The War on Drugs is lost

2

Comments

  • jamtemplechains
    jamtemplechains Posts: 117
    baraka wrote:
    It seems to me that the reasons for drug and alcohol abuse are social, psychological, and even physiological. I don't think this is not a problem that laws can solve.

    Until we understand why and can affect the reasons that people desire drugs, nothing will change except perhaps that drug problems will be used as an excuse to eliminate our Constitutional right to privacy.
    yes, read some of the recent posts in the war in the marijuana thread going. i put up a decent post of studies conducted that show how much more complex addiction is than previous decades of thought have suggested.
    Do you see the way that tree bends?
    Does it inspire?
    Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
    A lesson to be applied.

    Best night of my life. . .
    Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.

    myspace.com/justonemorebottle
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    jamtemplechains wrote:
    yes, read some of the recent posts in the war in the marijuana thread going. i put up a decent post of studies conducted that show how much more complex addiction is than previous decades of thought have suggested.

    Very cool, I will check them out....................thanks.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Drowned Out wrote:
    you'd rather pay to send me to jail?

    i wish i could pay to give some people a clue!
    ;)
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    jamtemplechains wrote:
    but if the money that 'fights drug use' just fuels a war between cops and underground druglords--who are responsible for more crimes and distribution of addiction than anybody--than how the hell is that a useful implementation of tax dollars?
    today the government spends between 40 and 60 billion dollars each year on the war on drugs.
    40-60 billion.....if ANYbody in here can convince ANYbody else that this is even close to almost being close to being worth it, they're gonna be one persuasive motherfucker.
    also, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 42 seconds in america. this leads annually to more arrests than arrests for murder, rape, molestation, and aggravated assault COMBINED....good to see the police going after the real bad guys...
    heroin and cociane are cheaper now than in previous decades, yet are more concentrated and potent. heroin and marijuana are as easily available as they were in the 70s. the drug war corrupts police officers just as much as prohibition in the 20's did, and i fail to see how it's not obvious that the government has never been winning this war, is not winning it now, and will never even come close to winning it.
    And you think that ending the "drug war" will cause the drug manufacturers and drug lords to just pack it up and play bocce ball?

    The "bad guys" are always going to be that way. They don't care about anyone but their own pockets. Your life is expendable to them.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    Drowned Out wrote:
    you'd rather pay to send me to jail?
    You bet. If your example of punishment helps save even one teen from starting drugs in the first place.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    jamtemplechains wrote:
    really good point...given the recitivism rate among drug offenders in prison, incarceration obviously does nothing but cost tax dollars so someone can be locked up for a few years before they go back in the streets and use again. tax dollars for treatment plans might actually help people kick addiction and quit using....man....so...obvious..it hurts....
    addiction would only be more prevailent if drugs were mainstreamed. Easy access creates easy problems.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    baraka wrote:
    It seems to me that the reasons for drug and alcohol abuse are social, psychological, and even physiological. I don't think this is not a problem that laws can solve.

    Until we understand why and can affect the reasons that people desire drugs, nothing will change except perhaps that drug problems will be used as an excuse to eliminate our Constitutional right to privacy.
    people use substances as escapeism. Statistics show that drug use is highest among lower incomes and those in entertainment. They mask problems with drugs and alcohol. Education is key to eliminating this. But you have to actually be in school and get support at home for the anti drug message to sink in.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • spiral out
    spiral out Posts: 1,052
    The war on drugs is phoney, it's only there to keep the masses in place, getting them riled up against something. So they forget the goverment isn't spening enough on schools or spending way to much on shit like wars.

    While thier worrying about drugs thier not worrying about the important issues.

    Smoke and mirrors.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Juberoo wrote:
    You bet. If your example of punishment helps save even one teen from starting drugs in the first place.

    There are millions of "examples" behind bars right now...are they 'saving' any kids from drug use right now?
    Don't you think more kids would be saved if addicts had accessible treatment instead of being introduced to real criminals behind bars? If someone is an addict, does his time, gets out and takes up the habit again (if he ever dropped it in jail)...are you saving more teens than you would if that same person was treated and given the tools to kick his addiction? You are also 'saving' the addict instead of putting another nail in his coffin...Not that you care about anyone with an addiction....but wouldn't this person breaking their addiction as a positive example be something worth trying, as opposed to the status quo, which is NOT working?
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    spiral out wrote:
    The war on drugs is phoney, it's only there to keep the masses in place, getting them riled up against something. So they forget the goverment isn't spening enough on schools or spending way to much on shit like wars.

    While thier worrying about drugs thier not worrying about the important issues.

    Smoke and mirrors.

    This attitude bothers me as well. If you want to complain that people aren't doing enough, go after the fuckwads arguing about whether American Idol is rigged, not people that are trying to make positive change.
    There is WAY more to the drug war than a diversion from the war. In a lot of ways, the wars you are talking about are facilitated by the war on drugs.
  • spiral out
    spiral out Posts: 1,052
    Drowned Out wrote:
    This attitude bothers me as well. If you want to complain that people aren't doing enough, go after the fuckwads arguing about whether American Idol is rigged, not people that are trying to make positive change.
    There is WAY more to the drug war than a diversion from the war. In a lot of ways, the wars you are talking about are facilitated by the war on drugs.

    Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.

    My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.

    I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    spiral out wrote:
    Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.

    My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.

    I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
    After I walked away I realized that I may have taken your post the wrong way. I thought you meant that government was using the debate over the war on drugs in itself as a smokescreen...if I'm reading this correctly now, I think you're saying that they are intentionally doing the WRONG thing, in order to keep the public disinformed and keep their black-ops funding alive...which I'd agree with.

    At the time that I read your post, I was thinking about all the people that deride others for actually caring about the issue, when there are (admitedly) bigger ones to worry about (one poster in particular that went from drug-warrior to taking this stance). Just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean this one isn't worthy was what I was trying to say...but apparently I didn't need to tell you that :D
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    Drowned Out wrote:
    There are millions of "examples" behind bars right now...are they 'saving' any kids from drug use right now?
    Don't you think more kids would be saved if addicts had accessible treatment instead of being introduced to real criminals behind bars? If someone is an addict, does his time, gets out and takes up the habit again (if he ever dropped it in jail)...are you saving more teens than you would if that same person was treated and given the tools to kick his addiction? You are also 'saving' the addict instead of putting another nail in his coffin...Not that you care about anyone with an addiction....but wouldn't this person breaking their addiction as a positive example be something worth trying, as opposed to the status quo, which is NOT working?
    that argument is as pointless as saying that the other criminals in jail aren't helping set an example for youth. Jail has a purpose, it is to deter people from engaging in antisocial, illegal or otherwise dangerous activities.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    Drowned Out wrote:
    There are millions of "examples" behind bars right now...are they 'saving' any kids from drug use right now?
    Don't you think more kids would be saved if addicts had accessible treatment instead of being introduced to real criminals behind bars? If someone is an addict, does his time, gets out and takes up the habit again (if he ever dropped it in jail)...are you saving more teens than you would if that same person was treated and given the tools to kick his addiction? You are also 'saving' the addict instead of putting another nail in his coffin...Not that you care about anyone with an addiction....but wouldn't this person breaking their addiction as a positive example be something worth trying, as opposed to the status quo, which is NOT working?
    remind me again why I should have to "save the addict"...he got himself into that predicament in the first place by taking his first hit.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    spiral out wrote:
    Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.

    My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.

    I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
    There would be no need for drug programs to detox and alleviate addiction if people would simply listen to the anti drug information out there. But instead, people have the attitude "no one is going to tell ME what to do" and then engage in drugs and get hooked. It really is pretty simple, but then again, I suppose were dealing with less than par mental faculties anyways. Taking drugs, smoking and drinking to intoxication are obscenely poor choices that one makes in life. It isn't like the information isn't out there. If such things didn't effect the rest of society as a whole, then I couldn't care less if you indulged and wasted your life away. But because it does have resilient consequences for all, it is my concern what you do.

    As for the war on drugs not winning....remember not too long ago....oh lets see now, just in the past five years was it?.....that smokers got all high and mighty that the ban on smoking would NEVER happen because it infringed on their constitutional rights to fuck up their lungs. But hey, guess what.....YOU CANT SMOKE IN PUBLIC ANYMORE!
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    oh...and guess whats on the horizon. You're going to lose your health insurance benefits if you smoke or do drugs. Chew on that one awhile. HA...the war on drugs is stronger than ever...and you're being forced to retreat.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Juberoo wrote:
    that argument is as pointless as saying that the other criminals in jail aren't helping set an example for youth. Jail has a purpose, it is to deter people from engaging in antisocial, illegal or otherwise dangerous activities.
    Who is it deterring? What don't you get, ANYONE that wants to do drugs can...
    The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.
    Juberoo wrote:
    remind me again why I should have to "save the addict"...he got himself into that predicament in the first place by taking his first hit.
    hmmmm....compassion? empathy? nah, fuck them...right?
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    It's not really "lost", it's just that fighting drugs and drug abuse is not what the "war on drugs" is. The war on drugs is just another form of social control. That's it. And it works extremely well, unfortunately.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    Drowned Out wrote:
    Who is it deterring? What don't you get, ANYONE that wants to do drugs can...
    The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.


    hmmmm....compassion? empathy? nah, fuck them...right?
    yep
    it isn't a medical condition that requires compassion...they did it to themselves....it could have been avoided.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.
  • Juberoo
    Juberoo Posts: 472
    Drowned Out wrote:
    Who is it deterring? What don't you get, ANYONE that wants to do drugs can...
    The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.


    hmmmm....compassion? empathy? nah, fuck them...right?
    its as stupid as saying we should have compassion and pay for government fat farm assistance to people who have massive heart attacks and are grotesquely obsese from eating fast food all the time. Would you pay for that out of your hard earned tax dollars? I think not.
    Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.

    A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.

    Pro-life by choice.

Categories