Billions of USD spent on the "War on Drugs"...

[Dr. Woo]

...and what has it done?

More teens are saying there are drugs in their schools, and those who have access to them are more likely to try them, said a Columbia University survey released Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/08/18/teens.substance.abuse.ap/index.html

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

 

[///M]

Oh, haven't you heard? People high on drugs are immoral, rude, and potentially dangerous. The DEA is still peaching the same nonsense they did during Reefer Madness, but without the racist overtones. Gone are the days of the savage negro, now it's replaced simply by the savage youth.

Look at the people who pushed this policy to the forefront, Nixon and Reagan. Nixon, I don't even have to mention this man's resume. Reagan, I believe, is the devil on earth. His wife is the biggest, hypocritical, piece of shit, on this planet. When Satan himself died, and stem cell research could have saved them, they forgot all about the life of cells. At the same time, you have millions of people that can live regularly every day through medical marijuana, but that will probably never happen because the "Just say no" campaign was so succesful.

 

[Dr. Woo]

Nixon, I don't even have to mention this man's resume.

Well allow me one guilty pleasure...this is a man who said, AND I QUOTE, "A person doesn't drink to get drunk."

Oh man.

 

[gtrietsc]

Drugs are a complicated issue for our country, not just from a "is it right?" sense, but because it blurs the lines between states rights and the federal government. I think someday we will relax our policies on these things, but it might be 20+ years from now...

 

[ninethreer]

One of the major reasons why young people abuse drugs is simply because they're illegal; all of the other things that stem from that (peer pressure, ease of purchase, etc.) are results of the stigma around drugs that children are exposed to from a very young age (at least in the United States). When you tell someone for years that something is very wrong and that they shouldn't ever even think about trying it, then naturally they get more and more curious. A simple example of this is telling somebody "Don't think about __________". Put anything in the blank, and the person will almost always immediately think about it.

Drugs should be made legal for multiple reasons, primarily to stop wasting so many taxpayer dollars.

Another part of the problem is the impurity of the drugs being sold today. The Marijuana smoked by people in the 70s for instance was often much less concentrated and much purer than the stuff available today. The government could spend much less money on a simple regulatory commission to make sure that all drugs being sold (which you would need some sort of a license to sell, for instance like a pharmacy) were pure.

Sure, we should continue educating on the negative effect of drugs, but with a system like this we would be able to control usage. The number of drug related gangs, which account for hundreds if not thousands of deaths, would decrease dramatically.

The War On Drugs as I see it is a hopeless waste of money that will never produce any significant results. I'm staunchly against drug use and think it's disgusting and wrong, but I also think people should have some personal choice/responsibility and should be able to make their own decisions and learn from their own mistakes in this area.

 

[jayjaya29]

People always say to make something that is used illegally and make it legal. I don't think this would work, just look at alcohol, its legal and its still used a lot. I mean its illegal to drink underage, but I think that if you made it legal for all ages, teens would still drink. Friends that I hang out with like to drink a lot, they are about 18 years, so they are underage, they don't say "yo, lets get some beer because we are underage" No they get beer so they can get drunk and do stupid stuff.

I mean it could work, but I don't think it would.

 

[///M]

Another part of the problem is the impurity of the drugs being sold today. The Marijuana smoked by people in the 70s for instance was often much less concentrated and much purer than the stuff available today.

That's an oxymoron.

Pot today isn't that much stronger than it was back in the 70s. Sure, you can score some brand-name strain that will have high levels of THC, but that's actually better. The higher the concentration of THC in the pot, the less you need to smoke.

Today, it's easier to buy weed than it is to buy cigarettes if you are underage. It is easier AND cheaper to buy opiates than it is to buy prescription drugs.

Yup, the war on drugs is a great success.

 

[YF19pilot]

Legalizing Illegal drugs doesn't stop people from doing it, all it does is decrease drug-related crimes.

 

[Dr. Woo]

Legalizing Illegal drugs doesn't stop people from doing it, all it does is decrease drug-related crimes.

