War on Drugs = War on Terror

[KensPen]

We have declared a War on Drugs many years ago....
We have spent billions (a guess) on fighting drugs...
We have mandatory jail sentencing...

and what have we gained?

In my opinion nothing.

Personally I don't do drugs, but from what I can tell it's just as easy now to score some, as it was all those years ago.

Fighting drugs has only served to raise street prices and therefore profitability. Has caused corruption in the institutions designated to fight it.

And it seems that we are fighting terror in this same blind supply sided fashion.

Bush's big oil ties won't even allow him to look at the Saudi's with the guilt they have on their hands. Money is effecting this administrations policy, and we are spending money and accomplishing nothing.

[sweetheart]

1. both wars have and will fail miserably

50 years of drugs war, hundreds of billions spent... what have we to show for it? Higher addiction rates, drugs everywhere and millions of americans criminalized.

Not to mention that the "legal" drugs industry of alcohol and tobacco has killed hundreds of thousands through far more dangerous substances.

The drugs money spent is a subsidy to suppliers to keep prices higher by the risks involved in supply. Where one mushroom is plucked, another drugs dealer mushroom grows in to the missing space.

Worst yet, the people most likely to be targeted are poor and disenfranchised people, most likely liberal people as well... so the policy is actually to disenfranchise liberal voters... it is a political war waged on false pretense.

I'm sick to death of being criminalized for smoking cannabis when a drunk driver slovenly ignorant has stolen the presidency through criminal means. It is wholly hipocritical.

The wars should be ended tomorrow, and drugs treated as a medical and personal problem, as like alcohol addiction, drugs addiction can be very damaging, and is best handled by medical professionals.

by legallizing drugs, we can increase tax revenues, end all drugs deaths from overdoses, end the spread of AIDS and Hepatitis-C through needles and generally save the society billions of dollars.

Bottom line, to support the drugs war is to support negligent homocide of every person who dies of overdoses and AIDS... as much as the hipcrates claim to be waging a war for their kids, in fact it is a war of brutal repression to kill the disenfranchised.

The republicans are sick fucks... and so are the democrats who support the evil war on the downtrodden. I'm for war crimes trials for all the avoidable overdose deaths. Its time the scumbags paid for their crimes against the people.

[el_gato]

2. war is the gravy train of the super rich

always has been

[Gringo]

3. Of course they are equivalent

They are both fake money pits, useful to the government as propaganda tools and as a way of justifying whatever excesses they like.

If not one penny were spent on drug enforcement, and drugs were decriminalized, the number of drug users would NOT go up all that much, especially if there were enough opportunities for the lower classes to have hope for a future. If crack were suddenly legal, would YOU go out and try it? I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

As for terrorism, it's like crime- a fact of life we will have to learn to deal with. You can't declare war on it because it is not a country. Reasonable measures should be taken, but we have to face up to the fact that there wil probably be an attack of some sort every now and then.

Many more people die in car crashes than in terror attacks, and I haven't seen anybody declare war on cars.

[HFishbine]

4. And

it has resulted in the imprisonment of people for health issues (addiction) rather than true criminal activity.

[KensPen]

6. At the risk......

Of getting stoned (pun intended)
I actually liked Nancy Reagan's "Just say No" campaign.
Drug use will only successfuly be addressed on a demand side fashion.

Republican's are so very concerned with Style over Substance that they would rather fight it and lose, than to legalize it, tax it, educate about it and win.

[mdmc]

7. Drug pushers are scumbags

The 80's GOP mayor campaign slogan from my town. 7 years ago, her son was busted with a pound of crack. The war brought jobs at the expense of freedom.

[democratreformed]

5. Glad to see someone bring this up.

This is my opinion as well. As a matter of fact, in my neck of the woods, I feel like the drug problem is much worse than it has been in several years.

It has been one of my fears from the very beginning that this silly war on terrorism will be lost just as we are losing the war on drugs. If the war on terrorism actually serves to make the problem worse (as I feel it has done with drugs), that really scares me.

I feel like we just can't afford NOT to take another look at the war we have declared and decide on a better way to handle it.

