major combat operations in Iraq (2003) reputable sources put the number of Iraqi deaths between 100-150K, and most of those were not the result of U.S. military action, but rather terrorist or other violent groups (criminals) in Iraq.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq"]Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Looks like the Iraqis aren't doing so bad after all.

From the article: "Since the peak of 1980, the nominal GDP of Iraq steadily shrunk to $12.3 billion in 2000. However removal of sanctions, after the overthrow of Saddam, had immediate effect. The nominal GDP had reached $55.4 billion by 2007[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-CIA_World_Fact_Book_-_Iraq.27s_Economy-4"][COLOR=#0000ff][5][/COLOR][/URL] due to increase in oil output as well as international prices. In 2006, the real GDP growth was estimated at almost 17 percent.[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-5"][COLOR=#0000ff][6][/COLOR][/URL]"

[quote]Also, those Folks in Afghanistan are happy with the war on terror? Really? You know this how? You live in Afghanistan? You have family that does? Or you just parroting what the mass media is pushing you? I'm going with the latter. [/quote]Sounds like you're parroting more far-left conspiracy nonsense. I'm sure women in Afghanistan will agree with me. Again, here's some fact from the Dept. of State.

[URL="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm"]I. The Taliban's War Against Women[/URL]

[quote]Here is the deal. The media uses fear to pump into individuals like yourself to deter from the real issue at hand, which is the failing economy and the crooks stealing your money. Also, lets ask our self something. How many of these surrounding countries are currently being bombed by terrorist organizations of the extremist Muslims? Italy? Greece? Turkey? Russia? Spain? If they are, chances are it's due to their foreign policy. I imagine if we change our foreign policy, then this "war or terror" would fix itself.[/quote]Ah yes....the old Neville Chamberlin-esque "foreign policy" excuse for terrorists attacking INNOCENT CIVILIANS. And without posting multiple links, terrorist attacks happen in many other countries around the world regardless of their "foreign policy"

[quote]What you are trying to fight is a "ideology" in the extremist Muslims, and you can't fight a ideology or a belief.[/quote]You can damn sure fight against those who take violent action against others because of their beliefs. That's a lot better than sitting back and either hoping you don't become a target, (kind of like an group of antelopes being stalked by lions) or give in to the demands of violent extremists.

Re: War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740]It's funny all you've got is a couple of quotes taken out of context and sensationalized by the liberal leaning media (NBC, CBS) leading up to the 2004 election. Nothing I say or any fact I present will change your mind anyway.[/quote]

The link I posted was a straight interview. Nothing opinionated, nothing liberal, nothing edited. It's the transcript of the President. Nothing was taken out of context. The President said it plain as day. This has nothing to do with "liberal media". Stop parroting that shit please.




[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740]As usual with you far lefties, all soundbyte, no factual correctness. Here's some facts, it's good to check them every once in a while.[/quote]

First off, I'm not a liberal, nor am I a conservative. I hold no affiliation to a party unlike the rest of the moronic Americans out there. TWO PARTY SYSTEMS ARE GETTING IT DONE AMIRITE?

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740][URL="http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Iran-Iraq"]Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides[/URL][/quote]

Did you even bother to read any of the "facts" you are trying to present? Apparently you didn't. Those aren't deaths by Saddam. Those are deaths that came about due to UN Sanctions on Iraq.

(one of the very sources from your link)
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/22/world/washington-and-baghdad-agree-on-one-point-sanctions-hurt.html]Washington and Baghdad Agree on One Point - Sanctions Hurt - NYTimes.com[/url]

Listen people, if you are going to argue your stance, at least read your "facts" before you present them. /facepalm

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War"]Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL][/quote]

You can always tell people don't have "facts" when they start linking Wikipedia as a source. You do realize that anybody can edit these "facts". Here, use this.
[url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/]Iraq Body Count[/url]

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740]Under Saddam a [I]very conservative[/I] estimate of 500K people died because of his actions. Since the end of major combat operations in Iraq (2003) reputable sources put the number of Iraqi deaths between 100-150K, and most of those were not the result of U.S. military action, but rather terrorist or other violent groups (criminals) in Iraq.[/quote]

The US forces killed 1 billion innocent children and women. See I can make up numbers too. How about presenting something besides Wikipedia please. Thanks in advance. Also, those deaths were from UN Sanctions, from the very link you posted earlier. Kinda shot yourself in the foot on that one bro.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq"]Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Looks like the Iraqis aren't doing so bad after all.[/quote]

LOL. Are you serious? Have you been to Iraq or do you know anybody that lives there? So you are taking their GDP and assuming they are living the good life. I imagine most Iraqis would tell you to go to hell. You want to know about that GDP? It's the oil my man. The whole reason we were there. The country is still in turmoil and you now have civil wars between the sunni and shiite. I can see Iraq has turned into a regular Dubai. *rolls eyes*

Man. I'm ready to pack up and roll to Iraq so I can live the good life!! Hear, listen from the good people of Iraq if you don't believe me.

[YT]dsmoFJ45uU8[/YT]

You really are delusional if you believe the Iraqi people are better off.



[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740]Sounds like you're parroting more far-left conspiracy nonsense. I'm sure women in Afghanistan will agree with me. Again, here's some fact from the Dept. of State.

[URL="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm"]I. The Taliban's War Against Women[/URL][/quote]

You expect me to believe some propraganda from the US about how great the Afghanistans love us? hahahahahahahaha You are killing me. The very people that are swindling you, robbing you blind, taking away your civil liberties, these are the guys you turn to for the truth? Guys, it's ok. The Afghanis love us for our invasion because our government says so. My brain hurts thinking about it. Show me something else please.


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740]Ah yes....the old Neville Chamberlin-esque "foreign policy" excuse for terrorists attacking INNOCENT CIVILIANS. And without posting multiple links, terrorist attacks happen in many other countries around the world regardless of their "foreign policy"[/quote]

If you don't think our foreign policy isn't the reason we are hated, then you seriously don't need to be voting. People are attacked for various reason, and not all by "extremist Muslims". When is the last time China was attacked by terrorist? Do they even have that worry? Nope. Why? FOREIGN POLICY!!

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;805740]You can damn sure fight against those who take violent action against others because of their beliefs. That's a lot better than sitting back and either hoping you don't become a target, (kind of like an group of antelopes being stalked by lions) or give in to the demands of violent extremists.[/quote]


...or you could you know, stay the **** out of people's business and lands? You know, that goes a long way. We have bases spread out around the world. Would you allow another country's military base in our nation? Didn't think so, and neither do these people. America need to pull back it's troops, defend it's borders, pretty much like China has. Worked well so far and right now they are the top dog.