I've said, for thirty years, that the war on drugs will never be won

[demosincebirth]

We waste billions every years trying to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. with a laughable failing grade.
It is same as when we enacted prohibition, the crime rate soared, all due to bootleg liquor. When it was repealled, the crime rate dropped to normal rates.
I'd say to drcrimilize certain drugs and the same will happen. We are just pissing in the wind this "drug war" and wasting billions that could be used for education or some other noble cause.

Your thoughts

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

1. The WOD

was a way of getting money away from the War on Poverty.

[Warpy]

7. It was also a way of locking up minorities

High unemployment and underemployment made them develop an alternative economy, and that meant drugs (among other things). Just declare their economy illegal and lock them up, no more unemployment problem and they won't keep voting for the opposition!

[Zhade]

94. 3 Strikes was a boon for the prison-industrial complex.

NT!

[AngryBrooklynGal]

132. more specifically...

To build on that, the current Prison Industrial Complex, which emerged at the same time as the "War on Drugs" in the early 1970s, ensures a pool of cheap forced laborers (prisoners). The war on drugs has only helped to expand this pool.

[imenja]

2. Does anyone think it can be won?

I doubt it. It's become reflexive. Politicians don't want to appear soft on crime, so they support harsher sentences for drug offenders. Corporations in turn profit from the huge increases of prisoners in their private prisons. Military assistance to Colombia is now couched in terms of the "war on terror." Once leftist guerrillas--communists, maoists, whatever--the FARC are now "terrorists."
Meanwhile, we ignore heroin production from Afghanistan.
I don't believe the government really cares about "a war on drugs."

[demosincebirth]

8. Maybe I asked the wrong question

Here is a better one: should we decrimilized drugs?

[imenja]

12. not sure

Marijuana, sure. The rest, I don't really know if that's the right approach. Certainly I think the focus should be on demand rather than supply. We need to offer drug treatment and job training rather than imposing prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Drug addition is a serious sociological problem that demonstrates a pathology in our national culture, but I don't know how much decriminalization would help that.
How would people obtain drugs? Would police simply stop making arrests?

[demosincebirth]

15. A drug addict would go to a clinic and they would prescribe

the drug that he is addicted to, and he would go fill it at a (clinic) below street price. Or, the State or County could fill it free. We could use the some of the money saved for rehabilitation.

[imenja]

21. New drugs

The problems is that new drugs are being developed all the time. Assume we adopt that policy for crack and heroin users. Kids now make meth, Ecstasy, and various drugs I can't begin to name, in their bathroom sinks. It would be impossible to supply clinics with the never ending variety of new drugs. Obviously American tax payers aren't going to like the idea of paying for that, even if it does save them money.
If the point of that policy is to further treatment, I'm for it. But it is not going to solve drug dependency or the violence surrounding it, because there will always be an illegal market. Perhaps decriminalization is a step in the right direction. It is, however, a very difficult problem.
For me, one of the most persuasive arguments that made me realize I didn't want to engage in even occasional use of marijuana was the connection with violence. All the deaths that take place every day in Colombia and on the streets of our own country are the result of Americans insatiable demand for drugs. I realize that argument isn't persuasive with many, cause people still buy Hummers and SUV's despite the fact that overconsumption of gasoline has lead to thousands of deaths of American soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. So pot grown by some hippie in Humboldt is "connected to violence"

but you have no problem gassing up and driving to the store?

I realize you elucidated that particular objection, yourself, but there's far more blood implied in every gallon of gas than there is in any pot you're likely to smoke.

Lastly, you could make the exact same arguments about Al Capone-style violence connected to alcohol use, or more specifically the alcohol trade, during prohibition. The solution, of course, was to get the violence out of the equation--- by ending prohibition.

[imenja]

32. if you buy it on the street or via a dealer rather than the hippie, yes

and try reading my post before you say "I have no problem" using gasoline.

[aeolian]

34. Then you tacitly admit that it is the prohibition of pot that leads

to violence.

If the hippy growing it is not violent, and neither is the plant itself, then it must be the criminal aspect that leads to whatever violence there is.

[imenja]

37. justification

You seem to be trying very hard to justify your own notions on the subject. I will not help you do that. I shared my own reasons for not using marijuana. Your actions are for you to determine.

[aeolian]

41. No, and look down a few posts, I'm agreeing with you.

I was just trying to make the point that marijuana is not an inherently violent or destructive thing, it is only the societal context into which it is placed that makes it so. Take it out of a needlessly criminal context, and the violence goes away.

I don't think we're in disagreement here.

[imenja]

43. ok

I think I must have confused you with the hippie. Sorry.

[aeolian]

45. LOL! Happens a lot. I'm the only guy at work with long hair.

Drinks on me. :toast:

[mdmc]

35. hippies are dealers

and dealers are hippies that don't like tie dies or the grateful dead.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. I like tie dies and the grateful dead, and I'm a hippie.

But I'm certainly not a dealer. What does that make me?

[OnionPatch]

74. Yeah, me too.

I never knew that hippie = drug-dealer! That's actually pretty insulting to assume all hippies are drug-dealers.

[mdmc]

77. depends on what you mean by drug dealer

All the hippies I know can score. If I ask, they will "deal drugs" to me.
Pharmacists aren't insulted, nor should you.

Are you a hippie without a connection? or without a need for a connection?

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I have never in my entire life sold drugs.

In fact, I'm fairly sure I would score better on an intensive FBI background check in that regard than our current president would.

As someone who strongly believes the government doesn't have any business regulating the private consensual behaviors of adults, I agree with you that calling someone a "dealer" isn't necessarily an insult. It's the broad-based generalization and stereotyping that I find insulting.

I attended somewhere around 3 figures of Grateful Dead shows while Jerry was still alive. My "hippie" credentials are rock solid. Have I done drugs, both legal and not so legal? During my own 'reckless youth', perhaps. But the statute of limitations for any of that behavior is long over, Mr. Ashcroft, and I've been clean and sober for a verrrrrry long time.