Legalizing illegal drugs would not be so that people would stop doing it, but rather to eliminate drug-related crime, as you said. If fewer people use drugs, it's just a collateral "benefit" (depends on how you see it).

And FYI:
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm

 

[///M]

Legalizing Illegal drugs doesn't stop people from doing it, all it does is decrease drug-related crimes.

And how is it exactly any of your or anyone's fucking business what another person chooses to take into their own body?

 

[astroboymoto]

People always say to make something that is used illegally and make it legal. I don't think this would work, just look at alcohol, its legal and its still used a lot. I mean its illegal to drink underage, but I think that if you made it legal for all ages, teens would still drink. Friends that I hang out with like to drink a lot, they are about 18 years, so they are underage, they don't say "yo, lets get some beer because we are underage" No they get beer so they can get drunk and do stupid stuff.

I mean it could work, but I don't think it would.

erm, well England, America and Australia have major issues with post-legal age drinking... Incidentally these are some of the only countries that make arbitrary decisions on when a person is "adult" enough to drink responsibly. I know on the Euro. continent it is quite common for mid-teens(like 14 give or take) to be given a half glass of wine or whatever the local drink is with family meals. The idea is that when you ingrain alcohol consumption as a social/family recreation rather than an as a prohibited escape for rebelious teen who has no former social contact with alcohol then you don't get the same issues of anti-social drinking behaviour such as binge drinking and brawling.

 

[astroboymoto]

Legalizing Illegal drugs doesn't stop people from doing it, all it does is decrease drug-related crimes.

And how is it exactly any of your or anyone's fucking business what another person chooses to take into their own body?

while I don't actually touch anything stronger than tobacco, I competely agree why the fuck do people want a fooking nanny state? sure consuming drugs while pregnant or in the vicinity of children is reprehensible and SHOULD be legislated against, wtf is up with victimless crimes? people only end up more sissy and litigious - they start looking elsewhere for blame for stupid shit like falling over a bit of raised pavement and then hey presto you have modern America :lol:

 

[joemoefro]

In California; dont know the exact number but +40% of people at least, are in Jail for a victumless crime such as drug usage. And having a inmate stay in Jail for a year costs more than a year at a private school $40,000+ Theres some more wasted money for you guys not even talking about the drug war.

I think just for the cost of money we spend on this bullshit alone should be enough reason to stop this 'War' or should I say simply 'Stupid retarted politicians who bullshit that they are stopping the problem when really they want to keep their jobs i.e. millions of dollars per year'

Also what is halting some progression in the legalization of weed is some of the anti-drug ads that are on the TV-waves. People who never smoked the stuff and who only go to the TV for their information will believe this to be true: when you smoke pot you have the sudden urge to reach for a rifle and kill yourself. :lol: Propaganda works pretty well.

 

[YF19pilot]

Legalizing Illegal drugs doesn't stop people from doing it, all it does is decrease drug-related crimes.

And how is it exactly any of your or anyone's fucking business what another person chooses to take into their own body?

Well, hello to you, too. Didn't expect that.

Me, personally, I don't care what someone does to themselves, as you say, its your body, do with it what you will. I don't like drugs myself, and I'm in no position to be using them (the aerospace industry frowns on stuff like that). I've never done drugs myself, but after seeing a bunch of my coworkers high, it kinda solidified things for me.

I see the advantage that if one were to legalize certain drugs, they would be regulated so as to prevent other harmful substances, or the concentration of the drug from killing someone. Sorta like during bootlegging days, you drink one shot of whiskey, it tastes like water, drink a different shot and you're down and out.

Unfortunately there are many potent drugs out there (marijuana is the least of our problems, and yes, some states have legalized medical marijuana). For example, PCP, acid, crack. People often use these drugs to get high, but they have adverse side effects. Like how XTC causes brain hemmoraging. Those are the kind of drugs that need to remain illegal. Also, drugs that cause impairment is one thing, but halucinations are a completely different matter. I'd rather someone not be able to think straight than to think he's seeing shit.

