digg

Join DiggAbout

Law enforcement want ALL drugs legalized (video) watch!

theagitator.com — LEAP needs more attention. This is an organization of 5,000 current and former law enforcement officials who recognize the failure and the damage effected by the war on drugs. And it has grown to 5,000 from just five founding members a few years ago. Seems to me that that's pretty newsworthy. So pass this video on.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+75This is very important, and I'll do my best to get it out there. I encourage others to do the same.
    • lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+63I just called and spoke with the guy who organizes this thing, and he's a real nice fella. His name is Mike Smithson. He hadn't heard of Digg before, but I told him about the site and that he should come and register here and digg his story. :P I am really pushing for this to hit the front page, I hope it does. This is great news.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+63Too bad, it will have no effect. Not this generation. You can haul around this video all over the place but it won't do shiit. America is held ransom by a lunatic fringe of rightwingers who have no idea about the real world. They are dedicated to a psychotic religious version of things that is based on dreams and wishful thinking. They actually think they can win this nightmare.

      Americans live in a delusional world. A world where they can dictate their version of civilisation to people who have lived in a world of cutting off heads for thousands of years. Americans are spoiled rotten, detached and in denial. Prohibition is one of those issues.

      We have nowhere near the problems in the netherlands in terms of violent crime as you idiots have in the US. Our experiment succeeded, yours failed. America needs to whip into place neoconservatives, republicans, lobbyists, corporations and moralist wingnuts. Welcome to the real world.

      C L E A N Y O U R H O U S E !
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Watch "Requiem for a Dream" to support this enforcement!
    • weaszel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31dagonweb:

      those are some pretty harsh words, especially coming from a person as peaceful and "real" as you make yourself, and your entire country, out to be. i really don't understand your logic -- all americans are idiots because of the administration running our country and because of the laws our politicians have put into place?

      next time, why don't you take a little bit more time to think before you go making horribly inaccurate, and downright xenophobic, generalizations about other societies? you won't come across as of much as a jerk.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16"Watch "Requiem for a Dream" to support this enforcement!"

      It's funny that you bring it up because I saw the movie a few days ago. When you watch that movie (or Trainspotting), do you come to the conclusion that drugs should remain legal or not?

      Let me use Requiem for a Dream as an example.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Would Sara (Harry's mom) have psychosis if she was more educated about drugs? (She was taking uppers and downers. Amphetamines and benzos, Valium was one if I recall correctly.) She believed that the drugs were safe because the doctor was giving them out. Harry even warned her that she'll be 'strung out.'

      This can be related to real life. Acetaminophen/paracetamol (AKA Tylenol) is the leading cause of acute liver failure. Most people think that just because it's OTC, it can't hurt to take a few more pills. They think that the government bans all drugs that are dangerous, and keeps drugs that are safe as being OTC. It only takes a handful (about 4000mg, 1 dose is around 500-1000mg) to cause liver damage. Why doesn't Tylenon have a warning on it?

      We need to spread education about the *real* harm drugs can cause, instead of ***** propaganda.

      Sara's doctor should have warned her about the drug, but instead he just read the diagnosis and prescribed the pills without even looking at her. "No problem, we can take care of that." is what I recall his words being when she said she was overweight.

      We should focus on THESE dangers. Doctors over-prescribing meds. Patients not having a clue what they're putting into their bodies. 10 year olds with 'ADD' taking Amphetamines?

      That being said. She did mess up by increasing her dose. So we can't fully blame the drug in this case. Amphetamines have worked wonders more than they have caused damage (when used medicinally.)

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Would Marion (Harry's GF) have had to resort to prostitution to support her heroin habit?

      I'm not saying we should make heroin available OTC for the whole family, but we should have treatment centers where people can go to get their fix under advisement from trained staff and doctors. This would keep the public safe by ending crime fueled by the need to support a habit, as well as putting an end to the Hepatitis/HIV needle sharing problems. This is what harm reduction and regulating drugs is all about.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Would Harry have had his arm amputated if prohibition wasn't in place?

      Would there have been Italian vs black gang gun fights if it wasn't for the War on Drugs?

      Read answer above.
    • indicas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@asdfasdf:

      Harm reduction :)
    • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15>>>This can be related to real life. Acetaminophen/paracetamol (AKA Tylenol) is the leading cause of acute liver failure. Most people think that just because it's OTC, it can't hurt to take a few more pills. They think that the government bans all drugs that are dangerous, and keeps drugs that are safe as being OTC. It only takes a handful (about 4000mg, 1 dose is around 500-1000mg) to cause liver damage. Why doesn't Tylenon have a warning on it?"

      I agree with the rest of your points, except this one. The leading cause of acute liver failure is Acetaminophen taken with alcohol.

