General Interest > Tacitus' Realm

How Do We End The War On Drugs?

<< < (3/4) > >>

Cayo Hueso:
Yes, that's part of the point.  Remember Al Capone?  He came to power because alcohol was illegal.  The violence that was created by bootlegging is the same as the violence created by the illegal drug trade now.  We've tried prohibition with drugs for how many years now??  Is the drug problem in America better or worse with what we've been doing?  I think it's time we look for another solution cause this one hasn't worked.  I dont' have the answer to what the solution is...that's why I posted the thread.
In war, the stronger overcomes the weaker. In business, the stronger imparts strength to the weaker.
--Frederic Bastiat
--- End quote ---

Anonymous:
The war on drugs began as a way to lock up minorites, asians, blacks and hispanics, particularly mexicans.  Opuates were used by a large number o chinese, and grass was smoked by blacks and mexicans.   Easy way to justify bigotry.

Anonymous:
which terrorist groups are selling drugs in the US? How has the war on drugs detered them? have terrorists been selling drugs in the US since the 60s? when did they take over the market?


http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Drugs.htm

Harsh sentences imprison 683,000 citizens; not drug kingpins
The Drug Warriors will tell you that harsh sentences strike fear in the hearts of America?s drug kingpins. But cases in which a big-time drug dealer receives a long prison sentence are very rare. One-time offenders and innocent bystanders get sentences ranging from a few years to life without chance of parole.
This is not just a technical problem that needs to be corrected. These injustices are inevitable in any plan to prosecute victimless crimes. Without victims to testify, the state must [make offers] to truly guilty people to provide testimony. The drug kingpins have plenty of names to give the prosecutors, and so they obtain reduced sentences. But the low-level drug runner has little to offer-so these people wind up with the worst sentences.

The drug warriors may want you to believe that only drug kingpins go to prison. But in 1998 alone, 682,885 Americans were arrested for possessing marijuana. More than half of the prison population of 2 million are non-violent offenders.

Source: The Great Libertarian Offer, p.102 Sep 9, 2000
We can?t mandate an end to personal tragedies, like drugs
If someone does harm to someone else, he should be prosecuted. It doesn?t matter if he was taking drugs or drinking alcohol or eating Twinkies. If a drug user starts beating his wife, he should be prosecuted. If he does harm to his family, say, by spending the rent money on drugs, that?s unfortunate, but this happens all the time. It is the height of absurdity to think the government can solve these problems. We cannot mandate an end to personal tragedies. There is no simple political solution to these problems; in fact, the harm comes from thinking there is a political way. We?ve tried that, and it fails. Then comes the inevitable escalation, the urge to try something else, until the next thing you know, they?re monitoring e-mail, they?re looking at people?s bank accounts, they?re using informers to ?solve? the problem. Something should be done, say people, but the government can?t fix these problems, and this escalation is inevitable any time you try to prosecute victimless crimes.
Source: Week Online interview (www.drcnet.org/wol) Jul 6, 2000

Drug War makes streets a war zone
I steadfastly oppose the Drug War. I believe it has made our streets a war-zone with innocent bystanders caught in the confusion of drug raids or drive-by shootings and that this war has wreaked havoc on our civil liberties.. I would pardon all federal, non-violent drug offenders because these people are not a threat to anyone and because we could use the space to keep real criminals behind bars so those individuals cannot add to their list of victims.
Source: E-mail correspondence from the candidate Jan 27, 2000

Crime rate soared in 70s Drug War like in 30s Prohibition
Drug use today is many times what it was 30 years ago. The crime rate peaked in 1933 when alcohol prohibition was repealed after a steady rise during prohibition. The crime rate then fell for 30 years until drug prohibition started in the 1960s. Cocaine wasn?t a problem in this country until temporarily the government succeeded in cutting of f the supply of marijuana. When the government temporarily succeeded in getting rid of cocaine, then crack appeared. A new supply will always take its place.
Source: The Alan Colmes Show, WEBD NY 1050 AM Aug 26, 1999