 

[astroboymoto]

People who never smoked the stuff and who only go to the TV for their information will believe this to be true: when you smoke pot you have the sudden urge to reach for a rifle and kill yourself. :lol: Propaganda works pretty well.

Is that ad for real?? I thought it was just Harold and Kumar - which I might add is an awesome movie

 

[YF19pilot]

People who never smoked the stuff and who only go to the TV for their information will believe this to be true: when you smoke pot you have the sudden urge to reach for a rifle and kill yourself. :lol: Propaganda works pretty well.

Is that ad for real?? I thought it was just Harold and Kumar - which I might add is an awesome movie

I think it may have been an ad back in the day, but I've never seen it aired. With as much focus on anti-tobbaco (damn annoying truth commercials) I've seen little to no anti-drug adverts.

 

[Dr. Woo]

(marijuana is the least of our problems, and yes, some states have legalized medical marijuana).

Yes, but in a classic case of anti-federalism and states' rights (blatantly ignoring the Constitution), the federal government is prosecuting the people who obey the states' laws.

http://www.cato.org[/url]]Reports Dean Murphy of the New York Times: "Federal agents have raided farms where medicinal marijuana is grown, closed cooperatives where it is distributed and threatened to punish doctors who discussed it with their patients." Uncle Sam also has prosecuted obviously ill people who have dared use marijuana to ease their nausea or pain. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer complains that "The decision to continue federal raids on medicinal marijuana providers when there is no evidence that the operation is actually engaged in illicit commercial distribution is wasteful, unwise and surprisingly insensitive when it comes to listening to Californians who have made clear their support for medicinal marijuana at the ballot box."

I see the advantage that if one were to legalize certain drugs, they would be regulated so as to prevent other harmful substances, or the concentration of the drug from killing someone.

Kind of like pseudoephedrine (PE)? Sudafed used to use PE (it's a very effective nasal decongestant), but recently there has been legislation to make OTC PE illegal and require prescriptions for any drugs containing it. Pfizer, the maker of Sudafed, was adamantly against it, but they recently came out with a Sudafed WITHOUT PE (which is admittedly worse at doing its job than regular Sudafed), and because it's legal, they've reversed their position, eager to make the extra money that government regulation and meddling would afford. WHY is PE suddenly under attack? It's an ingredient in methamphetamine. So because of the harmful actions of a few, law-abiding citizens are punished. Similar to how there is pending legislation to make all vitamins prescription-only.

It's terrifying what the USA has become...and while even with all of this, I would never give up my U.S. citizenship or permanently move anywhere else, it shakes me to my very core and makes my teeth grind in fury.

 

[Z Draci]

People always say to make something that is used illegally and make it legal. I don't think this would work, just look at alcohol, its legal and its still used a lot. I mean its illegal to drink underage, but I think that if you made it legal for all ages, teens would still drink. Friends that I hang out with like to drink a lot, they are about 18 years, so they are underage, they don't say "yo, lets get some beer because we are underage" No they get beer so they can get drunk and do stupid stuff.

I mean it could work, but I don't think it would.

erm, well England, America and Australia have major issues with post-legal age drinking... Incidentally these are some of the only countries that make arbitrary decisions on when a person is "adult" enough to drink responsibly. I know on the Euro. continent it is quite common for mid-teens(like 14 give or take) to be given a half glass of wine or whatever the local drink is with family meals. The idea is that when you ingrain alcohol consumption as a social/family recreation rather than an as a prohibited escape for rebelious teen who has no former social contact with alcohol then you don't get the same issues of anti-social drinking behaviour such as binge drinking and brawling.

I have to say that good parenting would solve a lot of our social problems. I really believe that if an adult cannot meet a specific intelligence or economic level by some age his/her reproductive organs should be removed or disabled for life. It's only because of irresponsible parents that we have teenage thieves and murderers. Bad parents give birth to a new generation of bad parents. We need to stop that cycle before it poliferates any further.

