Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Cayo Hueso on June 28, 2004, 01:13:00 PM
-
http://www.drugactionnetwork.com/essay/ ... =endthewar (http://www.drugactionnetwork.com/essay/?content=endthewar)
Once we understand that the War on Drugs is an abject failure, the question arises, what can we do? What is the solution for ending the drug war?
The answer is very simple. The core issues of crime and other social ills of the drug war come directly from the black market, not the drugs themselves. The black market is created by, and in fact encouraged by, the socio-economic effects of prohibition (called the "War On Drugs").
As a result, the cure can only come by ending prohibition. But ending prohibition does not mean a sudden "free for all" of "legalization".
When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage). It also placed the methods of regulation for sale to the public largely in the hands of local and state governments, where it rightly belongs.
As a nation we are a very diverse culture. The values and cultural heritage of the east are different from the south and are quite different from the values of the west. The result is that federal level recreational substance laws fail in their ignorance of underlying social issues that are highly variable across the nation.
In other words, each state and locality should be afforded their own means of dealing with issues relating to drug abuse.
Thus, ending drug prohibition will be handled much like the end of alcohol prohibition - with the strict regulation and taxation of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of recreational substances.
The model of alcohol
For instance, comparative analysis of even the most pessimistic studies of marijuana show it to be safer and more benign than alcohol. Therefore it's easy to see marijuana regulations mirroring those for beer and wine.
Hard alcohol is regulated more strictly than beer and wine, and certainly there are substances that should receive stricter regulation than marijuana. Soft drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy), Psilocybin (Mushrooms), and Peyote, would need stricter regulation - along the lines of hard alcohol, which has significant restrictions on public use and distribution.
The very hardest of recreational substances, (i.e. the drugs with the highest physiological addiction rates, such as cocaine and heroin), would be regulated and distributed only by the government and directly to users. This distribution would seriously undercut, and virtually end, the black market for these drugs. This would greatly discourage the creation of new drug addicts.
It's important to consider this last aspect of ending prohibition most thoroughly. It is the demonized "hard drug" user that the prohibitionists point to when declaring that the drug war must be continued.
In reality, that demonization is no more warranted than that attributed to those that abuse alcohol. About 10% of the people that use alcohol use it abusively. This minority of abusive users is echoed by other substances as well. Depending on the substance, only 5% to 15% of the users develop abusive use habits. This means that 85% to 95% of users use recreationally, responsibly, and without developing abuse problems. (as a side note, marijuana and soft drugs see the lower, 5% abuse issues, while substances like heroin and cocaine tend toward the 15% abuse rates).
Ultimately, demonizing persons with abuse problems is faulty logic. These negative stereotypes do not assist the problem user, regardless of if the drug is alcohol, cocaine, or heroin. The fact that the vast majority of users are responsible, recreational users is a clear indication that the problems of drug abuse are not due to the drugs themselves, but due to individual problems with a small minority of people.
What is most telling though is that the RAND corporation's studies have show that education and treatment is 7 times more effective than criminal interdiction (and demonizing) at reducing the problems associated with drug use and abuse.
7 times.
That's a savings of 700% over our current expenditures, and for a more effective program. Yet we do not spend our drug war money on education and treatment - we spend it on law enforcement and prisons - to the tune of 100 billion a year.
It's illustrative to show the results of policies in Amsterdam and Switzerland, where heroin addicts are given heroin virtually free. The result is that the heroin black market has ceased. A further result is that the addict population has stopped growing - in fact they have a 3rd the percentage of addicts as we do in the U.S. And perhaps most important, the other social ills - related crime, spread of AIDS, and health issues from tainted supply - have vanished, making their society safer and healthier overall.
In closing then, the answer is straight forward, but with variations to accommodate the significant differences in various substance use and abuse potentials.
End the black market by ending prohibition.
Regulate the manufacture, sale, and distribution of soft substances using the alcohol model.
Use taxation, and spread the revenues so generated to education and treatment efforts.
Provide addicts with clean supplies to demolish the black market, and greatly increase the availability of treatment options for them in a non-criminal setting.