      And Tylenol does have a warning on it. A fairly comprehensive one. It tells you not to take it with alcohol, and to limit your dosage to no more than 2 grams (four 500mg doses per day). If you go over that, then you're an idiot. Don't be blaming Tylenol for idiots who do idiotic things.

      The most common single pill form contains 250mg of it. At two pills per dose, you'd have to take 8 doses to reach toxicity levels, and that's only with daily chronic usage over a period of several days. The actual single use toxicity level is 10 grams, or 20 doses, or 40 pills! That's almost an entire large bottle of pills!

      Face facts: Acetaminophen is one of the greatest drugs ever created. It's a highly effective pain reliever, it's not addictive in the slightest, and it has no side effects. It is, without question, the safest analgesic available. Just don't be an idiot and OD on the stuff.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@dagonweb - Your comment would have come across better, and would have been more accurate, if you had slipped the word "government" after each "American".

      I've traveled all over the world, and I've met people from lots of different cultures, and let me tell you, people are the same no matter where you go. Everyone, in every country, is just working hard, and trying to take care of their family the best they can. That includes America.

      You could take a family from the Netherlands, and plop them in New York, and a family from New York, and plop them in the Netherlands, and you won't even be able to tell a difference. We're all on this same ride in life.

      Think about that before you start calling all Americans idiots. It has nothing to do with the 95% of us who are just trying to get through life. It's the our governments and corporations that makes these stupid decisions, not us.
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11actually, the safest painkiller would be THC, oh, and don't worry about ODing on it, its simply not gonna happen.

      as a side effect it can provide entertainment for hours on end
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Otto:

      "The most common single pill form contains 250mg of it."

      My mistake here. I was thinking of the 'Extra-Strength' Tylenol.

      Does it have a warning label now? I have a friend who suffered severe stomach pain and nausea and when we went to the emergency room the diagnosis was liver damage.

      He never drank but he was taking heavy amounts of Paracetamol. After that I stayed away from the stuff. Looking back at it, he probably had a not-so-fresh liver to begin with because he took Accutane (acne med) some months back.

      At the time the container had no warning of liver damage on it, nor that it's any damaging in large amounts (yeah, that should be obvious of course.) This wasn't too long ago. It was maybe in 2004-early 2005.

      I wasn't saying it's crap. It IS great, but I was just pointing out that OTC products can also be harmful if misused (and illicit drugs CAN be used safely). What I want is to spread public awareness of the *real* harms of drugs. Anyway, thanks for pointing those things out to me.
    • deterrence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@headzoo
      Last time i checked, the government was elected by the people. People living in a democracy have the right to vote, and thus the responsibility for the government they get. Otherwise i agree with your view on how people are in general. I'm just saying that it's a delusion and a dangerous one at that to blow off the state of the system on forces beyond your control. The people from LEAP most definitely recognize this and are doing something about it.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Last time i checked, the government was elected by the people."

      Ah, if only that were really true.
    • CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1by incubusnb 7 hours ago
      "actually, the safest painkiller would be THC, oh, and don't worry about ODing on it, its simply not gonna happen.

      as a side effect it can provide entertainment for hours on end"

      fun for the feeble minded
  • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51Yeah. It's funny how scientists, economic analysts and now law enforcement are talking about legalizing and regulating drugs, but the DEA is still covering their ears, even though many other countries *have* and are in the process of reforming their drug laws. Not that I'm surprised, because the DEA's entire business is at stake here.
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I can't hear you, what, speak up, you want a seagull wearin pajama, oh... legal marijuana, don't you know that stuff causes you to become a psycho killer? you say scientists agree that its safe... they must be on the stuff... lalala, i can't hear you anymore...
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Entirely true. Even more fundamental is the absolute opposition of the organization that makes more money than any other transporting (with thousands of planes through many covert airlines and flight schools) and dealing drugs: the Cocaine Import Agency, aka the CIA.

      "In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." --Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit. FROM: Peter Dale Scott & Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Berkeley: U. of CA Press, 1991, pp. x-xi.

      The story of a journalist who wrote about the CIA and crack in L.A. in the San Jose Mercury News, and what happened after that (he is dead now, a suicide with two bullets in his head), how the other media reacted (the CIA controls all the prominent people in the media according to a CIA director's testimony in front of the Congress' Church Committee in the 70's): http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/

      The link to George Bush (and Clinton...how could the CIA keep on making billions trafficking drugs if the presidents did not agree?): http://www.wethepeople.la/ciadrugs.htm

      The CIA, America's Premier International Terrorist Organization:
      http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html

      MI6, MI5, CIA, Mafia, all in the same bed:
      http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=35&contentid=3528&page=2

      The C.I.A. & Drugs - Narco-colonialism in the 20th Century:
      http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/index.html

