Do You Believe it's Possible to Ever Win The War Against Drugs?

[Uncle Joe]

Poll question: Do You Believe it's Possible to Ever Win The War Against Drugs?

If you do believe it's possible, please list the necessary circumstance required to convince you the war has been won.

[Dark]

1. You can if you do it smart: Focus on prevention and treatment, make the drugs legal

and stop locking up minorities for stuff that shouldn't be a crime.

So, of course that won't happen.

[eShirl]

3. But then it's no longer a "war on" drugs, now is it?

[Dark]

49. Good point. But there's more important things to war on anyway, like terrists ... and more oil

Wait, that's a war FOR oil.

[leftofthedial]

8. make drugs legal!?!?!?

That's SURRENDER in the WAR ON DRUGS!!!!

What are you, French?




:sarcasm:

[Dark]

51. What? No, I'm not french! I love America! Go Red White and Blue! These colors don't run!

Go USA! Get a brain, morans!

[Mr_Monday]

9. Or perhaps

try to stop those individuals from committing the crimes in the first place.

[Dark]

50. True. After all, how many alcoholics do you know who've robbed a bank to fund their addiction? n/t

[ixion]

34. nope, not even doing it "smart" will make a difference...

drugs have been a core facet of human existence longer than just about anything else, including language.

[Dark]

48. It would make a very big difference, as treatment has been shown to be cost-effective

in helping reduce crime and, it turns out, helping people quit.

Doesn't work for everybody, but it's better than what we got now.

[HughMoran]

2. Not only is it not possible, but the "war on drugs" is counterproductive

Throwing people in jail for long periods of time neither cures them from their drug habit (or addiction) nor makes them into law-abiding citizens.

[Flabbergasted]

5. How many get drug in just because it's illegal?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Yes.

I think the Drugs won.

:thumbsup:

[shain from kane]

6. There is such a huge diverse population. How can you control everything?

Each person has his own choice, be it Miller, Bud, Coors, vodka, whiskey, gin, and all those different brands.

[JFN1]

7. Why doesn't the war on drugs include alcohol?

Lots more dangerous than many illegal drugs...

[Deep13]

14. More dangerous than marijuana. Don't know about most of the others.

It doesn't include alcohol because of its wide use. Only "losers" do pot, but everyone (almost) drinks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Almost everyone does pot.

We don't have a war on alcohol because we already lost that one.

[Deep13]

28. That is a bit of an exaggeration.

I don't know anyone who admits to it. I have never seen (or smelled) it in use since that time I visited Clark University in the 1980s. I know people use it, but I don't think it is as ubiquitous as you suggest.

As a side note, I think marijuana shows great promise as a nausea control drug for cancer patients.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. OK, it's an exaggeration.

50% of everyone admits to it.

"As a side note, I think marijuana shows great promise as a nausea control drug for cancer patients."

It showed promise 20 years ago when the FDA approved THC to control nausea in cancer patients.

[MagickMuffin]

56. A lot of good Marinol will do ya, if you are nauseated and can't keep the pills down

I had a very close friend who died from AIDS. He told his doctor that he used marijuana. She told him that was probably what was helping him stay alive, and that he probably would have died a lot sooner if not for the fact he smoked pot. She prescribed Marinol for him. He informed us that it was NOT as effective as pot.

When he was dying in the hospital and unable to eat, Marinol would not have been something that helped in his case.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. We even can't outlaw cigarettes. How can we abolish anything?

Smokers are the biggest victims of killer drugs. Help them first.

[Deep13]

11. Possible, but the cure may be worse than the disease.

If we are willing to allow our lives to revolve around enforcement of drug laws including spending gigantic amounts of money keeping even more Americans in prison, then yeah--we can have a nearly drug-free society. The real question is are we willing to endure that solution? I'm not. I don't thing marijuana is sufficiently dangerous for that kind of effort. Also, everytime a cop makes a marijuana bust, he is wasting his time by not pursuing dangerous street drugs or other crimes. "Sorry I was not there to stop your rape, but I was busy confiscating a pound of grass." Besides, every cop on the street is a threat to your liberty.

[Irreverend IX]

12. The only way to win is not to play.

Prohibition never works. Attempts to legislate morality are responsible for nearly all organized crime and the hatred and distrust many citizens feel toward law enforcement. If drugs, prostitution and gambling were legal across the country, regulated and taxed at a sensible level, the criminal enterprises that have sprung up around these industries would instantly shrivel and die.

[hobbit709]

17. You got it

The Mafia was a bunch of penny-ante street thugs until prohibition got them into big-time money.

[ixion]

36. spot on

:applause:

[KG]

13. time to start treating addictions as a public health issue and not as crime

[Deep13]

15. I think it has to be both.

Most illegal drugs are dangerous. I know others say it is governmental over reaching, but I think cocaine, heroine, PCP, probably LSD and meth are to dangerous to allow.