This is the common sense, humanistic, and moral approach to dealing with our nation's drug problems. And until we accept this approach, our entire society will continue to suffer the failures of this war against our own people.
Sincerely,
Andrew Somers
President
Drug Action Network
If you think about why you hate me, you might find that it's not me.
--Antigen
-
I find it difficult to believe that an intelligent person wrote that! My good freind has two teenaged sons addicted to oxycotin. They have both stolen from their parents, neighbors, ect. Basically it has ruined their lives. Synthetic heroin. I think if we put everyone caught dealing these most addictive drugs in prison for 35 years, with no chance of parole, is THE ONLY WAY to stop this epidemic. WHO CARES IF PRISONS ARE OVERCROWDED. If it is such a problem, I say BRING ON THE DEATH PENALTY. :tup: Why allow murders and rapists to use OUR TAX DOLLARS for their care. Over crowding will no longer be an issue.
-
It's not just about prison overcrowding. Prohibition has not worked. It didn't work with alcohol...can you say Al Capone?? It's been in effect for how many years now with drugs?? Is the problem getting better or worse with the current method of dealing with it??
The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali
-
If you belive that legalizing something and taxing it will stop funding all the terrorists I think you should just go live in the Eastern culture then. Over there.
-
Shit, I just want to grow my own. As would most Americans.
-
Then legislate it and vote on it.
-
:smokin: It is legal now to discuss this with your Physician if you are havin difficulties. I don't mind home-grown good smoke myself. Just don't get caught up in crime, it never pays off in the end.
-
Talk about anything you want with your doc. Patient confidentiality is a wonderful thing!
We need cops.
We can't live without 'em.
But they need to start working for us....
That's no longer an option.
They've pushed it.
They've gone to far.
They've just gone to far.
Tom Crosslin
-
On 2004-07-19 03:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If you belive that legalizing something and taxing it will stop funding all the terrorists I think you should just go live in the Eastern culture then. Over there."
I never said if I was for legalizing or not, just posed a question as to how we deal with this. Prohibition, in my opinion, is not working and never has. Your solution is to just build more jails......doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, that's an emotional reaction, not a real solution.Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul alike.
-- John Muir
-
:smokin: This all might be true and probably is, but why the War on drugs? There must be a bigger reason for it politically also. I believe if you support illegal drug use you enhance more street violence and do support terroist wih the profits they do make for them.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://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/ (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 (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 (http://www.vote-smart.org) May 1, 1996
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/09/0925.html (http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/09/0925.html)
-
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/13507/ (http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/13507/)
-
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-04.htm (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.
-
http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html (http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html)
The CIA's Drug-Trafficking Activities
The CIA, Cocaine Smuggling at Mena and the Train Deaths
Mind Control and the CIA's Use of LSD
Ralph McGehee and CIABASE
More about the CIA
Links to Further Documents Concerning the CIA
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/quotes.html (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/quotes.html)
The CIA and Cocaine: Some Quotes
"I have put thousands of Americans away for tens of thousands of years for less evidence for conspiracy with less evidence than is available against Ollie North and CIA people. . . . I personally was involved in a deep-cover case that went to the top of the drug world in three countries. The CIA killed it."
? Former DEA Agent Michael Levine
CNBC-TV, October 8, 1996
--------------------------------------------------
"The connections piled up quickly. Contra planes flew north to the U.S., loaded with cocaine, then returned laden with cash. All under the protective umbrella of the United States Government. My informants were perfectly placed: one worked with the Contra pilots at their base, while another moved easily among the Salvadoran military officials who protected the resupply operation. They fed me the names of Contra pilots. Again and again, those names showed up in the DEA database as documented drug traffickers.
"When I pursued the case, my superiors quietly and firmly advised me to move on to other investigations."
Former DEA Agent Celerino Castillo
Powder Burns, 1992
-------------------------------------------------
"The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:
Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the Contra movement.
Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations.
Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers, including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers.
Payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."