      CIA, Drugs, and Wall Street - How much Wall Street needs those hundreds of billions a year (corporate media involved! And how much drug money ends up financing political campaigns, including Bush and Clinton!):
      http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/economy/dontblink.html
    • jhurliman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The DEA does not make laws or policy. They are simply the enforcement arm, and if congress told the DEA it's new job is to hole-punch paperwork that's what it would be doing. The head of the New York DEA office came to our campus for a debate on marijuana legalization and agreed with the fact that from a scientific standpoint either 1) marijuana should be legalized, or 2) alcohol should be made illegal. From a social standpoint however, alcohol has a greater social acceptance than marijuana at this point and time and that influences policy. Again though, the DEA only enforces the laws of the land, they don't create them.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're right. The DEA doesn't make the laws but obviously they are going to do their best to make sure the laws are in their favor. They are a big powerful bureau. Do you think they're just going to say "I think we should legalize drugs. Oh you don't need me anymore? OK I'm going home now. It's been a nice 7+ decades."
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the way federal law is written, enforcing for drugs is big business... lots of money pumped into enforcement, lots of money into local police forces. It's a gravy train that most departments couldn't get off if they wanted to. Particularly the seizure laws have allowed law enforcement to live way outside their means, and taxpayers not to be overseeing where that money comes from.
  • LEAPSpeakers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+137Thanks for all of the support...LEAP has gotten a rash of media calls today--thanks, in part, I'm sure, to you folks here at Digg. But, hey, I'm not the guy running the show--just the guy that runs the speakers bureau. It's exciting work, too, booking these cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others from the criminal justice system to speak to civic grps, chambers of commerce, church congregations, veterans, senior citizens and more to explain why drug prohibition doesn't work. When it is presented like this, by these experts, people agree. I guess sometimes it's just the messenger.

    If you have suggestions for a speaker to do a talk radio show, arrange a newspaper interview or have a venue for our speakers, send me a note.

    Mike Smithson
    speakers bureau coordinator
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc
    speakers@leap.cc 315-243-5844
    Syracuse, NY
    • toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41thank you for speaking up about this failure
    • salivalnz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Thank you, Mike.

      All the best to you and your group. Your efforts are appreciated by the people these draconian laws affect - even those, like me, who are on the other side of the world!
    • MeridianBlade, on 10/12/2007, -51/+2You people and your silly dreams. This will never happen, but at least you have something to spend your free time endlessly chasing :-)
    • AlanKc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Simply, thank you.. I have never heard of LEAP till now, but Ive been looking for it for awhile.. thank you for speaking out.
    • indicas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Keep up the *GREAT* work guys. US policy needs to change. Not much else to say - this video tells the entire story. I pray one day LEAPs goals come true - not only will the US gain a huge sum of money to use for other purposes but our society as a whole will benifit medicinally.
    • Bobski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8BTW

      Here's a torrent for a higher resolution divx version of the movie

      http://www.torrentbox.com/download.php/30420/leap_promo.avi.torrent
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Your all Heros to me, keep up the good work.
    • realyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Do you have any plans for offices in Canada? While we are a bit more liberal, we still have 99% of the US style drug laws and often 'aid' the US in drug cases. When we tried to decriminalize pot, the american gov't threatened us with just about everything short of war so I'm sure if you at least get the ball rolling down south we'll be able to reap some of the rewards.

      No war on drugs == less back alley dangers == less money into organized crime == less incentive for 'rebellious youth' == more money for actual crimes against other people == less vectors for blood-born diseases in my opinion
    • Ollin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You guys a doing a great job and no matter what please don't stop because what your group is doing borders on not just financial change but also SOCIAL change for all of this country. Which is something we terribly need....
  • sweetnuts4sale, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39This is why I love Digg!!! News that matters, real News, unfiltered, and informative. Thanks Digg
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Definitely the best side of Digg. Getting the real news to the masses, and often the huge news corporations wake up after it gets on digg.
  • insanitarium, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6D.A.R.E. to just say no to drugs, and help take a bite out of crime, because only YOU can prevent forest fires.
  • Yaki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You go... ex law enforcement officers!
  • Tobiah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Thank you Mike, and everyone involved with LEAP for all there efforts. I myself, don't use any drugs (with the exception of Caffeine), but I fully support the removal of all drug laws. I often use your work in my arguments and debates with people on this subject.

    /salute.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Yeah you don't need to do drugs to understand how bad this is for the country. Just your tax dollars alone that are accomplishing nothing should be enough to wake THEM up. (them = government)

      The prohibition didn't work before, and it won't work now. If alcohol and cigarettes are legal, it doesn't make any sense to outlaw weed.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Hey the war on drugs made a big number of lobbyists and politicians filthy rich. I bet some of them also get kickbacks from organized crime as those people want a prohibition too, right? This is big business.

