Conservative Nonsense in the War on Drugs

Page 1 of 5 123 ... Last
  1. Conservative Nonsense in the War on Drugs






  2. Thats pretty much my reaction to the War on Drugs.

    Legalizing them and taxing them is the best strategy. Then use that tax money proceeds to educate people on drugs, drug intervention programs, after-school activities, etc.
    •   
       


  3. Yeah, can't even keep psuedophed out of the hands of hillbillies who make that crap. I've heard that meth addicts only have about a 16% chance of kicking thier habit. That's pretty bleak..may as well euthanize them and get it over with.


    I'd bet coke use is down but only because of the cheaper and easier to attain replacements like Meth, X et cetera.

    We've wasted a trillion dollars chasing our own tails..trying to keep ourselves from using drugs. It's really pretty dumb when you think about it.

  4. My contention is not to give up on the war on drugs completely, but obviously it's pretty much a lost cause with pot, coke and prescriptions.

    DEA should basically focus all their attention on meth from here on out..because I agree Rogue, meth and tweekers are blight on society. They represent that drug abusing bogeyman that we've been told potheads are or that coke addicts could become. Decriminalize pot and you free up immense resources.

    We could just ban several key ingredients of meth and see a pretty good reduction in output..or at the very least keep it from spreading any further. Psuedoephedrine is not even necessary in today's market, IMO. There are vasty superior products to take it's place so just get rid of it.

    We can decriminalize pot, coke, AAS and other substances and focus on the demon that is meth. With more money to deal with the problem we can start educating people as to how wretched the drug truly is.

  5. Ive noticed that with drugs, there are certain ones that destroy the lives (or make them substantially worse) for a large percentage of those that get involved with them. Meth, crack, heroin, etc. Other illicit drugs, like marijuana, some psychoactive drugs, AAS, etc have some positive uses, even some health benefits (especially regarding AAS and anti-aging) and only create junkies out of people abuse them, or apporach them from an uneducated perspective. And yet, they are all placed in the same group and demonized by the government and most of the media.
    What this society needs is an end to that dark ages mentality and a serious focus on educating people regarding the truth about drugs. Im sure if young kids were told the truth about steroids and their questions answered honestly, a lot of the kids we're kicking out of the Anabolics forum would have a much greater appreciation for the effects and power of these substances and not take their use so lightly.
    There's just so much misinformation, ignorance, and fear about freakin' molecules in our society that it makes me sick. How hard is it to pick up a book, research the facts, and learn for yourself rather than believe every word you hear coming out of the television?

    Sorry to rant, but you look forward and its going to be decades before people get their heads out of their asses. Its just really frustrating.

    BV
    •   
       


  6. We could just ban several key ingredients of meth and see a pretty good reduction in output..or at the very least keep it from spreading any further. Psuedoephedrine is not even necessary in today's market, IMO. There are vasty superior products to take it's place so just get rid of it.
    The problem there is the illicit drug chemist wil always find away around it, if there's enough demand for that chemical. Making meth is ridiculously easy technique-wise, and with these crackpot hacks mixing it up in a bathtub - who the hell knows what they'll experiment with trying to bring a product to maket.

    BV

  7. In my travels, I'd have to say that alcohol takes the cake, when it comes to destroying innocent lives. Alcohol prohibition did not work. It seems like alcohol prohibition just made a lucrative market for gangster-types, and really didn't solve the problem. As I understand it, yes, alcohol consumption decreased during alcohol prohibition, but alcohol did not go away.

    I really have mixed feeling about alcohol, and other drugs. On one hand, I see the destruction they cause, and on the other hand, I feel that it is nobody's business what anybody consumes. This whole concept of victimless crimes is absurd.

    Punish people when they do something that hurts other people, don't punish them if they're hurting nobody but themselves. If somebody wants to sit home and drink themselves into oblivion, that's their business. If that same person gets in their car after having a few drinks, then it's everybody's business.

    Believe it or not, it's possible to use alcohol, and other drugs responsibly. Not everybody that drinks, is an alcoholic. Not everybody that uses drugs, is an addict.