[Blashyrkh]

19. They are dangerous because...

...they are being made in unsafe, dirty places by junkies from common household chemicals. Are you suggesting that a government designed, manufactured and controlled form of cocaine, heroin, PCP or LSD is going to be anywhere as dangerous as something made in a basement?

[Deep13]

24. Well no, the impurities are very dangerous.

Of course these days heroin is cheap enough to be mostly free of them. What does that say about our enforcement efforts? Heroin is now safer than materials previously used for diluting it.

[Odin2005]

27. BS, those hard drugs are INHERENTLY dangerous.

This isn't weed we are talking about here, we are talking about nasty stuff.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. If they were inherently dangerous, they wouldn't be available via prescription.

[Deep13]

38. That's not true. Look at chemo drugs.

Opiates are available by prescription to control serious pain. Their use is supervised by someone who is not actually using them. Even then, heroin is not available as a prescription.

I'm aware of one lawful use for cocaine: as an optical anesthetic for surgery.

The rest of them: PCP, meth, LSD, crack--there's no medical use for any of it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. PCP's a tranquilizer, anasthetic.

It was used medically for awhile, discontinued as there were better alternatives.

As was heroin.

Methamphetamine is used medically today to treat ADHD, nacrolepsy, and obesity.

Crack is cocaine.

Granted, there is no use for LSD.

[Mythsaje]

52. Actually, LSD started out as a psychiatric drug...

And could probably still be of some value in that area.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. I thought it started out as a CIA weapon.

Tested briefly as a drug, but abandoned.

But I really know little about it.

[Mythsaje]

57. Well, I know the CIA did experiment with it...

But it showed great promise in some areas of psychiatric work. Guided "trips" could easily be used to get at deep-rooted psychological issues. I imagine it could also be used as a hypnotic as well, but that's just conjecture. I don't know of anyone who's ever done that.

[MagickMuffin]

53. You are wrong about LSD

LSD has been used experimentally in the treatment of alcoholics and psychiatric patients.

Cary Grant used LSD for his personal growth, this was when it was legal, before the feds had their way with rescheduling it as dangerous.

http://www.carygrant.net/autobiography/autobiography14.html#lsd

There is a lot to still learn from LSD. Unfortunately, it has been a slow process trying to get the DEA to relinquish its hold on the drug.

Most of people's information about LSD is propaganda fed to them by the DEA.

[Mythsaje]

55. Indeed.

There's actually some evidence to suggest that ecstasy could be used in a similar fashion, if they'd just let them.

[MagickMuffin]

59. MAPS is still trying to get fed approval to experiment with certain psychedelic drugs

We assist scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana.

check it out here:
http://www.maps.org/

They even had a open program for Iraq war vets with PTSD. I don't know if it is currently still open to applicants but I think it would be beneficial for their recovery. It sure would be interesting to follow those results.

[Blashyrkh]

37. Why?

Why are naturally occuring substances so inherently dangerous? Why aren't other naturally occurring substances as equally dangerous? Is honey inherently dangerous?

Weed = Marijuana Plant
Cocaine - Coca Plant
Heroin/Opium - Poppy Plant
LSD - derived from LSA from the Baby Woodrose Plant

Do you think the danger has something to do with the garbage that is added?

Furthermore, if you consume enough of ANYTHING your body will overdose from it. Why isn't alcohol added to this list of inherently dangerous things? Why do we allow people to consume so much alcohol their body is poisoned to the point of unconsciousness? Why do we allow people to eat food to the point of damaging their health.

You know what? Life is inherently dangerous. Get a helmet and stop ruining the fun for the rest of us.

[Deep13]

41. Natually occurring things can be dangerous.

Why don't you add hemlock to the list.

I don't really have time to go tit-for tat here. I'm sure there is plenty of material available that indicates the medical consequences of drug use.

[Blashyrkh]

46. Sure, I'm not really familiar with it, but why not?

But whatever, I'm not going to discuss medical consequences and uses for drugs. I have no interest in that. I'm far more interesting in drug use relating to Shamanism. The use of drugs as a stepping stone to the wonders of the mind and the reality of the universe rather than something to escape those things. That's where my interest lies, not with medical garbage and certainly not discussing psuedo-fascist concepts like banning things.

If drugs are bad because they are inherently dangerous, then life is bad because life is inherently dangerous.

[hobbit709]

20. Drinking too much water can kill you too.

[Deep13]

26. Um, why yes it can.

:shrug:

[Irreverend IX]

58. Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than almost any illegal drug...