So, no, I don't have a connection nor do I need one, not that it's any of your business.

[mdmc]

83. I hear you...

I was just playin'.... didn't really mean anything...
I love hippies... really...

[Sterling]

85. Have you ever bought drugs?

Or helped a friend buy drugs? If so you are a "dealer'.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. No. They were always given to me as an attempt to ply me sexually.

I'm that fucking hot.

[Zhade]

95. Uh, you can't be a dealer if you're the buyer.

Unless you're selling to yourself, of course.

[OnionPatch]

107. No,

but I know plenty of hippies who don't have anything to do with any kind of mind-altering substances for health reasons. Just because they know someplace they could score, doesn't mean they're dealers. My mom knows where she can score, for crying out loud, but she's not going to.

[mdmc]

76. a hippie without a connection

[Warren DeMontague]

56. That's a Govt-spun lie and a Crock, frankly.

Are some drug dealers connected to violence, or terrorism, or al Qaeda? Undoubtedly. Others, I'm sure, are simply businessmen. And, frankly, to lump all "drugs" together in one big ball is pure intellectual laziness. The channels for obtaining northern california marijuana are not going to inevitably be the same as the ones for obtaining peruvian cocaine.

And even if they are, it doesn't change the fact that the way to take the violence out of the equation is to end prohibition, just like ending alcohol prohibition made Al Capone-style booze gangsters and Speakeasies a thing of the past.

And although I don't know if you were addressing me directly, I am not trying "awfully hard to justify" my opinions on the matter. It's been many, many years since I've done any substance stronger than caffeine, and that includes what I consider to be far and away the MOST dangerous drug out there, alcohol. I'm not some stoner who just wants to be able to smoke pot in peace. That said, my knowledge of drugs and what they do lead me to an unshakeable conviction that there is no legitimate logical reason why pot should be illegal. Period. But more importantly, I find the very notion that the government presumes to be able to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do with their own bodies deeply offensive... And it ties into, I believe, the old Western Civilization saw (brought to us courtesy of the Christian Church) that our bodies belong not to ourselves but to "God", and by extension, his representatives on the Earth, i.e. the government.

I noticed you said you were aware of the violence connected to the petroleum trade... However, you haven't mentioned that you ride a bicycle everywhere you go. If you don't want to smoke pot, hey, don't smoke pot- I don't, either. But if on one hand you're going to repeat inane Government Anti-Drug talking points as if they're gospel truth, you should be likewise be prepared to be called on the hypocrisy of taking your car to the grocery store, no matter what you say you're "aware" of.

[imenja]

59. tell that to the thousands who die every year in Colombia

It is we as Americans who are responsible for that. Read my post on marijuana vs. cocaine if you are at all interested in understanding my position.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. If I worked for the DEA or supported criminalization, maybe I'd take

responsibility. As it is,I still happen to believe that legalization/decriminalization would mitigate a great deal of that.

Furthermore, so-called "drug related" warfare and death in Central and South America is inextricably tied into other issues, including the rights of indigenous peoples and much-needed land reform. The problems in those countries go far deeper than whether or not Americans snort cocaine.

I'm glad you are distinguishing marijuana and cocaine, however, your original post had to do with pot.

[imenja]

65. causes of violence in Colombia

Your comment about the "so-called drug related warfare in Central and South America" reveals a level of generalization and misunderstanding that I cannot begin to correct here. I will make only a few general comments about countries other than Colombia. First off, Central America is not in the Andes and therefore does not produce cocaine. Like Mexico, it is largely an entrepot for drugs. Secondly, the political conditions in the two regions are quite different--not that "Central America" is in any way homogeneous. Secondly, "South America is similarly comprised of many different countries with diverse climates and economies. Colombia is currently the nation that suffers great violence related to drug production. Brazil also experiences a great deal of drug violence, but Brazil is a consumer rather than a producer of illegal drugs.
The history of civil war in Colombia is a long, dating from the Liberal-Conservative conflicts of the nineteenth-century and the Violencia of the mid-20th century. This third era is, all experts agree, intrinsically tied to drugs. The FARC espouses Marxist principles, but forsakes every opportunity to implement them. Unlike all but one of the other rebel groups, they have refused to abide by peace treaties. They have become corrupted by drug money and now seem to relish too greatly that wealth. Their kidnapping of the presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt demonstrates their concerns are not with the people. I cannot help but wonder if they may have been paid by Liberals or Conservatives to carry out the kidnapping. I cannot, of course, know that for sure.
Moreover, the AUC--a right wing paramilitary group which has killed far more people than the FARC--makes a tremendous amount of money off the cocaine trade. Unlike the FARC, they don't even pretend to support land reform. Cocaine money pervades the political and judicial system. Only one percent of murders are prosecuted. One of the most dangerous occupations is to serve as a judge who does not take drug money. Honest judges and politicians are assassinated in astounding numbers.
Coca farms are usually not large holdings, which distinguishes Colombia from the kind of concentrated land tenure that characterizes Guatemala and El Salvador. Cocaine farmers tend to be small holders, who naturally respond to the lucrative prices coca leaves yield. Coca, of course, is not cocaine. That is produced by adding to coca paste gasoline, fertilizer, and other foul substances. The traffickers buy the coca leaves from farmers and then make tremendous wealth marketing cocaine to the United States. As exploitive as United Fruit and Colombian coffee planters were, they did not commit mass murder (with the exception of the early 20th-century banana massacre). Political and class conflicts in Colombia have been subsumed to the drug war. The causes of violence are deep, but the current violence is clearly and absolutely tied to cocaine.

Rather than blaming Colombians for importing drugs into the United States as the war on drugs posits, the responsibility lies with American demand. Without that demand, rebel groups and death squads would not have the kind of funds that prompt them to make war and kill peasants, workers, judicial and honest government officials for the sake of wealth itself. The US has militarized the issue by fruther building up the Colombian armed forces to combat drug rebels, and some of that money makes it to the AUC who commits the kind of rampant murder regular military officers will not. To imagine American illegal drug users are not complicit in those murders is to deny what every Colombian knows. It is yet another example of Americans refusing to take responsibility for the kind of devastation we engender around the globe.