    I can think of a couple of drugs that are worse than meth. PCP users are so wacked out, that they pretty much have no idea what the hell they're doing while they're high. Heroin users can become so addicted that they'd literally kill their own mother to get another fix. The only heroin user I've known (a friend of a friend), robbed banks to support his habbit.

    Over the years, I've known a lot of people that have used various mind-altering drugs, and the alcoholics are the ones that scare me the most. As a side note, I know three people who tried PCP, and will never touch that chemical garbage again. PCP is evil ****.

    About the only "good news" that I have, is that everybody I know, that got tangled up with meth, has quit. That's 100%.

    Granted, sample size is relatively low (about 10 people), but I'm very skeptical by the 16% recovery rate quoted for meth addicts.

    From what I understand, this pseudoephedrine ban / ephedrine band is pretty much useless. Here in Phoenix, busts for meth labs are way down. However meth consumption is up. How can that be? Well, the meth is coming in from Mexico now. The "labs" that were busted her in Phoenix were producing, on average, a whopping 10 grams of low quality meth per batch.

    By making everybody sign a log so they can buy Sudafed, about all you're doing, is punishing people with colds and allergies, and punishing the company that makes Sudafed. Sudafed is relatively expensive. It's not viable as a source for making meth for profit. I think there was a recent study saying that Sudafed was actually more effective for coughs and colds than the "new" stuff like Zyrtec. I'll have to go search.

    Anyhow.... So much for the "war on drugs." I think that it's a terrible waste of money, and does more harm than good. If somebody is robbing houses, or robbing banks, arrest them for robbing house and robbing banks. If somebody is beating their wife, or abusing their child, lock them up. If they're using drugs, and not harming anybody but themselves, leave them alone.

    -Tinytoad


    As a side note, here's an excerpt from a Consumer's Union report that matches up with my own personal experience that amphetamines have a lower abuse potential than alcohol.

    Swedish physicians apparently found the drug useful, for by 1942 they were prescribing it to about 3 percent of the population. 2
    Some 6,000,000 doses were prescribed during the year. A survey 3 indicated that most Swedish users were using amphetamine sensibly and in moderation:
    • 140,000 were occasional users, taking four amphetamine tablets or fewer per year. No doubt, like Americans at the same time, they used amphetamine on rare days when they had to work longer than usual, or faced some extraordinary challenge, or woke up depressed and out of sorts and needed something to "pull themselves together."

    • 60,000 others were also occasional users, but with somewhat greater frequency; their usage ranged from five times a year to twice a month.

    • 4,000 users took amphetamine only once a week or so, but often took two or three tablets at a time–– perhaps for a Saturday-night "high."

    • 3,000 users might be described as "borderline." Their frequency of use varied from several times a week to daily–– and they sometimes took from five to ten tablets in a single day.

    • 200 users–– less than a tenth of one percent–– could properly be labeled "abusers." They took from ten to a hundred or more amphetamine tablets a day, more or less regularly.
    This spectrum of use suggests that amphetamines prescribed by physicians are drugs with only a modest potential for misuse. The figures may be contrasted with the estimated 10 to 12 percent of alcohol users who become problem drinkers or alcoholics, and the estimated one percent who become skid-row alcoholics.

    There's more to read here:
    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../cu/cumenu.htm
    Last edited by TINYTOAD; 02-22-2006 at 09:48 AM.

  8. I've seen the damage of meth first hand. I live in Iowa and its gotten a lot better but its still meth infested. Mostly because small towns don't have police officers (they rent a cop if necessary; sometimes a Sheriff will drive through), it still has a meth problem. So its pretty lawless in many parts of the state.

    Anyway, there is a nearby town that was ok in the early-mid 90s but now is a total **** hole to be blunt. All chain businesses have shut down except for a McDonald's. Its lots of old and abandoned buildings. The homes have different colored lights. The colors on the lights show who is making the meth. I assume the colors change.

    I had to drive through there once because of some business. It was about 1 am during the summer and I had to have seen at least a dozen anorexic looking meth heads walking around.

    Scary stuff. Apparently the big drug craze in the state before meth was crack.