[sweetheart]

8. Threads like this sink like lead

because it is percieved by folks as identifying democratic supporters with licencious behaviour, and though many here oppose the WOD, openly expressing it is sorta frowned upon, as better to speak about things that will win an election... in some people's eyes.

... just i'm sick of paying taxes, or being obliged to pay them to pay for some police prick to tap my phone to decide if i'm a cannabis smoker.... and the sicker i get of it, the more nader-like you make me... greens exist because democrats repress the left.

[KensPen]

9. hmmmmmmm

I was raised like a veal calf,
and haven't lived too wild since adulthood....

So I haven't tried drugs,
and I haven't ever visited a prostitute,

so my behavior is actually a lot better than the Conservative fountains of value.

however,


I am all for legalizing morality crimes. Much more good can be done if it is legalized and regulated than demonized and forced underground.

Prostitution is "the worlds oldest profession" so why pretend we can legistlate it away?

[sweetheart]

10. Honestly? Corrupt election districting.

The gerrymandering has made almost all but a small handfull of american electoral districts non-competetive. The result of that is that the incumbent party always wins, and thus has no incentive to be moderate, as the voices that nominate are those radical activists of the party, not the center... so teh result of noncompetetive districting is radical politics of the right... and how a small myopic minority of people with no direct experience of drugs or their real-life consequences define policy for the majority.

"the economist" described american democracy as similarly competetive with north korean democracy due to the gerrymandering... its pathetic.

The second issue is whether we are responsible for our behaviour. This issue (a libertarian one) is that drugs use is 100% the responibility of the drugs-consumer... not the dealer. Given that i am no deemed 100% responsible for taking cannabis these last 24 years, that a dealer "pushed" it on me.... then its an excuse to criminalize the supply chain, when in truth, IIII am responsible.

The american courts have undermined the sovereign indivdiual and weakened the basis in law for sane policy.

Same with prostitution.

We need desperately campaign finance reform to end the ability of Bushaviks to purchase policy, and a major end to corporate personhood, AND a legal turnaround on individual's responsibility in society. We are not victems... we choose our destiny... and we are free to change our choice. Like drugs addiction, no victem... choice.

[uncle ray]

11. we need more straights to come out

and denounce the war on drugs, problem is, it's like homophobia, but drugphobia, nobody wants to be associated with the cause, those that get involved do so because they HAVE to. they get forced into activisim because they have had their vote silenced by felony busts, etc. very few drug warriors have not been busted at some point.

we need a large number of non drug using people to speak out that they see only the harm of the drug war as it is, not the harm of the drugs.

[maxsolomon]

12. all drugs are drugs.

"Personally I don't do drugs, but from what I can tell it's just as easy now to score some, as it was all those years ago."

you mean you don't do ILLEGAL drugs.

part of our hypocrisy is that the part of the population that doesn't smoke pot thinks they don't "do drugs", when they drink, smoke nicotine, pop pain killers & antibiotics & every manner of pharmacological drugs for real or imagined ailments.

otherwise you are correct, i just get annoyed at the "i don't do drugs" preface that everyone tacks on to validate their argument.

I DO DRUGS.

[KensPen]

13. Fair enough

I am a social Drinker,
I don't smoke anything,
and am leery of any medicine stronger than aspirin.

I put my use of illegal drugs into my statement only to emphasize that my opinion is not based upon a desire to more safely or easily obtain my drug of preference.

[sweetheart]

14. The pathology of the statement...

my opinion is not based upon a desire to more safely or easily obtain my drug of preference.

What is wrong with wanting public safety to supervise the quality of a drug you take regularly? There is no moral conundrum... it is clearly wise and wholly healthy that we should ensure that supplies are safe, properly dosed and hygenic.

As for ease of supply. I once waged a bet with a friend that i could fly in to any country and obtain cannabis and get stoned in 1 day. So far, i'm 100%... with canada, USA, britain, holland (of course), germany, belgium, switzerland, spain, italy, mexico, india and denmark.

You must be talking about some other country. There is no moral high or low ground in your statement. That you indicate to "us" that you think there is, is interesting programming from your past "anti-drugs" education.

The whole foundation of the drugs education is based on fantasy, but moralism it is not.