Your theoretical position that legalizing drugs would improve that violence might well be true, but in the meantime, cocaine users (and I would add here other illegal drugs users because of the violence surrounding the internal drug trade) have blood on their hands.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. See post #66.

Beyond that, I think that the artifice/racket of criminalization is responsible for the lion's share of the violence. People throughout history, as has been noted elsewhere, have used chemicals to try to alter their consciousness. To exhort them, on a large scale, to "just say no" is like trying to tell people to stop having sex... Good fucking luck.

[Zhade]

96. Stoners who grow their own don't enable the deaths of Colombians.

Nor are those who buy Humboldt or BC weed painting a target on anyone's backs.

Again, as it's been pointed out before, ending prohibition is the way to end the violence. Take the illegal profit motive out, that problem is solved.

[imenja]

101. I agree with that

Most people, however, do not grow their own marijuana. They instead purchase it from dealers who also sell cocaine and other narcotics that enter the country through a chain of bloodshed.

[imenja]

60. by the way

I came to my moral opposition to drugs long before the government ever thought of it. I developed the position as the result of knowledge I acquired teaching Latin American history. I think my posts make quite clear I am more than capable of thinking for myself.
And no, I don't ride a bicycle. In order to teach, I have to drive, in my 14 year old compact, 60 miles on highways were drivers routinely kill cyclists. At 43, I'm not quite capable of doing that every day. Clearly, I lack your moral and physical superiority.
Do what you want with your life, but how dare you condemn me for doing the small amount I can to alleviate mass murder.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. I'm not "condemning" you...

What I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity of the assertion that buying hydroponically grown weed from Northern California or British Columbia somehow finances Al Qaeda. If you think your not pulling the occasional bong is saving lives, hey, more power to you.

But I think it's pretty silly to rant about how people who smoke and purchase pot are "contributing to mass murder" (how about proving it?) and concurrently mention that, yes, petroleum also does the same, but then blow a gasket when someone asks you if you actually drive.

And yes, I drive too. My point wasn't that I'm "morally superior", my point is that calling all pot smokers accomplices to murder, whether you get that conclusion from Government Anti-Drug ads or not, is a flat-out asinine thing to say.

[Zhade]

97. Thank you for maintaining sanity in this thread.

I hear so many people so opposed to, say, marijuana, because it "causes mass murder" (that's more likely heroin and cocaine), yet refusing to see the obvious: make it legal, and the vast majority of the violence will go away, just like the bootleggers did after Prohibition was repealed.

It also kills me every time I read someone who has no problem drinking a beer (a far more dangerous, far less useful thing) railing against marijuana.

[Sterling]

84. Weed dealers are violent?

I'm am sure it could happen but I have never seen that ever. Most weed people I know are the biggest pussies I have ever met. It's when you get into drugs like, speed, coke, crank, H and other drugs that you run into really sketchy people. Even then the violence is mostly connected to crack or at the cartel level, one drug lord on another.


People have some funny ideas about drug culture, especially weed.

[imenja]

87. question about drug dealers

So do street dealers that sell crack and meth refuse for some reason to see marijuana? Or do they sell a variety of drugs?
And do people who sell marijuana on principle refuse to sell cocaine, heroine, and crack? Some may, by my own experience from college says that many do not. I remember the campus drug dealers selling a variety of drugs. To imagine that marijuana is somehow detached from the violent drug trade that pervades American society and beyond doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Please see my comment on post #36 for further clarification on cocaine vs. marijuana.

[Jesus H. Christ]

90. Don't get around much, do you?

The guys I bought weed from bought it from hippies that grew it.

The coffee shop that I frequent sells columbian coffee. Golly Gee Shit, maybe they're connected to violent Columbian rebels.

:eyes:

Honestly, either you must be ninety years old, or eleven.

[imenja]

91. the ugly American

Americans typically refused to acknowledge their own role in causing violence and misery around the world. It seems that you are among them. I suggest you learn something about the impact of cocaine violence on Colombia. In two other posts on this forum (#65 and #36), I have provided some historical and political background to the problem. That I have not bought marijuana in years means I don't get around? If that is your limited conception of education or knowledge, I readily plead guilty. And if, like you, I were to imagine that my own experience were the only one that existed, then I would be profoundly ignorant. Could you really imagine your stoned hippie was the only type of marijuana dealer in America? Did you ask what else he sold? If he sold cocaine or it's derivatives, his pockets were overflowing with blood. It's difficult for me to comprehend that kind of willful blindness to which people cling.
My knowledge does not, at least in recent years, come from buying pot. Instead, I study history. I have traveled around the world and witnessed first hand the devastation American consumption imposes around the world. It's unfortunate you refuse to acknowledge your own role in that despair. A Colombian whose family had been killed by the FARC or AUC would make that quite plain to you.
And we wonder why they resent us?

[Jesus H. Christ]

92. Ironic.

since by supporting the war on drugs you're responsible for that violence.

[imenja]

100. Where did I say I supported the war on drugs?

I do not. Clearly you didn't read the post to which I referred. My point was quite clearly that consumption is the problem. The war on drugs is directed against supply. Violence at home and abroad stems from our refusal to accept responsibility for our own consumption and instead rely on a militarized solution which is ultimately unwinable. You might argue that legalizing drugs would solve this. You may be right. (My own view is that it would ameliorate the problem but not solve it). But as long as drugs remain illegal, consuming them is part of a chain of bloodshed that ensures obscene wealth for a few at the top. To imagine that we, through drug consumption and our government's military response to it, do not play a central role in that problem is yet another example of Americans' refusing to take responsibility for the misery our greed engenders.