    Crack is pretty bad too. A few minutes of that high feeling, then hours of depression. Then you buy crumbs of it here and there, then soon you get psychotic from it.

  9. BV- I'm sure some garage chemist would alter the way meth is cooked if psuedofed were banned..BUT I think you'd still make it harder to produce meth if the easiest ingredients were made hard to get. I could easily be wrong, but it just seems like this stuff has gotten so big because it's so readily available.

    To me, it seems like the worst drug ever. I can't ever picture wanting to stay up for 4 days at a time and be edgy. ick.

  10. Mike Mentzer used to use Meth during all his contest preps to cut him up.

    Drove him literally nuts though.

  11. I grew up in an area were meth was very prevelent. I knew at least 50 people who used meth on a regular basis. It started when we were about 16 and lasted about ten years. There are still some people who are using today after 25 years! It was fun and inexpensive (about 20 bucks to get high for 10-12 hours!) There would be huge parties in the middle of large fields that would last for 2-3 days..lots of kegs, weed bonfires babes, fights...kind of like the opening scene in Dazed and Confused. Although I have been a fan of styms all my life, my personal experience drifted from meth into other sustances. The thing about meth was the cross clique popularity. It was used by jocks, brainiacs and hot chicks trying to stay skinny. The signs of abuse were rapidly apparent; dramatic weight loss, erratic behavior, black teeth and facial lesions. It was a constant reminder for me that it was a dangerous drug, so I always remained skeptical and cautious through out my experience. The was a strange mentality with friends who worked in construction or factories... I need meth, so I can work more hours, so I can buy more meth, so I can work more hours to get more meth...and on infinium. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, meth is popular because it works...but talk about your rough side effects! People need away to relieve stress and anxiety. They will always find something, no matter how illegal or distructive.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    The problem there is the illicit drug chemist wil always find away around it, if there's enough demand for that chemical.

    BV
    agreed. banning certain ingredients is like making meth use illegal, it really doesnt help.

    bioman- yeah its retarded how much money we spend to try and save ourselves. decriminalizing is a great idea, but i dont think it will happen soon...

    call me cold hearted or whatever, but really, why do so many care to save people that do not care to save themselves? if they want to be idiots, than by all means be an idiot, but dont harm anyone else. sadly, they are doing the world a favor in a way....wiping themselves out.....

  13. Even if prohibition were ideologically sound there are too many practical problems for it to work. Recently I've met a few meth users, they're a bit weird and not people I'd consider hanging out with, but they weren't robbing anyone either. One major problem is people conflate problems that exist in people's lives without drug abuse, and larger social problems that exist because of prohibition, with drug use in general.

    As for an end to prohibition, it likely will not happen soon. There are a few movements out there, but they're too spread out and diffuse to make a difference. Everyone's fighting for the legalization of their own pet substance rather than supporting a general cause.

  14. BV- I'm sure some garage chemist would alter the way meth is cooked if psuedofed were banned..BUT I think you'd still make it harder to produce meth if the easiest ingredients were made hard to get. I could easily be wrong, but it just seems like this stuff has gotten so big because it's so readily available.
    Yeah, I agree. But the other problem with criminalising compounds that are relatively innocuous in their own right is that it ends up hurting people who would use those compounds for non-illegal reasons. For instance, if I want to make old-style root beer I cant, because Sassafras oil is a watched chemical. If I ordered it, the feds could come knocking on my door. I suppose that shouldnt bother me, because Im not doing anything illegal, but I dont want them to find the 1-test I have stashed in the back of the fridge.

    call me cold hearted or whatever, but really, why do so many care to save people that do not care to save themselves? if they want to be idiots, than by all means be an idiot, but dont harm anyone else. sadly, they are doing the world a favor in a way....wiping themselves out.....
    I tend agree with that. A possible end to the problem is to let nature take its course. Let the junkies fall where they may, and eventually those genes that cause one to become addicted will be weeded out of the human species. Of course, if someone came into an emergency room suffering from a drug overdose, you'd have to deny them medical assistance. That would be kind of harsh

    The real reason drugs wont be decriminalised in the US anytime soon is because The War on Drugs is big business. Think of how many law enforcement and correctional services personnel are employed because of our burgeoning prison system. Sure, plenty of people in there are non-violent criminals caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They went through the meat grinder that is the US Justice System and their lives are destroyed. But that doesnt matter, there is money to be made.

