Will a Democratic president ever end the failed, deceptive War On Drugs?

[Zhade]

(Or, to be more accurate, War On Non-pharmaceutical Drugs.)

We got the Marijuana Tax Stamp nonsense under a Dem, and escalations of the rhetoric and lies about drugs (especially the beneficial marijuana plant) under both liberals and conservatives.

IIRC, Kerry had a semi-common-sense approach to the issue regarding marijuana, but it wasn't what I'd call enlightened by any means.

Will a Dem prez ever concede that, for example, marijuana's placement on the Schedule I list is itself based on the lie that marijuana is a narcotic? Will a policy of harm reduction, rather than prohibition, ever be implemented? Is there an end to the WOD in sight within our lifetimes, or will the lies ("marijuana is harmful", "MDMA eats holes in your brain") continue to enable law enforcement to fill more prisons with nonviolent drug "offenders"?

I am of the belief that drugs should be legalized and regulated, or at the very least decriminalized. I believe you cannot truly be free if you do not have control over your own body - in a way, it's related to the self-sovereignty concept of women controlling their own reproductive issues. In my mind, if you're not harming others (such as dependent children, or other drivers on the road, or whatever) then you should be able to do what you wish to your own body.

Do you see the return of self-sovereignty in our future? Will a Dem help facilitate that return? Do you have hope for that restored liberty, or do you feel, as I do, that nothing will change until necessity demands it change?

[Mythsaje]

1. Bill Clinton left office with the comment

that marijuana should be legalized.

Nice to know he thought so, after it was too late for him to do anything about it.

The WOD is one of the areas where I think BOTH parties are fucked in the head.

[Zhade]

2. Yeah, the timing was suspect.

Seemed more like a "legacy" comment than anything else.

[SOS]

16. Good old Clinton

Notice that under Bush Sr. in 1991 there were 280,000 arrests for marijuana.
In 2000, Clinton's last year in office, there were 750,000!

Clinton presided over the biggest increase in marijuana arrests in US history.

Anything he says now is irrelevant.

[Warpy]

3. The only things that will end it are massive civil disobedience

combined with challenges that go to an HONEST Supreme Court, something we won't see until the conservatives all peg out.

I think the civil disobedience will come with the total collapse of the health care system and the need people will have to relieve their pain enough that they can just keep working, whether or not they can afford to treat the underlying cause. We're headed in that direction.

The problem with the drug war is that it's very popular with suburban parents who are terrified their kids will discover drugs if they're legal. Well, folks, those kids are going to discover them if they go looking for them, and there's not a damned thing you can do to stop it. The drug war just ruins their lives if they get caught.

Personally, I think the notion of a victimless crime has to be thrown out completely: no victim, no crime. It can be argued that selling psychoactive substances to kids under 16 harms them, so there may be a way to restrict substances enough to make conservative suburbanites happy.

The drug war is certainly incompatible with a society that prides itself on freedom. It has to end. We're entering a period when civil disobedience by orndinary people who can't affod health care will be the norm. That will start the demise. They can't jail us all.

[Zhade]

5. That's how I feel about the hemp issue.

As we run out of cheaply-extracted oil, and forests, we'll HAVE to switch over at some point.

I think both will be legal in my lifetime - the question is, will America fall first, or will we be smart and save ourselves through a new commitment to civil liberties, honesty, and all those good things?

[Mythsaje]

6. What they have to realize is that the drug war

has INCREASED the availability of drugs for kids. Stuff like meth is all over small-town America because it's just too goddam lucrative an industry.

And the only way I can see to do anything to prevent the kids from getting something like pot is to restrict its sale just like alcohol. In the hands of the black marketeers, it's available to anyone with the money to buy.

SOME conservatives get it. A LOT of (not very visible) liberals get it. The whole war has been a failure. Period.

[Lefty48197]

22. I envision large groups of the "green panthers"

going into bars and restaurants and all firing up at once. In the smoking section, of course. Will they kick everybody out? What about those that have ordered food, but haven't paid?

[acmejack]

4. Too much money to be made.

The dishonesty which pervades our political system says NO. The desires of the People are subjugated to the desires of those who profit from these stupid wars, be they of the ideological or the shooting variety. It just doesn't matter to these clowns what we want. They will care however in about two or three months, they will care a whole lot and they will care deeply, and then after the eighth of November they won't give a fuck for another two years, etc, etc...