[Zhade]

106. Sorry, I disagree strongly.

The problem may be consumption in part, but the real problem is the lack of freedom over our own body to take in whatever substances we choose.

In a way, it's like a woman's right to self-sovereignty over her own body with regards to pregnancy. It might sound odd, but in the end both issues drill down to the individual's right of self.

It's absolutely insane that a substance like marijuana has been illegal since the 1930s in a country whose founding fathers grew and used the stuff themselves. Heck, how do you think they created such a kick-ass system of government (never mind its failure since then)?

The problem is restricting people's right to control their own bodies. Legalization, education, regulation, and treatment for addicts would eliminate the bloated profits, thus reducing the desire to illegally reap those profits, wherein violence is routinely used to ensure "healthy competition".

The answer is to restore people's right to self-regulation, rather than continue to restrict that right in a futile effort to legislate morality. Some drugs have been with us for millenia, and I for one actually consider it a crime against humanity that entheogens are illegal, thus preventing us from further development of our consciousness.

(If that makes me a hippie, well, okay. It's just how I feel.)

[imenja]

120. What is it you dispute? Your freedom over the lives of Colombians?

I frankly don't care what you or anyone else choses to do to your body. I do not dispute any appeal to that freedom, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of human life. Change the drug laws if you feel you can. But in the meantime you must acknowledge that choosing to profit or use through an illegal drug market is part of a chain of violence. That is simply a fact. Now you may feel your own personal freedom to take chemical substances and to violate the law as it exists now are more important than the lives of thousands of Colombians and inner city Americans. I do not.
Grow your own marijuana if you like. But if you purchase through commercial dealers who also engage in selling other drugs, cocaine, in particular, you are part of a very deadly problem.

[Zhade]

124. If I had the freedom, the Columbians wouldn't die.

NT!

[imenja]

125. You think?

We are free to purchase diamonds, yet many people lose their lives because they are mined and sold to the US and elsewhere. You are free to purchase gasoline, yet American overconsumption of it leads to war in Iraq and imperialism abroad.
The problem is not a simple one. Most of us need gas to get to work. No one needs diamonds or cocaine. They are useless commodities which result only in bloodshed.

[Zhade]

130. The difference is that people can grow marijuana and other drugs.

I can't grow a diamond or gasoline in the non-Colombian-killing privacy of my own home.

[imenja]

135. you can grow marijuana

but cocaine isn't exactly "grown." Coca leaves are made into a paste and mixed with ammonium nitrate fertilizer, petroleum, and other foul chemicals. (so cocaine likewise depends on oil). It also can't be grown in the United States. You cannot acquire cocaine without buying it from Colombia, and that is based on mass murder. I don't know what other drugs you "grow." I can't think of any that would be possible besides mushrooms, but I don't claim an extensive knowledge of that subject.

[arcos]

129. maybe that's why it started to fail...

when marijuana was illegalized, people stopped understanding the system of government...

[Zhade]

104. Some do, many don't. It all depends on the person.

From my "wild youth", I can tell you that most of the guys I knew who sold mj did not sell harder drugs.

It all depended on the dealer, their mindset, their reasons for selling. I mean, money was always involved, duh, but most of the guys I knew were not violent and did not want to increase "bad karma" in the world by pushing harder stuff. It clashed with their mindset.

Like those who used drugs, dealers were a lot more complex as individuals than the stereotype pimped by the government.

[Zhade]

98. That's because people are subject to propaganda all their lives.

It's not a surprise. And I completely agree with your post.

[imenja]

102. Docility and imperialism

"Weed dealers" may be typically docile people, but if they also sell cocaine or other illegal drugs, they do so at cost of great violence in Colombia and at home. One does not have to be violent himself to consume something that contributes to that violence. Buying a diamond seems a peaceful act, but chances are those diamonds were mined at the cost of human life. Driving a gas guzzling vehicle may not seem intrusively violent, but it is tied to American imperialism and War in Iraq.
Government propaganda is not the only source for critiquing drug consumption. If fact, the government tells us that suppliers are the problem. We militarize Colombia in a futile effort to eradicate coca production, without recognizing that it is our own consumption that is responsible for the cocaine trade and the horrendous violence associated with it. History and a broad view of foreign relations and social policy are ultimately far more instructive than government propaganda.

[Zhade]

103. As long as you don't conflate the effects of cocaine with mj, we agree.

No argument with what you've said here (the diamond analogy was a good touch). Just that the effects of usage of marijuana, for example, are propagandized.

To eradicate the violence, make it legal and regulated. Let people grow their own. Drug-related crimes will drop instantly.

[imenja]

119. effects on Colombia

None of my comments have been about the mind altering effects of these substances, if that's why you mean. The effects of violence I am greatly concerned with. I have no objection to de-criminalizing or legalizing marijuana, as I have said in a couple of posts on this thread. And if people want to grow their own, more power to them. They do no harm unless their produce enters a wider illegal market. My point was in response to those who claim that purchasing pot through an illegal drug market is somehow separate from the violence of the drug trade at large. (Or that discussing that violence demonstrates brain washing by the US government).
Legalization of cocaine might end or lessen greatly most drug related crimes in the US, but I suspect that would not be the result in Colombia would not be so easy. Still, if that were accompanied by a US decision to stop militarizing Colombia and instead use it's funds for economic development there, it would be a good start. Of course, they could do that even if drugs were not legalizing. Naturally, we expect nothing so rational from Bush. But it might surprise members to learn that Plan Colombia originated in the Clinton administration and that Bush has simply continued it. He has now asked congress to raise the limits on the American troops that can enter the country. The Colombian legislature lifted those limits some time ago. They don't wish to become part of the war on terror, but they are desperate for help to strengthen the state and combat the horrifying affects drug guerrillas have on their nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030818&s=clark

The is a lot available on line concerning Plan Colombia. The Nation article above provides a brief introduction.

[Zhade]

131. You still don't quite get it.

My point was in response to those who claim that purchasing pot through an illegal drug market is somehow separate from the violence of the drug trade at large.