    All the gangs, murder, crime, etc associated with drug prohibition just means politicians have a bigger platform to campaign in the name of 'saving the children' and reduce our ability to decide for ourselves a little more each year.

    BV

  15. The Bush family (and others) wants drugs to be illegal.
    People want what they can't have.(price goes/stays up)
    and if drugs illegal then people have to buy his foreign grown product.

    When he was campaining for his first election his dealers/farmers in south america bought him a jet to campaign in..... Fact.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Yeah, I agree. But the other problem with criminalising compounds that are relatively innocuous in their own right is that it ends up hurting people who would use those compounds for non-illegal reasons. For instance, if I want to make old-style root beer I cant, because Sassafras oil is a watched chemical. If I ordered it, the feds could come knocking on my door. I suppose that shouldnt bother me, because Im not doing anything illegal, but I dont want them to find the 1-test I have stashed in the back of the fridge.
    That's one of the practical problems. You have a population that uses substance X. A certain percentage have a problem, the rest don't. Outlawing the substance means law enforcement has to concentrate on the whole population instead of the percentage that's making life difficult for other people. Wasted resources in other words.

    I tend agree with that. A possible end to the problem is to let nature take its course. Let the junkies fall where they may, and eventually those genes that cause one to become addicted will be weeded out of the human species. Of course, if someone came into an emergency room suffering from a drug overdose, you'd have to deny them medical assistance. That would be kind of harsh
    Harsh yes, but it could be avoided. There are charity hospitals and also, if someone wants to, they could always opt for coverage of substance abuse problems. In the strictest sense it's not insurable, but it's offerred now. In fact people who don't want it are forced to pay for it. As an option available to those who think they might need it for whatever reason it would probably be workable.

    The real reason drugs wont be decriminalised in the US anytime soon is because The War on Drugs is big business. Think of how many law enforcement and correctional services personnel are employed because of our burgeoning prison system. Sure, plenty of people in there are non-violent criminals caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They went through the meat grinder that is the US Justice System and their lives are destroyed. But that doesnt matter, there is money to be made.
    Bingo. What's more, often the people who get screwed by the system end up not being able to vote through disenfranchisement laws. So it's sometimes, if not often the case that those who could and would vote on aq wedge issue like this can't vote at all anymore.

    It's not just the institutional aspect either, many corporations don't want to lose control of the drug market. Competition in a managed market is preferrable to businesses than open competition. Suppose for example a high dose of a vitamin is more effective as an antidepressant than the many RX antidepressants out right now. Suppose certain actives in marijuana are better at killing pain and/or nausea than currently available RXs, etc. It's easier for a business to get what it wants through a turn of the political arm than to compete for it on the market.

    All the gangs, murder, crime, etc associated with drug prohibition just means politicians have a bigger platform to campaign in the name of 'saving the children' and reduce our ability to decide for ourselves a little more each year.
    This is true, but for some reason even though people knew the crime during alcohol prohibition was due to the prohibition and not the booze, for some reason many people have swallowed the reverse when it comes to other drugs, most likely because of long decades of government propaganda.

    Another point worth mentioning is the constitutionality of prohibition. There's a reason an ammendement to the constitution needed to be passed before the government could outlaw booze. People knew it was not constituional otherwise. However, through much more activist courts and long years of propaganda and virtual control of the educational system, the government has gotten everyone to buy the idea that they have the power to 'regulate' drug traffic through an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

    As long as most people's oxes aren't being gored by this there won't be any action even if the money starts to dry up on the government end. And, as long as the people who do get gored get stripped of their voting rights and keep buying the government's line of BS, things won't change.

    Of course, as I've said before, if the stoners would put down the Doritos and the juicers would put down the weights, if all users of all illicit drugs would stop stroking themselves into believing that some how their drug of choice is better than someone else's, and instead of BSing themselves got together in a large scale movement, this could end very quickly.

