1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 11:02 pm
I wonder how many peope think this money is well spent?
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
What do you think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 11,165 • Replies: 152
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 06:46 am
It is a war managed by incompetents for idiots.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 08:12 am
It's bullshit.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 09:29 am
Re: What's your take on the War on Drugs?
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I wonder how many peope think this money is well spent?
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
What do you think?

How much of that is being spent on tracking down and capturing bongstar? I'd be willing to contribute $20 to the cause.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 09:50 am
inane
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 09:57 am
What war? The same people fighting the so-called war create as many adicts as they jail.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:16 pm
Re: What's your take on the War on Drugs?
joefromchicago wrote:
How much of that is being spent on tracking down and capturing bongstar? I'd be willing to contribute $20 to the cause.
Who is bonstar?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:42 pm
I wish the government would get out of everyone's personal business. If someone wants to smoke, snort or stab themselves into oblivion, it's their problem.

If drugs were made legal, business would start selling them. The prices would go way down. Therefore, there would be fewer people who would steal to get money for drugs.

Would drugs ruin some lives? Of course. But so does smoking, drinking, and eating like a pig...............would you like the government to regulate those things too???
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:43 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Who is bonstar?


Joe likes to rag him:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=462180#462180
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:46 pm
I think the war against drugs is money well spent.


Just kidding! It will take brave politicians to turn the tide on this boondoggle...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:13 pm
Craven, thanks for the clarification.

Phoenix: In an increasingly familiar trend; I agree with you completely.

I don't believe it is possible for the government to save people from themselves. I support the Baker act and other such provisions toward that end, but don't think limiting the masses' freedoms is justified in working towards that goal. I once read a paper called Love and Addiction http://www.peele.net/lib/laa1.html that argued convincingly that there is little difference between Drug Addiction and Co-dependence. The paper cites literally dozens of studies that convincingly prove that "one man's poison is another man's cure". Some studies have even shown that doctors who use heroin, can be better adjusted and more productive than their sober counterparts (hard to believe, but convincingly illustrated).

Across the board legalization would indeed take the profit out of street dealing and eliminate the associated violence that comes with it. Those that would commit crimes to obtain money to buy drugsĀ… already do. I would bet that no person reading this is more than 3 people removed from a source of every drug they want anyway. I challenge anyone to cite a study proving marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or Prozac, let alone Oxy-Contin. With good insurance and knowledge of requisite symptoms, there isn't much your average person can't obtain from their doctor. Statistically speaking, the dangers inherent in riding in an automobile dwarf the dangers associated with drug use. Consequently; the "we must protect people" argument is fatally flawed (pun intended).

If it is the children we are trying to protect; the results are laughable. Currently, I'd wager my kingdom that your average 15 year old has an easier time acquiring illegal drugs than those twice his age. Now, take a look at the same equation referencing the laws and campaigns designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol or tobacco by minors. These laws and campaigns have been proven effective.

I further believe that the taxation of these products would more than cover the cost of treatment for those who were interested. It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land. Will we ever learn?
0 Replies
 
GeorgeT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:32 pm
The addiction to drama
is a wonderful tool that organizations can use
for influence and profit. Excitement makes anyone just go along.

So if there wasn't a War on Drugs,
we'd create a catchy slogan and nice-sounding cause
and create war on something else instead.

Wherever there's a method to gain power, people will grab it.
As far as wars go, the War on Drugs is more flexible and useful against people,
and less visibly harmful than most. Still a good pork-barrel, so I guess it's going well.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:39 pm
Don't know about the war on drugs, but I don't see legalization happening, at least in the sense of over the counter sales at 7/11 stores. Effective inhalants for congestion are prescription sales, and someone's expecting to see heroine and cocaine sold over the counter?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:51 pm
Quote:
. I support the Baker act


Occom Bill- So do I. The Baker Act is meant to deal with people, who through mental illness, incapable of making their own decisions.Therefore, the state must come in an obtain treatment for that person.

Quote:
. It is the intent of the Legislature that treatment programs for such disorders shall include, but not be limited to, comprehensive health, social, educational, and rehabilitative services to persons requiring intensive short-term and continued treatment in order to encourage them to assume responsibility for their treatment and recovery. It is intended that such persons be provided with emergency service and temporary detention for evaluation when required; that they be admitted to treatment facilities on a voluntary basis when extended or continuing care is needed and unavailable in the community; that involuntary placement be provided only when expert evaluation determines that it is necessary; that any involuntary treatment or examination be accomplished in a setting which is clinically appropriate and most likely to facilitate the person's return to the community as soon as possible; and that individual dignity and human rights be guaranteed to all persons who are admitted to mental health facilities or who are being held under s. 394.463. It is the further intent of the Legislature that the least restrictive means of intervention be employed based on the individual needs of each person, within the scope of available services.



Link to Baker Act
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:53 pm
Take the space out of your URL code, Boss . . .

Link to Baker Act
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:54 pm
Setanta- You're too fast for me!!! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:55 pm
Don't be tellin' my sweetie pie i'm fast . . .


Shocked
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:57 pm
What war on drugs?

In the United STates, at least, there is no war on drugs. It's all bullshit. There is a concentrated war on our civil liberties masquerading as a war on drugs. The more money we spend on interdiction of illegal substances, the larger the pool of addicts becomes. It's something like the says of Prohibition, when nearly everyone became a drunk. Even people who disliked alcohol drank because it was 'cool' to protest the ban on alcohol. So today we have school children snorting cocaine and smoking marijuana because it's 'cool.'

And, as someone else has already pointed out, if the government suddenly abandoned its so-called 'war on drugs', it would have to find some other imaginary menace to wage war on. ('Terrorism' anyone?)

Unfortunately, Roger is also right, I fear. I don't see anything being legalized in the forseeable future. The Federal government is even fighting the medicinal use of marijuana in those states and localities where local legislation would permit. That, I submit, is unconcionable and goes far beyond the powers which the Constitution intended to invest the Federal government with.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 10:17 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't believe it is possible for the government to save people from themselves.

Sure it is. It happens all the time.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Some studies have even shown that doctors who use heroin, can be better adjusted and more productive than their sober counterparts (hard to believe, but convincingly illustrated).

Bill, the day that you insist that your surgeon shoot up with some smack before operating on you is the day that I'll believe this statement.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Across the board legalization would indeed take the profit out of street dealing and eliminate the associated violence that comes with it.

And legalizing contract killings would take the profit motive out of murders-for-hire.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I challenge anyone to cite a study proving marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or Prozac, let alone Oxy-Contin.

Even if you're right, so what?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Statistically speaking, the dangers inherent in riding in an automobile dwarf the dangers associated with drug use.

Absolute nonsense.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If it is the children we are trying to protect; the results are laughable. Currently, I'd wager my kingdom that your average 15 year old has an easier time acquiring illegal drugs than those twice his age.

You value your kingdom cheaply. But even if you are correct, certainly you're not suggesting that, because some laws are difficult to enforce, they should not be enforced at all?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now, take a look at the same equation referencing the laws and campaigns designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol or tobacco by minors. These laws and campaigns have been proven effective.

The laws designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by minors are prohibition laws, not deterrence laws. Your argument, then, supports similar prohibitions on drugs.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I further believe that the taxation of these products would more than cover the cost of treatment for those who were interested.

Will those taxes pay for your health care after your heroin-addicted surgeon botches your operation?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land.

You need to broaden your circle of acquaintances.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 10:24 am
Joe

This is one issue on which we are 180 degrees out of sync.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » What's your take on the War on Drugs?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2021 at 04:54:46