And my points are 1) people should be allowed to grow ANY naturally-occurring drug they want in the privacy of their own home (harm to minors present overruling that, of course) and 2) you are wrong when you state that all who purchase pot are connected to violence.

The purchase is illegal, but not all those who distribute are involved in violence. Some grow large amounts and sell it, completely unconnected to the larger drug world.

Can you agree that this is true? Or do you still claim that ALL who purchase pot are automatically connected to violence?

[Pushed To The Left]

48. Yes!

I think the same can be said for other vice laws as well. Ending prohibition takes the criminal element out of it, and makes society safer. Of course, those who support vice laws don't really care about that as long as their agenda is being pushed forward. There are two types of vice law supporters: Cheap labor conservatives and those who have been misled and manipulated by cheap labor conservatives.

[RC]

28. New drugs age being developed because

they are illegal

[aeolian]

30. no, because people everywhere have always tried to alter their conciousess

throughout history and across cultures.

That won't be stoped, legal or no.

[RC]

31. I would suggest that

you review your drug history. Start with Crack - ice.

[aeolian]

33. Why? What are you trying to say?

And why should I start my history of drugs in the 1980's?

[RC]

40. Crack is a classic example of making drugs illegal spawning

new drugs.

[aeolian]

44. Yes, but legal or no

no one would have made it if there wasn't a market for getting messed up.

My argument was on the demand side. You're talking, I think, about the supply side, in that making things illegal has driven up the prices such that they became extremely profitable to produce.

[BBradley]

108. Crack is not a new drug. It is cocaine. Ice is not a new drug. It is meth.

Crack is merely a very cheap and inefficient cocaine freebase. Ice is a very potent and efficient methamphetamine freebase. These are not new drugs. Let's look at ecstasy. MDMA was first synthesized by Alexander Shulgin working for the government. I guess this might apply to your theory, but the idea was to create and make illegal the drugs before they were discovered and hit the streets. I can't think of one drug that was created solely because someone's drug of choice was unavailable. Drug production will continue illegal or not.

[NuttyFluffers]

127. oh thank god, an educated poster!

was about to throw my monitor after that 'crack - ice' conflation.

if i could, i'd kiss you. you'll have to settle for a :hug:

besides crack and ice were created because the high kicked in quicker, left the target addicted faster, and was substantially cheaper. huge new market opened, with enslaved consumers. just an improvement to the business module to an unregulated business. legalize and regulate it already!

[Zhade]

109. I think I agree with RC. Here's why.

Naturally-occurring entheogens (such as magic mushrooms, marijuana, and salvia divinorum) are indeed used for that reason.

As far as I know, though, man-made drugs are not designed primarily for that purpose. My belief is that entheogens are intended for our (and animal) use, to get more in touch with Nature and remind us to not let Her down. It's not just about feeling good, but also about learning from the altered state.

I don't think crack has the same honorable function. I still believe people should be allowed to consume it if they choose, as long as no one else is harmed (that's the First Law, IMHO, with regards to legalization). But I do think drugs like crack, X, K, and others are sought out for both "fuck-up" potential and profit potential.

[imenja]

42. pure genius

Who knew the problem was so simple? Why bother thinking about effective solutions when you can solve the problem in three words?

[aeolian]

29. I find that argument to be a non-sequiter

Not much pot comes from Colombia. It's grown in back lots and basements all over North America.

If there's any connection between cannabis and violence it is that, being illegal, it is in many (mostly urban) places forced underground, where the violence is in the first place.

I've never seen a stoned person start a fight. Never. I see drunken brawls all the time. And crackheads do some fucked up shit!

[imenja]

36. Cocaine vs. marijuana

My comment about Colombia referred to cocaine. Some marijuana does come from Colombia, but cocaine exports far exceed it. Prior to the early 1980s, that was not the case. The Nixon and Reagan administrations put a high priority on eradicating marijuana crops in Colombia and as a result, cocaine grew in massive proportions. Cocaine is obviously far more lucrative, so the risks traffickers take in exporting it to the US is well worth it to them. The profits are astronomical.
For marijuana, it depends on how one acquires it. If you are buying it through on the street or through a drug dealer who didn't not acquire it directly from the grower, it is part of an illegal trade that is protected and spread through violence. I have no moral problems with marijuana itself. I would advocate it's legalization, but as long as it's illegal, it's sale is connected to violence. (You might note, I will not buy diamonds for the same reasons.) Marijuana is hardly the worst of the American drug problem, but as long as Americans continue to support an illegal trade in drugs, we contribute to mass murder.

[aeolian]

38. Ahh, I see your point

And I agree.

Although I will maintain that, today at least, most marijuana is domestically produced and is only associated with violence because of it's criminality, not the other way around. Even so, legalization would solve many of the problems that you rightly point to.

:toast:

[imenja]

46. hippies

But what would the hippies do then: form corporations and start wearing neckties? :smoke:

You may be right on decriminalization. I'm just not sure. It's probably worth a try. Current policies are obviously not working.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. A Solution for the Colubian Cocaine Violence:

Legalize the stuff, regulate it, and tax the living crap out of it... While allowing American Farmers to grow Coca Plants. (As far as I understand it, the cost to actually produce cocaine is pretty miniscule-- most of the money goes elsewhere) If the government took all that profit and plowed it back into the social infrastructure, and the rest of the money was going to Farmers in the USA instead of South American gangsters... wouldn't that be preferable?

And what is the alternative? To keep locking obscene numbers of people up and spending billions on a "war" that can never be won?

[imenja]

69. American farmers growing coca?

Do you plan on digging up the Andes and bringing them to North America? Coca requires a combination of very high altitude and tropical conditions. So where would you put it? Mount Rainier?


It's clear you chose not to read my other post, the one from which you referred me to yours above. It is difficult to have a thoughtful conversation when you refuse to carefully read posts or respond to points or information provided in them. I therefore will not try to do so any longer.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I'm sure there are other places it could be grown.