Meth and possibly crack are the only exceptions. Lots of people do ordinary cocaine without destroying their lives. Heroin habits can be sustainable as long as a person gets regular doses, which would be easy if it was legal, and heroin users are non-aggressive to say the least. Hallucinogens like LSD are among the most harmless of drugs, with no addiction potential at all and very little connection to violent behavior. Alcohol, on the other hand, has a strong connection to violence and recklessness and is the only popular recreational drug that kills brain cells and has lethal withdrawal symptoms. Nicotine is the most addictive of all drugs, and smoking leads to a horrible lingering death. The negative impact of alcohol and nicotine on society is orders of magnitude greater than that of all illegal drugs, and it would still be so even if all recreational drugs were legalized.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Exactly nt

[Old and In the Way]

16. When you have DC-9's marked up with DHS logo's, carry coke by the tonnage,

I think it's safe to say that the war on drugs is designed to keep the price's artificially high. There's way too much money to be made on this war...like the GWOT.

[Iggo]

It's not a war on drugs.

It's a war on drug users.

[galileo3000]

18. I support a Drug-Free America

Free Drugs would really help.

[Mr_Monday]

21. Here's a thought:

Wouldn't BushCo want us to use drugs? After all, they do satiate and pacify the individual, thereby keeping the peace and social order intact. Think "Brave New World"...

[flashl]

23. No. Stopping the drug war will negatively impact the economy. n/t

[terrya]

25. Fuck no.

The pathetic "War on Drugs" was lost a long, long time ago. Time to end this ridiculous charade.

[ixion]

29. people have used drugs, in one form or another, for thousands of years

we are hard-wired to seek to alter our reality. It's not evil, just human.

No, there is no way to a) get all people everywhere to never use drugs; and b) win ANY war against a noun.

[SecularMotion]

31. Sure

Shut down the CIA.

[Oeditpus Rex]

32. Only if the warriors start calling it what it is:

The War On Drugs We Can't Make Any Money Off Of.




Edit: Drug warriors have atrocious grammar.

[Skarbrowe]

35. There are "some" governments that make money from

selling drugs and want to keep a certain part of any population in a stupor. And I'm not talking about Afghanistan. The War On Drugs, oh let's say in the U.S. and U.K. is a farce.

[Rex]

39. There is no war on drugs.

That was one of the biggest lies ever sold to the mass consumers. Just like the Cold War, alot of fuss over nothing. Good way to make money for big contractors of the military.

[polichick]

45. Also a big excuse to toss black and brown people in jail...

While well-to-do white folks get plastic surgery on their coked-out noses.

[catnhatnh]

40. I voted other....

...it's like asking "can you win a war on the sky?"....You may ignore it, extol it, or pour billions into attacking it, but until you recognize the nature of the question and the unending quality of the thing attacked then you are merely framing a debate on the wind...

[MagickMuffin]

43. When Timothy Leary testified before congress, he warned about the dangers

making the drugs that were "legal" such as LSD and making them "illegal" would be a bad mistake. He warned them about the dangers of the "black market" trade. He warned them that the users wouldn't know what they were taking.

His warnings went in one deaf ear after another and they did what he warned against. Congress rescheduled perfectly "legal drugs" and made them "illegal".

So, most of the drugs that were legal in the 60's are now illegal and as a consequence (Tim was right) no one knows what they are ingesting.

Could the drug war EVER be won?

No, there is way to much money to be made just the ways things are now. And with Blackwater USA entering the war things will only get worse.

[polichick]

I don't believe in having "wars on" anything. nt

[napi21]

44. I'm surprised the foolishness lasted as long as it did! The people

years ago apparently WERE smarter than they are now. At least they figured out that it was stupid to try to outlaw alcohol! All this dumb ban on drugs is doing is making it VERY PROFITABLE to sell them!

[wildbilln864]

60. The war on drugs isn't supposed to be won......

only sustained. :eyes:

[Throd]

61. We have a winner!

[Initech]

62. "It's not a war on drugs. It's a war on personal freedoms." - Bill Hicks

[XemaSab]

63. If the borders were shut down tomorrow

limiting imports of cocaine, heroin, and their derivatives from other countries people would still find ways to get high.

Meth, peyote, shrooms, acid, pot, exstacy... impossible to stop.

[L. Coyote]

64. If we do, can we claim all the oil?

[CANDO]

65. No. But it works wonderfully for the Prison Industrial Complex.

eom

[Perry Logan]

66. Not without some serious editing of our chromosomes.

[deutsey]

67. No, just like you'll never win the "war" on terrorism or poverty

That's the problem with "declaring" war on these abstractions.

What we need to do is re-define our efforts against drug abuse, terrorist actions, and poverty so that we understand we'll never "win" a war against them; instead, we have to diligently work to counterbalance and offset the conditions/realities that create these things.

There will never be a day with these "wars" when there is dancing in the streets like they did on VJ day because we defeated them. Poverty will always be here...we have to find ways to make our economic system more equitable and just. Drugs will always be here...we have to find ways to make sure our societies and cultures address our deep human needs for meaning that transcends materialism and our failed religious institutions. Terrorism will always be here...we have to find ways to give people as much of a stake and participation in the political/economic/social structures of a society as possible.