    As it is though you've got users of one substance fighting for its legality while, for the most part, not caring about users of other substances, and that just leads to disorganization and so, no real force to deal with politically.

    Look at Bill Maher, he's a typical stoner. Anytime the topic of weed comes up he rants about how relatively harmless it is, and when compared to most drugs it is. But, when the topic of steroids comes up he spits out all the usual BS about liver damage and heart attacks and shrunken nuts and 'roid rage, etc. It's another aspect of the whole thing, the people that research their pet substance for some reason rarely apply that experience to other drugs. In other words they cry for the truth of their substance to be known, but spout the government line on every other substance, never once even thinking that if the government was full of **** about their substance, perhaps the evidence about the harmfulness of the other illicit substances isn't exactly that solid either.

  17. I was a fighter of the "war on drugs", that has to be the biggest oxymoron in the world!! Until they let the men that are there to do a job, take out the drug makers, the war is lost, plain and simple. It's run just like the war in Vietnam, you can take this one out, but not that one. I almost lost my comission twice because I took out the wrong (right) target. When we go to war, we have to go to win. This ***** footing around has to stop before we'll make headway.Was what I did!!
    ROB

  18. It's not just the institutional aspect either, many corporations don't want to lose control of the drug market. Competition in a managed market is preferrable to businesses than open competition. Suppose for example a high dose of a vitamin is more effective as an antidepressant than the many RX antidepressants out right now. Suppose certain actives in marijuana are better at killing pain and/or nausea than currently available RXs, etc. It's easier for a business to get what it wants through a turn of the political arm than to compete for it on the market.
    I was going to bring that point up to...glad you did. If someone could alleviate pain/handle stress by growing a couple marijuana plants in his garden, where would Merck and Pfizer be without all those sales for criminally over-priced prescription pain killers and anti-depressants?

    Look at Bill Maher, he's a typical stoner. Anytime the topic of weed comes up he rants about how relatively harmless it is, and when compared to most drugs it is. But, when the topic of steroids comes up he spits out all the usual BS about liver damage and heart attacks and shrunken nuts and 'roid rage, etc. It's another aspect of the whole thing, the people that research their pet substance for some reason rarely apply that experience to other drugs. In other words they cry for the truth of their substance to be known, but spout the government line on every other substance, never once even thinking that if the government was full of **** about their substance, perhaps the evidence about the harmfulness of the other illicit substances isn't exactly that solid either.
    Totally agree. A lot of people at work were/are stoners to one degree or another. The topic of marijuana comes up and they all extol the virtues of this substance and clamor for its decriminalization. But one word of steroids and they'll spout, word for word, the babble they heard on the latest news 'report'. Amazing.

    IMO, some drugs really do need to be controlled, but not with fear and propaganda. If kids were told the real truth about drugs, rather than the 'drugs are bad, m'kay?' mentality taught in schools Im sure there'd be a lot less in the way of abuse.

    I was a fighter of the "war on drugs", that has to be the biggest oxymoron in the world!! Until they let the men that are there to do a job, take out the drug makers, the war is lost, plain and simple. It's run just like the war in Vietnam, you can take this one out, but not that one. I almost lost my comission twice because I took out the wrong (right) target. When we go to war, we have to go to win. This ***** footing around has to stop before we'll make headway.
    This *****footing will never stop. The government doesnt want to win the 'War on Drugs'. They want to keep the machine turning, generate cash and profit for everyone who has their hands in it...foot soldiers are just numbers to them.

    BV

  19. and the more vicious the drug lord the situation breeds up, the more justification they have for the War on Drugs. It'd be a simple as starving these guys out of business via decriminalization of their product.

  20. The war on drugs happens for these reasons:

    1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.

    2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics.

    It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town.

    3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing.

    All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty ****ed up but thats how it is.

  21. Right, and that's why I cant see any end to the 'War on Drugs' anytime soon. Its too engrained in our socioeconomic infrastructure. What would happen if a lifetime on anti-depressants could be averted with a few well-guided sessions with a particular psychoactive? Or if countless marriges could be saved via carefully administration of MDMA? (which was the original intended purpose of the chemical).
    The judicial system, huge pharmaceutical companies, and overall the general perception of most Americans would undergo a huge paradigm shift that would equate to less money for politicians and their bed-buddies.