Who doesn't read posts? You tried to refute the idea that Texas has some shitty laws on the books pertaining to people's personal lives with some gibberish about Willie Nelson... Why, I'm really not sure.

If the Andes are the only place on Earth that Coca can be grown, then I stand corrected. It seems to me with enough modern technology you can grow pretty much anything, anywhere. Hell, maybe not. I'm hardly the expert on cocaine... However, you're worried about violence, well, drugs are already illegal, and the "drug war" is being waged with billions of our dollars as we speak. The status quo is producing the very violence that has your shorts in a bunch. Therefore, advocating more of the same, as you seem to be doing, isn't really going to clear up the violence, is it?

Beyond that, you seem to think it's the fault of drug users that violence is affiliated with the illegal drug trade, I happen to think it's the fault of criminalization itself. Perhaps what needs to be done is to have legalization in the coca producing nations, as well, so the respective governments can try to regulate and get the criminal middlemen out of the supply chain. Maybe that's not practical, I don't know, but unlike you, I don't think the status quo is doing anyone a whole hell of a lot of good... So, I guess we disagree. Oh well.

[Zhade]

110. I agree - but we contribute more by restricting people's rights.

The number would likely drop waaaaaaaaaaaay down if we moved to legalize - even cocaine.

That would forever alter that equation.

[juslikagrzly]

51. FYI-sort of off topic

most of those who make meth in my little red state are in their 30s to middle-aged. Their kids are usually sitting around hungry, in filthy diapers, or off taking care of themselves. Just wanted to point out that it's not just "kids" making the drugs.

[imenja]

54. suppose your right

the comment was motivated by the fact that few if any of these drugs were around when I was a "kid."

[Bridget Burke]

105. Which of these drugs were not around when you were a "kid"?

Ecstacy? Sure.

But coke, meth & heroin? Give me a break. You gave your age as 43; I'm in my 50's. Trust me, all was not peace, love & flowers in those days. Even if I avoided the worst, I knew plenty of people who did not.

[imenja]

121. new stuff

the purely chemical concoctions. You periodically see them mentioned in the paper, but I don't recall their names. Obviously cocaine and heroin have been around for a very long time, but there are a lot of new illegal drugs being produced. The irony of the drug war is that we could eradicate every coca and poppy plant in the world, and America would continue to have a problem with drug use. It's our responsibility, not Colombians or Afghanis. I'm younger than you, but I never heard of meth when I was in college. that of course, doesn't mean it didn't exist, but I didn't know anyone who used it. Mushrooms used to be quite popular. I don't know if they are any more.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prank Monkey]

80. Mutliple answers

I think decriminalization of certain amounts of Marijuana, and legalization of medicinal marijuana are the only areas where we should consider decriminalization. Perhaps medicinal MDMA if psychological studies -under strict guidelines - can prove that has medical value for people with emotional problems, PTSD, and terminal patients coping with death.

The other road is treatment over incarceration adn the return of judician discretion in sentencing. We waste tons of money on this every year. The result: we grow the prison industry and reduce education budgets.

Other results - racially biased enforcement disenfranchises the black and latino communities at a rate far disproportionate to their rate of drug use, destroying lives, families and even entire neighborhoods.

[serryjw]

22. The CIA loves the increase

of opium production in Afganistan.

[miss_kitty]

3. very similar to

'The War on Terra" and "The War on Crime" and "The War on Poverty". Wrong tactics being used for all. Diplomacy, in concert with education is what's needed. And by 'education', I mean a good, solid, open-to-all kind of education that instills and encourages hope, especially in the hopeless.

On Edit: add "The War on Poverty"

[housewolf]

4. Completely agree with you

We will never win it because some people will always want those substances. As a society we should explore ways to meet that need in legal and safe ways instead of wasting billions of dollars in law enforcement, turning prisons into profit centers and ruining lives with cruel penalties.

[harrison]

5. It is not meant to be won. Too much money in it. As someone

mentioned lot of folks making a lot of money off it.

[LudwigVan]

6. Can you believe TEXAS?

Anybody know what's going on with the proposal in one of the houses of the state legislature to lower the penalties for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana to something similar to a speeding ticket?

I don't know if it'll ever pass (imagine the wrath of almighty DeLay!) but if I had MS or cancer, I'm willing to take that risk.

(I'm new here, and this is probably old news to you.)

[demosincebirth]

11. Welcome, Lugwig

[serryjw]

23. I beleive that is what it is in CA......

n/t

[Zhade]

111. It is. Possession of less than 1 oz. is confiscation and a $100 fine.

That's state law, of course, not federal. Get popped by the feds, considerably worse (just ask the Santa Cruz growers' club, which got raided by the feds even though the group had an agreement with the city and cops not to go after the people growing weed for cancer patients).

[imenja]

58. Texas has a strong libertarian streak

I lived in Austin for about ten years. I know Austin is said to be very different from the rest of Texas, but from what I observed, Texans don't like government on their back in any way, shape, or form. Shortly before I moved to the state, it finally became illegal to drive down the street with a fifth of bourbon in your hand. When I left in 1998, it remained legal for all passengers to drink in the car. I expect that is still the case. In that context, I don't find lessening marijuana restricts that surprising.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Libertarian, My Ass.

Maybe if you want to wave an assault weapon around in public... Maybe you should ask the 2 guys from the SCOTUS Lawrence decision, or the lady in Texas who was arrested for selling vibrators last year, about that "strong libertarian streak" in Texas.

[imenja]

68. ?

Is your goal in life to be as unpleasant as humanly possible?
It would seem beyond obvious to point out that all cultures have contradictions. Write Willie Nelson and tell him how he lacks a libertarian streak.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. What the hell does Willie Nelson have to do with anything?

I like Willie Nelson.

Was he arresting people last year for vibrator possession?

I thought we were talking about the State of Texas, and the laws therein. Silly me.