Senate Committee Report on Drugs,
Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
chaired by Senator John F. Kerry
---------------------------------------------
"I really take great exception to the fact that 1,000 kilos came in, funded by U.S. taxpayer money." ? DEA official Anabelle Grimm, during a 1993 interview on a CBS-TV "60 Minutes" segment entitled "The CIA's Cocaine." The 1991 CIA drug-smuggling event Ms. Grimm described was later found to be much larger. A Florida grand jury and the Wall Street Journal reported it to involve as much as 22 tons.
The smuggling of tons of cocaine into the US by the CIA has thus (in 2001) been common knowledge for at least eight years, despite the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. government allegedly to combat the import of addictive drugs. What is going on here? Is it possible that the U.S. government wants to keep addictive drugs illegal so that street prices remain high ? so as to maximize the profits from its covert trafficking in these drugs?
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/fifty.html (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/fifty.html)
Celebrating a Golden Anniversary:
50 Years of Drug Dealing by the CIA
PART I. THE HELLWELL DYNASTY
or HOW BURMA GOT ITS START
Various News Sources
It's generally agreed that 1996's biggest news story was Gary Webb's San Jose Mercury scoop that ghetto drug dealers claim none other than the American CIA to be their supplier!
http://www.serendipity.li/wod.html (http://www.serendipity.li/wod.html)
Why the "War on Drugs" Persists
Clearly the unstated aim of the federal government of the United States of America is the attainment of total control of the Earth, including all its material resources and peoples, by economic, political and military means. The achievement of this requires the expenditure of vast amounts of money over several decades. A major part of this money comes from covert U.S. government trafficking in illegal drugs, primarily the addictive drugs cocaine and heroin. U.S.-sponsored world-wide drug prohibition, a.k.a. the "War on Drugs", is primarily a tactic to keep street prices high and profits astronomical, regardless of the huge social and personal damage done. U.S.-sponsored drug prohibition will continue until either the U.S. attains its aim of complete military and political domination of the Earth (which is still some time away, if it ever happens) or the junta which rules the U.S. and which aims at total control is removed from power. Only an alliance of anti-fascist nations, and sustained resistance by people who value their freedom, can prevent the subjugation of the Earth to those intent on controlling and exploiting it. Repeal of the laws, and of the U.S.-imposed international treaties, prohibiting possession and sale of drugs which are presently illegal would remove the enormous profits derived from wholesale illegal drug trafficking and cut off a major source of the money required by the U.S. for the achievement of its aim of total world domination. Obviously the U.S. will never repeal these laws and treaties, so it is up to the other countries of the world to do so, if they value their sovereignty, freedom and cultural tradition.
----------------------------------------------
Covert government by defense contractor means corrupt wars of conquest, government by dope dealer. When the world's traditional inebriative herbs become illegal commodities, they become worth as much as precious metal, precious metal that can be farmed. ... Illegal drugs, solely because of the artificial value given them by Prohibition, have become the basis of military power anywhere they can be grown and delivered in quantity. ... To this day American defense contractors are the biggest drug-money launderers in the world. ? Drug War: Covert Money, Power and Policy, p.318.
America, with less than 5 percent of the world population, has a quarter of the world's prisoners. There are six times as many Americans behind bars as are imprisoned in the 12 countries that make up the entire European Union, even though those countries have 100 million more citizens than the United States. Our jails and prisons have become the 51st state, with a greater combined population than Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota. ? Editorial, San Jose Mercury News, 1999-12-31.
In August [2000], the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that the number of men and women behind bars in the U.S. at the end of 1999 exceeded two million and the rate of incarceration had reached 690 inmates per 100,000 residents ? a rate Human Rights Watch believed to be the highest in the world (with the exception of Rwanda). ... The unrelenting war on drugs continued to pull hundreds of thousands of drug offenders into the criminal justice system: 1,559,100 people were arrested on drug charges in 1998; approximately 450,000 drug offenders were confined in jails and prisons. According to the Department of Justice, 107,000 people were sent to state prison on drug charges in 1998, representing 30.8 percent of all new state admissions. Drug offenders constituted 57.8 percent of all federal inmates. ? Human Rights Watch World Report 2001: United States