    While I dont think it should just be a free-for-all, the government should at least open up scientific research for some things...but then the truth would come out, and they can't have that.

    I'd at least like to see a radical change in the way young people are educated about anabolics...I think that's one reason why kids abuse the hell out of them in the first place. The whole 'Drugs r bad...m'kay?' approach quickly dissolves from a young guy's mind when he adds 70lbs to his bench press and gains a stack of muscle. If in health class, the teacher explained the essentials of diet and training, how steroids work in the body and the reasons why a young person shouldnt use them...I think we'd have much less of a problem.

    BV

  22. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    I'd at least like to see a radical change in the way young people are educated about anabolics...I think that's one reason why kids abuse the hell out of them in the first place. The whole 'Drugs r bad...m'kay?' approach quickly dissolves from a young guy's mind when he adds 70lbs to his bench press and gains a stack of muscle. If in health class, the teacher explained the essentials of diet and training, how steroids work in the body and the reasons why a young person shouldnt use them...I think we'd have much less of a problem.
    That's also not going to happen, not so long as prohibition is going on. Teaching the truth about most drugs in school would lead to the inevitable questions: why are these substances illegal?; why are we imprisoning people for decades for using/selling this stuff?; why are we spending billions upon billions of dollars on prohibition? Because, in the end, most drugs aren't that bad and often a lot less harmful than what you might typically find in someone's medicine cabinet.

    The crusade against drugs is not, and never was based on fact or truth. It's been a moral crusade from the very beginning, and moral crusades are fought against Evil. To keep prohibition going, and at the very least to keep embarrassing and subversive questions to a minimum, drugs have to be portrayed as Evil. And, because they're not fighting some group of arbitrary chemicals but Evil incarnate, any and all steps to curb their import, sale and use are justifiable in the end, in the mind of drug warriors at least.

    Fourth Ammendment violation? **** it, these are drugs we're after! Sting operations bordering/crossing the border on entrapment? **** it, these are drugs we're fighting against here! Tear a family apart and throw the bread winner, who has no violent criminal history, in prision for decades because they were caught with an amount of drugs over some arbitrary limit? **** it, these are drugs we're fighting against here! Destroy a kid's life and saddle him with a felony record for the rest of his life for a nonviolent crime? **** it, these are drugs we're fighting against here!

    That's also why few people tend to change their minds on this topic. Once they've bought the "drugs are Evil" line rationality takes a back seat when it comes to discussing the issue. Do a search and find out how many times this quote or a paraphrase of it has been uttered: "If we make marijuana legal what's next, rape and murder?" Not only are such statements not unheard of, back in my school days as an activist on this issue I heard it all the time and saw it and similar quotes from legislators all the time. That's how detached from reality a lot of our most highly placed drug warriors are. If someone is willing to equate legally being able to smoke a joint with raping and/or murdering another human being, there's really nothing you can accomplish with that person in terms of debate because any connection to reality on this issue has fled their minds a long, long time ago.

  23. Exactly. The war on drugs rarely has anything to do with the truth. It comes from all different reasons, including racism. Cocaine was banned because white men hated the fact that black men were having sex with white women. The resurgence of the KKK in the early 1900s turned this into law.

    CDB is right about the moral crusade. People didn't like the fact that people were high on heroin instead of high on Jesus. The 1900s was a very strict Christian conservative time. Thats why prohibition for alcohol was made into an amendment. People hated the fact that others took pleasure with narcotics as opposed to religion. It also was a strike against the Catholics who sip wine as the Blood of Christ. Like I said, the KKK was a dominate force in that time and they hated Catholics.

    Besides, the public doesn't give a **** about facts, they care about the sensation. Thats why these scare tactics are continued. What draws Mrs. Soccer Mom to the TV every night isn't the local events but the shocking new discovery of teenagers and debauchery. Where a couple of isolated incidents becomes an epidemic while real problems continue to get ignored.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    The war on drugs happens for these reasons:

    1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.
    would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?