[Asgaya Dihi]

7. Change will come from the bottom, not the top

I do worry about the concern with marijuana, seems an awful lot of activists would be happy to see that legal and let the rest of the drug war go on. Problem is that most of the damage is caused by the way we deal with other drugs and it's no more successful for them than for pot. As it stands now we aren't any closer to ending it than we were the day we started and in most respects the damage has climbed in spite of or in many cases because of our efforts. We aren't getting rid of it, so we're left with a choice of who can better protect our kids. Us with regulations and rules, or the street dealer selling to whoever he feels like selling to?

I look at it kind of like the fight for civil rights. Even with an administration in power (Kennedy) who was sympathetic they had a hard time getting change started till the streets were filled with protesters and the feds had to step in to stop what could have turned into a riot. Once it got going momentum helped but the start was tough. The government didn't lead, not either side, the people did. That's where we are today.

Want to end this? Make it ok to talk about it outside of safe circles of sympathetic people, do our part to get the public conversation started. Not just about one drug but about the failure of the whole effort. Step by step with the people in the lead, that's the only way it'll ever change. If we're waiting for the government or the courts our grandchildren will still be fighting this.

[Zhade]

9. Great points!

NT!

[The_Warmth]

8. No Dem or Rep

An end to the WoD is one of the last subjects either party is likely to touch for a long time. Simply, bigger things are upon us. If and when the WoD stops, it will be after a massive restructuring of our society.

But, yes, with enough public support it would be changed. The revenue from legalization of marijuana alone would be around $14 Billion+. The midwest hemp industry would be an unbelievable success.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html - Report on the revenues from mj legalization

If we truly want to win this battle, it must be recognized for what it is, an information war. The facts for legalization are so clear and defined, while the claims against it are weak or fabricated. The bond between pharms and the hill must be severed for this to be possible. Let's get to work!

[Asgaya Dihi]

11. Simply, bigger things are upon us?

That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the war on drugs, it is the biggest thing but it's so spread out that people don't connect the dots.

Terrorism a problem? How are they funded? In 1998 the UN estimated the illegal international drug trade at about 400 billion dollars or roughly 8% of all international trade. That finances everything from the people we're fighting in Afghanistan to Columbia to who the hell knows where, as well as financing the corruption of our own police and judiciary. Lots of dots to connect there if we think about it, both in the costs we absorb and in what we inflict on other nations that doesn't come home directly but shows as rebellion and such there. Letter in the right hand column refers to the stat.

http://www.dpft.org/voices.htm

How about poverty, the number of single mothers and kids raised with no chance at an education, and so on? Maybe we can add the growth of gangs to that. Think this stuff might have something to do with it? Use a little imagination and consider the impact of these numbers on the neighborhoods hit, on the families, on their chances of ever improving their lot in life.

http://www.prisonsucks.com/

To make that slightly more clear, some numbers. "Mandatory sentencing laws disproportionately affect people of color. African-Americans make up 15% of the country’s drug users, yet they make up 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense."

http://www.idpi.us/resources/factsheets/mm_factsheet.htm

And we've done it for what? Cocaine deaths are up by seven times since the late 70's or early 80's, seven times. Heroin deaths are up by a similar amount, we've got new types of drugs that didn't even exist before such as crack and old types that found new uses such as X. Lifetime use is up, that leaves us with more knowing what drugs feel like now than ever and more die from it. Prices haven't been hurt, with some such as heroin it's a fraction of what it used to be, and more pure. Talk about a bargain.
Drug death trends
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/drug-death.htm
Drug use trends
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/nsduh.htm
Drug prices
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/prices.htm
Drug purity
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/purity.htm

This costs us tens of billions a year just in direct costs, plus the costs of fighting those we arm, plus the cost of dealing with the poverty and crime caused by it, and the loss of a hell of a lot of income and the production from the lives ruined by this policy. There's well over 2.2 million people in custody today including juveniles, and several times that number who have been in and out or who carry other scars.

I don't want to write a book and I'm sure with a little imagination we can fill in gaps I left here, but I'm serious as a heart attack. We have no bigger problems, and a lot of our smaller ones are just aspects of this one. We need to connect some dots for people and deal with this.