Increased govt monitoring does nothing to reduce drug use
You gave government the authority to [monitor bank accounts] when you said they could search and seize people without a warrant and without probable cause. The government rifles through your bank account looking for evidence with which to hang you. It?s going to be reading your e-mails & taking your property. It?s doing all of these things, & it?s not doing anything to reduce drug use at all. What I want to see is our government abiding by the Constitution, which would end this nightmare of prohibition.
Source: Matt Drudge, ?The Drudge Report,? Fox News Jul 31, 1999

Bank profiles aimed at drug dealers will fail
Know Your Customer is a proposed regulation to develop a customer profile [of] your banking habits. [Since financial tracking began in 1970, the purpose has been] to assure that you don?t deal drugs. Why do such programs fail? Because those at whom it is aimed make it their business to know the regulations and circumvent them. A drug dealer won?t keep his money in the bank -- to have his transactions reported to the government and his assets seized by zealous DEA or Treasury agents.
Source: http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/ ?Your bank account? 5/16/ Feb 19, 1999

Govt has no Constitutional authority to prohibit any drugs
End drug prohibition and the War on Drugs. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to prohibit any drugs. It required a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol (which produced the same explosion of crime that drug prohibition has caused).
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1996, http://www.vote-smart.org May 1, 1996

No funding anti-gang programs; end Drug War to end gangs
Browne does not support harsher penalties for youths; nor prosecuting youths as adults; nor using ?boot-camps? as alternative sentencing for juvenile offenders. Browne further does not support increasing funding for community programs that focus on preventing youths from joining gangs. Instead, Browne would ?end drug prohibition and the War on Drugs, in order to take the profit out of drug-pushing and gang membership.?
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1996, http://www.vote-smart.org May 1, 1996

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/09/0925.html

Anonymous:
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/13507/

Anonymous:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-04.htm

The illegal drugs most favored by American teens are alcohol (illegal until 21), tobacco (illegal until 18) and -- to a much lesser extent -- marijuana (illegal at any age). All three are produced domestically, yet even imported varieties bear scant relation to terrorism. Colombia?s big exports are cocaine and heroin. Fortunately, teen use of those dangerous drugs is miniscule.

Alcohol doesn?t finance terrorism, but it is the drug most likely to kill the teenagers in the ONDCP ad. Hundreds of young people die every year from alcohol overdose, while thousands die in alcohol-related accidents. Because excessive alcohol consumption simultaneously impairs judgment and coordination while reducing inhibitions and heightening aggressive tendencies, it?s a key factor in the leading causes of youthful death -- not just drunk driving, but drownings, falls, suicide and homicide.

Alcohol is a paradoxical drug: It can be used in moderation in good health for a lifetime, but one in ten users becomes addicted, and drinking problems wreak havoc on families.

Alcohol also can be used to bring viewers the Super Bowl: Anheuser-Busch, parent company of Budweiser, the NFL?s ?official beer,? aired more spots (10) than any other advertiser and secured from the NFL and/or Fox the right to be the sole recreational-drug sponsor.

As in past years, hilarious Bud and Bud Light spots blew away the commercial competition. But one thing missing from the ads was a list of ?side effects? likely to be experienced at some point by a minority of users -- you know, the stuff pharmaceutical-drug advertisers are required to include. No mention of ?addiction,? ?cirrhosis,? ?throat cancer,? ?fetal alcohol syndrome,? ?flunking out of college? or ?date rape.?

Nor were those mentioned in any of the commercial-critique segments I saw on cable TV the day after the game. For those who don?t subscribe to cable, ?news? channels such as CNN and MSNBC employ actors, models and the occasional buffoon who sit in a studio and pretend to be journalists. To discuss the Super Bowl ads, these ?journalists? interviewed ad-industry shills who likewise were posing as journalists! Not surprisingly, all participants accepted it as perfectly normal that the NFL and Fox would promote ?America?s most destructive drug? (as former drug czar Barry McCaffrey, in a rare insightful moment, once described alcohol) with ads that never mention the word drug.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page