[Bronco69]

9. We have a cokehead sitting in the oval office today.

If we really wanted to win the WOD I'm sure he could start with the guy who originally sold him his stash and follow the trail backwards.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. This war should never have been fought

Crime rates before the criminalization of marijuana in the mid 30s didn't drop once it was made illegal. They have never, as far as I know, proven that smoking weed causes people to go crazy behind the wheel of a car, like alcohol does. The only reason I see that it has remained illegal is so the government will have an excuse to keep certain elements down and also to help the CIA finanace their little dirty wars without having to go to the government (though the CIA is mostly into heroine and cocaine, I think they might also benefit from importation of pot).

Drug addiction is a medical condition, and should be treated as such.

It makes as much sense to declare war on chocolate addiction and throwing all the chocoholics in jail.

[woofless]

13. Agreed. The so-called war on drugs is an

exercise in racism pure and simple.

[Us vs Them]

14. Funny enough...

I know far more people who claim to be addicted to chocolate than those addicted to marijuana.

Need we even mention caffeine or nicotine? The whole situation is ridiculous.

[RafterMan]

55. Well...

They have never, as far as I know, proven that smoking weed causes people to go crazy behind the wheel of a car

Not until the driver spots a Taco Bell down the block...

[Zhade]

112. SNORT!

Good one. :smoke:

[eek MD]

82. Personally i think they should criminalize caffeine....

Hey, if you're gonna have a war on drugs, why not start with a few stimulants... :) /sarcasm

[ooglymoogly]

16. this is a win win citation for the pugs

huge profits and boondoggles to rw law enforcement

puts mostly blacks and hispanics (mostly dem's) in jail

keeps cheap and uncontrollable drugs illegal at the behest of drug co's

brings huge donations from these drug co's to the pugs

the downside for the pugs; this will go down in history as the biggest sham on the people of the world in history.

[HawkerHurricane]

17. 3 groups benefit from Prohibition

1. Police, including prison guards. More police needed to enforce, which means more promotions and pay. More prison guards to keep the 'criminals' under control.

2. Politicians/preachers. Easy issue to run on. "I'll be tough on crime, especially drug crime!" People who die from drug use will be used as martyrs to the cause, even if they died because of things that had nothing to do with drug use.

3. Smugglers. Illegal drugs are more profitable than legal ones. Smugglers will use some of those profits to buy politicians and reporters to keep it illegal.

All three groups benefited from the original prohibition. They'll want to keep the new one.

[serryjw]

24. $6/hour minority get drug tested

do doctors, nurses any other white collar profession?

[HawkerHurricane]

39. Pilots do.

Although I don't know if they're 'white collar'.

[Sterling]

86. Weed would not be profitable if it was legal.

Not like it is now. It is too easy to grow your own.

[American Tragedy]

18. My research indicates that it's historically based in racism

In fact, I suspect that it still is, though far less blatantly.

[Zhade]

113. Well, yeah. Look to "Reefer Madness" for the obvious racism.

And 3 Strikes for its offspring.

[benburch]

19. A LARGE minority of the American People are drug users.

Imagine attempting to arrest, try, convict, and jail them all.

It would be literally impossible to enforce these laws effectively, and hence it is ridiculous to have them.

You might as well pass a law against suicide, for all the good it would do you.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. It will be won at exactly the same time the "war on terror" will be "won"

i.e. never, although a reasonable truce may be achieved when no one in our society except billionaire corporate CEO's has any semblance of civil liberties left.

Personally, I don't think you can wage "war" on a social phenomenon, and secondly, I don't think it's any of the government's god-damn business what consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies and nervous systems. Period. If people drive under the influence, endanger their children, or steal from their neighbors, those are crimes and should be punished. But arbitrarially turning fifty million otherwise law-abiding pot smokers into criminals is mind-bogglingly absurd, wasteful, and obscene.

From a socially libertarian standpoint, I think all drug laws are a terrible over-reach of power on the part of the government. Realistically, I don't see all drugs being "legalized" amy time soon, but I think the ideal approach would be full legalization of marijuana (no question) combined with regulation and taxation (and feeding of those taxes back into a single payer health care system) and then a "harm reduction" approach, a la the netherlands, towards other, "harder" drugs.

[KingoftheJungle]

27. Without a war on drugs, the CIA would have to find a new way to...

secretly fund government coups at home and abroad. Legalizing drugs also keeps minorities locked up for cheap prison labor and stops them from voting in states like Florida. I think the WOD was the first big step in the government cultural takeover that has culminated to the point it is at right now (police state).

[Pushed To The Left]

47. I agree 100%

Drugs should be treated as a health issue, not a legal one! In this country, people are being arrested for taking their medicine in the name of the drug war. That is how sick and immoral the drug laws are. Here are some very good websites that tell the truth about the drug war.

www.drcnet.org
www.mpp.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.com

I think one reason for the drug laws is to protect the conservative goal of cheap labor. They don't want people getting drugs off the street. Big corporations don't make money that way! They want you to watch those prescription drug commercials and "call your doctor"! Also, isn't hemp also a type of fuel? I don't think the oil companies want the competition! That could be the REAL reason for the hemp laws. The cheap labor conservatives then manipulate the Daddy state, protect-me-from-my-own-weaknesses conservatives into thinking that the drug war is to protect society. The Daddy staters fall for it hook, line, and sinker in the name of their twisted version of "morality".

[Zhade]

114. Add www.norml.org to the list.

NT!

[American Tragedy]

118. I fucking hate the Daddy state people

Just because they seem to think that they can't control themselves doesn't mean that they need to impose upon everybody else.

I do support small government. Very small government. It would start with ensuring that law enforcement would keep their hands off of consenting adults' bodies, minds, and private property. I've always wondered why no Democrat seems to have run on that position. It seems like it should resonate.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. I agree. Seems to me the idea that as a consenting adult,

your body belongs to you- not the church, not the government, not nobody else- should be the cornerstone of true liberty.