Do you think anybody would abuse any drug (including alcohol) if everybody was taught the social responsibilities of its consumption?
I don't think so.

Many of my own friends drink just to get drunk. I drink to savour the taste of alcoholic drinks so I rarely go overboard. I can tell the difference since they drink sweet tasting cocktails while I'm sipping bourbon at room temperature. (Cocktails are for people who don't like to drink, but love to get drunk.)

 

[flyingfridge]

People always say to make something that is used illegally and make it legal. I don't think this would work, just look at alcohol, its legal and its still used a lot. I mean its illegal to drink underage, but I think that if you made it legal for all ages, teens would still drink. Friends that I hang out with like to drink a lot, they are about 18 years, so they are underage, they don't say "yo, lets get some beer because we are underage" No they get beer so they can get drunk and do stupid stuff.

I mean it could work, but I don't think it would.

erm, well England, America and Australia have major issues with post-legal age drinking... Incidentally these are some of the only countries that make arbitrary decisions on when a person is "adult" enough to drink responsibly. I know on the Euro. continent it is quite common for mid-teens(like 14 give or take) to be given a half glass of wine or whatever the local drink is with family meals. The idea is that when you ingrain alcohol consumption as a social/family recreation rather than an as a prohibited escape for rebelious teen who has no former social contact with alcohol then you don't get the same issues of anti-social drinking behaviour such as binge drinking and brawling.

I have to say that good parenting would solve a lot of our social problems. I really believe that if an adult cannot meet a specific intelligence or economic level by some age his/her reproductive organs should be removed or disabled for life. It's only because of irresponsible parents that we have teenage thieves and murderers. Bad parents give birth to a new generation of bad parents. We need to stop that cycle before it poliferates any further.

Do you think anybody would abuse any drug (including alcohol) if everybody was taught the social responsibilities of its consumption?
I don't think so.

Many of my own friends drink just to get drunk. I drink to savour the taste of alcoholic drinks so I rarely go overboard. I can tell the difference since they drink sweet tasting cocktails while I'm sipping bourbon at room temperature. (Cocktails are for people who don't like to drink, but love to get drunk.)

Man, you're on a roll today, Z. Bravo once again!!

Z is spot on right. Bad parenting is the cornerstone of most of our youth and even some adult problems today. It's not teenage parenting either, it's from when kids are toddlers. I have been unlucky enough to have grown up in a house where family day care takes place (in-house child care centre) and the insight I've gained into some modern parenting is truly alarming. I was lucky enough to be blessed with a good upbringing, where my parents had the ability to say 'No' to the point where I simply had to accept it. I have seen this today, but it is becoming increasingly rare. I don't wish to be sexist in any way, but I would like to state that the mothers are the worst for this. So called 'child care experts' are just as bad, as they are teaching generations of bad parents bad parenting techniques based on 'how do you think the child will feel if you smack them?' Now some of you might be against smacking, and fair enough if you are, but sometimes discipine needs to be enforced. If you don't punish them, they won't learn. Simple banning from things rarely works either, as there isn't any real instant concequence from an action. Now, mothers, caring as they are, hate to see their little one sad or depressed or screaming their eyes out. Now the easiest way to remedy the problem, is to give the little ... what they want. The kid shuts up so they think they've done the right thing. Don't just think of it in terms of lollies and that sort of thing either, its simple things like being picked up. All the kid learns is that they can have whatever they want, when they want, and nothing bad is going to happen. They start to get the better of the parent, answering back and rebellious all because the parent can't enforce proper discipine. Then when the time comes for trying drugs, the kid goes for it, because A: It's rebellious, B: They have learned that they can have what they want, when they want and nothing bad will happen.

 

[freakster_991]

^ yesss u agree wit spanking??? honestly thts the only method a child will know wat is wrong....evn in the animal world...the mother will swipe its young one... we should swipe our young ones too...but not too hard tho...