  25. For those who like history, there is a very interesting article here:
    http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...naIllegal.html

    -Tinytoad

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    The war on drugs happens for these reasons:

    1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.

    2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics.

    It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town.

    3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing.

    All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty ****ed up but thats how it is.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Gimpy!
    would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?
    Thousands if not millions of people are dependent on it. At base the war on drugs has led to massive government employment of social workers, prison guards, etc. Anyone receiving a check from the government that works on this issue, directly or indirectly, profits from it personally. Police and teachers as well. It's one of the easiest ways to keep the public frightened, emerse them in a crime wave by making things that weren't and shouldn't be criminal into crimes. A huge percentage of our state and federal law enforcement budgets would not be justifiable if the war on drugs ended, and all those people would need to find jobs in the private sector or find some new hobgoblin to go after on the public dime.

    That's direct profits. An example of indirect profits is politicians using this to scare the public and get reelected. Also using it as leverage in international relations, things like that.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Thousands if not millions of people are dependent on it. At base the war on drugs has led to massive government employment of social workers, prison guards, etc.
    ........
    That's direct profits. An example of indirect profits is politicians using this to scare the public and get reelected. Also using it as leverage in international relations, things like that.
    Have you read Michael Levine's books? He wrote about the phony war on drugs more than 10yrs ago. As a former DEA agent he talks about why the war on drugs isn't working at the street level and why high level targets being left of the hook because the CIA had other plans.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by MarcusG
    Have you read Michael Levine's books? He wrote about the phony war on drugs more than 10yrs ago. As a former DEA agent he talks about why the war on drugs isn't working at the street level and why high level targets being left of the hook because the CIA had other plans.
    I may have, it's been a while since I was an 'activist' on the subject, back in my early college days during the mid 90s. Don't recall reading about CIA involvement beyond any possible involvement in places where we're hitting crops and the like. I don't know that the war is phony beyond the fact that it can't work and was started with less than noble motivations. I'm not much for conspiracy theories as I generally think people are too dumb to keep anything a secret or make any high level conspiracy work for any length of time.

  29. I would like to see someone with a ****LOAD of money challenge any drug being illigal in the suppreme court.

    According to the constitution, somethign is legal unless it presents a "clear and present danger." Drugs do NOT do that, not roids, not coke, not pcp.


    Funny story, kinda...

    For a senior project earlier in the year, I was going to do a study on the benefits (and if there were any, disadvantages) of legalizing several drugs. I had to come after school to talk to my teacher about it, because it was a dicy subject, which is understandable.

    However, she ALMOST agreed to let me do it. Then she asked what drugs I was planning on using in the study. I said coke, she nodded her head, I said heroid, she gave a kinda uneasy nod, but a nod nun the less. After she approved me supporting the legalizing of 2 of the most potent drugs on the earth, I said "anabolic steroids." She gave me the most EVIL of EVIL looks ever, and said I couldn't do the project.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous. .
    They could still make generous salaries... putting the real criminals in jail, such as child touchers.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment

    2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics. .
    This is the abuse of christianity, and people who use the word of god in this manner are phony. Reminds me of the Catcher in the Rye.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment

    It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town. .
    She wants to help the country and her community? GET A JOB. I cant stand soccer moms, especally those who cut you in line because "Oh, im in a hurry."... Long story

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment

    3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing. .
    The government, know what its doing? You cant be serious.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty ****ed up but thats how it is.
    Sadly, truer words have never been spoken. However, we can turn the tables on this. Picture a commercial of a young boy at a funeral, and his dad died buying drugs from a gang that, if they were legal, he could get a Wal-Mart Pharmacy.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 08:11 AM
  2. More war on drugs lunacy
    By lutherblsstt in forum Politics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 01:25 PM
  3. Any of you playing in the WCOOP on Pokerstars?
    By Irish Cannon in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 04:25 PM
  4. Recent development in the war... on drugs
    By spatch in forum General Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-27-2006, 03:13 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 11:51 AM
Log in
Log in