Unfortunately we live on a planet that is infested with huge numbers of fucking control freaks.

[Cato1]

133. Left-wing libertanism is an oxymoron

I do support small government. Very small government. It would start with ensuring that law enforcement would keep their hands off of consenting adults' bodies, minds, and private property. I've always wondered why no Democrat seems to have run on that position. It seems like it should resonate.

If we as liberals believe that it's the society's responsibility to help those down on their luck, be it due to drug addiction, unemployment etc., we have to recognize that there's as fine balance between "freedom" and responsibility. People must be helped, and yes sometimes coerced, to make the right decision. Otherwise a cradle-to-grave social safety network is not sustainable. We have enough problems with alcohol and nicotine addiction as it is. Decrimilizing more narcotics makes little sense if we will ever hope to implement a more egalitarian society.

[blondeatlast]

49. Legalize marijuana, tax it like cigarettes.

Fund a universal, single-payer health system with it.

I've never even smoked marijuana, far less anything harder, but the criminalization of it is simply STUPID.

[leesa]

50. It's the same nonsense as the war on communism or the war on terrorism

Just a bogus excuse to overthrow countries, steal other people's resources and sell armaments.

It's just another US government boogieman. They make a lot of money off of these fake "wars"...especially the Bush Crime Family.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. The people who make the most, have probably never seen illegal drugs

The complex network of money.

[DistressedAmerican]

53. Kerry/Snoop Dog '04!

Not mine but, funny.



http://www/seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[InvisibleBallots]

61. Dean should come out strongly anti-WOD

Dean was 100% CORRECT about "medicinal marijuana", to the dismay of potheads everywhere. But Dean should come out strongly for de-criminlization of pot, especially, ending the "WOD" and the wasted money and attacks on our civil liberties that it entails.

If Dean goes strongly anti-WOD and strongly anti-illegal immigrant/Corporate hiring of illegals, not only will Dean win in a landslide, he'll win us Congress for another 50 years.

I never liked Dean much, but as far as I can tell, he's the only one that could pull it off. Not to mention the only one with the *spine* to actually say it in public, except for maybe Kucinich I guess.

[eridani]

73. Kucinich said it in public--

--and was the only candidate to have had the term 'prison-industrial complex' on hiw website.

[barb162]

70. Work at "curing" demand side, US always work on the supply side

driving up the price. Probably the Netherlands model (leagalized, controlled) would work best and be cheapest to the society in the long run. Drugs can't be totally legalized as what would stop some people from taking astronomical amounts, doing harm to others in the process.

[rman]

126. you got it backwards

the WOD is primarily a war on poor drugs users. ie a dealer can get reduction of sentence if he implicates his girlfriend under whos couch the drugs were hidden; she gets 20 years, he's out after 5.

some 70% of the supply is done by the CIA. this has been found by several congressional investigations, Iran-contra amongst others.

see
"Crack the C.I.A."
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7dhyg/slaverevolt.html

www.fromthewilderness.com

and
The war on drugs, part 1 - the winners
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/12490764/
The war on drugs, part 2 - the losers
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/12493841/
(realplayer broadband and narrowband links in the bar on the right)
(Dutch subtitles, mostly English spoken)

[tavalon]

75. Look behind the curtain

it isn't meant to be won and in fact, we are playing both sides.

[corker]

78. as prisons become privately owned

they need people to fill them, what better way than a war on drugs

[Prank Monkey]

81. Political Ends

I think that the one angle we've left out here is the political gain that rural communities that house the prisons gain due to the war on drugs.

In New York, with its strict Rockefeller Laws (which, thankfully, seem to be in decline now as somepoliticians running anti-drug war campaigns are winning elections), cause urban youth to be arrested and shipped "upstate" to prisons.

So what happens then? Well, those districts get more jobs due to larger prisons, more governemnt money to subsidize the prisons, and they also get those inmates counted as part of their population in the census.

The upshot of this is that it is a boon to Republicans in New York, who are predominantly in the rural districts where the prisons are located. The prison population brings in money for their consituents and their district, and the inflated population levels gives them disproportionate representation in NY state politics and in the demarkation of congressional districts.

It's a total scam on the political level as well as being racially biased and draining money away from education budgets.

[Zhade]

115. Great post, welcome to DU!

NT!

[hoi polloi]

89. Big Bidness.

That's what the war on drugs amounts to. It's not to stop the trade that amounts to billions a year in US income. It's just to pretend to stop the war on drugs so the big bidness can go on.
There is no doubt that stopping the traffic in drugs would harm this country's economy even more than the trade deficit, or Iraq. In fact, we need the drug business more than ever.

[Zhade]

93. My thoughts? You're exactly correct.

Too bad even some DEMS fall for the propaganda, ESPECIALLY with regards to marijuana. It always makes me laugh when I read some DUer citing some bullshit "fact" about MJ's "addictive nature" or how it makes people "go crazy".

The "Reefer Madness" DUers are sooooooooooooooooooo Hearst - and so badly misinformed.

[Cato1]

134. The fact that remains...

...an egalitarian society providing a good social safety network is not compatible with the kind "freedom" libertarians like to talk about, especially when it comes to the legal status of narcotics. Civic responsibility is at least as important as individualism.

[MrSlayer]

99. Dead on correct.

Legalize and regulate and remove the criminal element.

[Zhade]

116. And now, a joke to offer some levity!

Q: What's the definition of a libertarian?

A (highlight to see): A Republican who smokes pot.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! :D

[Hippo_Tron]

117. When they start locking up rich white kids for smoking pot

The war on drugs will be over in an instant.

[mvd]

122. Am very anti-drug, but I can see what you mean

Way too many people are in jails for drug offenses. Maybe go after the dealers and not the individual users. But I have doubts whether that will work either.

[NuttyFluffers]

128. the biz is too profitable. control the profits, control the biz.

legalization and regulation is the only option. will it be 100% failsafe? no, but it'll significantly control it to manageable levels.