[Terran1212]

14. Kucinich has expressed support for ending WOD

[rock]

10. Politicians of all ilks get a lot of mileage from the WOD

"We're losing the WOD, so we've got to spend more money."
"We're winning the WOD, so now that we've show that it works, we need to spend more money."
See?

[0rganism]

12. I doubt we will see an end to the drugwars in this century

With respect to Marijuana in particular, the government has too much of a stake in continuing prosecution of cannabis to give it up now. They've invested billions in anti-pot propaganda, and dropping it from Schedule I status would be tantamount to admitting that they lied all along, compromising the entire campaign. Won't happen.

You will see the federal government collapse entirely before it stops throwing people in jail for owning dried cannabis flowers and the plants that produce them.

[spag68]

13. WOD

I've read all the threads, and I see one thing everyone missed. The rethugs have a huge number of guards and other workers at prisons, who will always vote to continue to lock up people to safeguard their jobs. Then there are the corporations who run the prisons and contribute huge amounts of money to the rethugs. They will try to maintain status quo for their own interests.

[deadcenter]

15. you'll need more than

just the right president in office. you'll also need a house and senate more interested in change than they are in pandering to a vocal minority and a pharmaceutical industry that's only interested in keeping people on prescription drugs.

[Zhade]

19. Ah, true that.

NT!

[porphyrian]

17. They better if they want to serve in office for long.

[BayCityProgressive]

18. No one will end this WOD

and it doesn't matter how many people protest it...they still won't end it. Protests have never mattered for anything else, why would they matter fo rthis? If anything the drug war will be stepped up to intervene in Latin American countries that are trying to break from our control. I do actually think that something needs to be done abotu the issue. I was reading a while back that the drug lords basically own Mexico and many police are killed there by drug lords transporting their toxins to our country. Pot, I agree, should be legalized. Do we really want coke, heroin, ect to be legalized though? I think that is a slippery slope. I think these people should get treatment not jail time. Legalizing it though would not fix anything.

[Asgaya Dihi]

20. Actually, yeah it would.

Latin America is working pretty hard to throw us off, a good part of that is due to the drug war. I just posted a link about prison riots in Brazil in another thread and if you visit http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/archives.shtml and browse their archives we've had several recent international conferences working on options and solutions. That's a part of what drove Mexico to consider legalization, and a part of why Chavez is restricting cooperation with us. They are sure they can do better on their own.

As far as making a difference, of course it would. I posted a number of links above showing how we've made things worse, now here's a taste of how we make it better. What part of this isn't better than we have now? Done with heroin at that, if we can regulate that we can do anything.

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm

Hard core addicts only, given all the heroin they want so they don't have to steal and don't fill our prisons. The main results were these, and at a fraction of the cost of what we're now doing. Legal doesn't mean free use, it means regulated, in our hands rather than those of criminals. How we regulate is pretty much up to us, there's no reason it even has to be allowed advertising or other marketing. We just drop the prisons.

* Sharply reduced criminal behavior by participants.

* The ability to stabilize many addicts at a low enough level so they can return to normal work. Legal employment rose sharply.

* No overdose deaths among participants in five years.

* Major financial savings in reduced costs for health care and policing.

* Marked decrease in drug use and a small but significant number who progressed to abstinence.

* Homelessness among participants was virtually eradicated.

* The illegal markets were deprived of a portion of their normal customers and profits. But only wide scale expansion could make this a major blow to the cartels.

* Concerns about doses escalating out of control proved to be unfounded, and most participants achieved stable doses in 2 to 4 months.

[porphyrian]

24. Legalization takes the drug business out of criminal hands...

...because no one has to deal with them once they are legal. Besides, half if not more of the cost of drugs relies on them being illegal - if they're cheap, criminals will just move to drugs that are still illegal and thus profitable. Legalization also allows them to be regulated (and taxed) by the government, like tobacco and alcohol. There are even more reasons, but I can't think of them all at the moment.

[corbett]

21. No Republican Ever Will! A Brave Dem Could And Should But I Don't See It

Until we get a Democrat in the White House who eschews all corporate money and runs wholly from the grass roots (no small feat), it won't happen. Keep your fingers crossed!

[Orsino]

23. Not until the media get behind it...

...and shout down the inevitable "Democrats think drugs are good" talking point. Like they won't do on abortion.