      Prohibition is going nowhere. It is ingrained in the US psyche. Repression, guns blazing, tough-looking fascists kicking in doors either in washington DC or Iraq, you americans love it just too much. You think you can dictate onto the masses.

      It is going to K I L L your country.
    • missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11dagonweb, you're doing a lot of dictating yourself.

      You make good points, but then you try to make all of us Americans into one person with stupid ideas. We're not all one person. Stop being an *****.
  • coldfirenj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Anyone who thinks government regulation or prohibition of potent drugs works or is worth persuing is beyond reasoning. Once you see the drug culture for what it is you realize what a scam they are running. Most people who have a problem with drugs are sad empty people looking for help in the wrong places... not heartless savages. But, war means money and this is indeed a culture war that is paying off big for the people in charge. I think it will be a long time, unfortunatly, considering the state of this country before people start to figure this out for themselves.
    • nerd05, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Exactly. A lot of people (save for the real addicts) are using drugs for the thrill value that you are doing something illegal. We spend millions and invest a myriad of man hours into fighting the multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, and we get nowhere. What we need to do is collapse their business model by legalizing the drugs and shift the resources spent on prosecuting drug dealers and those using them and focus more on helping people with serious problems, and increasing penalties for those who endanger others by being under the influence while driving and doing other things. This will plummet the number of drug-related crimes, and if we are stricter on driving under the influence, our roads and cities will be safer. In the end, everything would balance out and we'd end up with roughly the same number of drug users, minus the crime, and that's perfectly acceptable.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11NOT TRUE.

      Most people who do drugs find, for some strange reason, life feels unpleasant. The rest of the world, thinking they are the objective center the the universe, have no idea what the ***** those whining idiots are talking about. But a huge amount of people around you feel as if life itself hurts. They want a solution for that. Drugs makes the pain go away.

      Why drink coffee? Because you feel miserable and tired. Why drink a bottle of cheap filthy wine? Because everything hurts and the alcohol makes the pain go away. Why smoke? Because the nicotine takes the edge of things. The same with heroin, ecstacy, crack, cannabis, acid, coke, speed ... they make life feel as if it worth living, even if only a minute. Ignore that at your own peril.

      Untill you deal with that reality drugs will be in demand.
    • indicas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@nerd05:

      Let us not forget those musicians who used drugs to enhance their creativity and for inspiration. Let us not forget the scientist who discovered the DNA double helix the same day he experiemented with LSD. Some drugs don't nearly fill the void - they expand the void into infinity, which for some, may lead to incredible discoveries or creations.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Many people don't do drugs to escape reality. Some do, and some also do legal things to escape reality or ease pain in their life, like cut themselves or over eat.

      Did Aldous Huxley do drugs to 'escape reality'? I don't think so.

      Drugs can be a good or bad. It depends on the person. Read up on Ayahuasca or DMT (dimethyltryptamine) for example. The use of LSD to cure alcoholism. The use of Ecstasy for PTSD. The mystical/religious experiences people get from shrooms/LSD.


      For example:

      "NEW YORK: People who took an illegal drug made from mushrooms reported profound mystical experiences that led to behavior changes lasting for weeks. Volunteers rated their reaction to the drug, called psilocybin, as one of the most meaningful or spiritually significant experiences of their lives. Some compared it to the birth of a child."

      http://digg.com/health/CNN_takes_down_mushroom_article_after_pressure_from_the_DEA_concerned_moms


      Heinrich says the mushroom resembles pita bread and when soaked with water it feels exactly like human skin. He figures that's the bread that Jesus was referring to at the last supper when he said "eat this bread, this is my body." -- and figures the almighty turned water into wine by whizzing into a five-gallon jug of H20.

      http://digg.com/celebrity/Did_Jesus_Eat_Magic_Mushrooms_At_Last_Supper
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a bug or intended behavior? After I post URLs. The links work fine but when the countdown till you can no longer edit your post ends, the URLs become invalid. I always double check the URLs after I submit and later come back and notice that they are invalid. What's up with that?
    • aCiD2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Someone please explain to me what dragonweb is talking about. I often go round to peoples houses and we socialise with a drink or 2 and have a great conversation. We don't get wrecked, it just helps us talk more confidently about issues.

      Of course, we also go and get hammered at times. Like talking about a small house party at a friends, planning it for a week and preparing some drugs - be that drink, weed and MDMA and have a huge laugh of an evening. This happened a few days, I was not up for taking MDMA because of some commitments in life (yes, I feel miserable, yet I am avoiding the very thing that should make me happy?). The problem is not drugs as has been stressed again and again. It's education.
  • Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16There was a BBC drama-documentary on legalizing drugs which hit the front page of Digg recently; some might also find it interesting.
    http://digg.com/videos_educational/If_Drugs_Were_Legal_video
  • smcgrath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Beat by Malakin.
    The vid was very interesting, if you have an hour or so to kill.
  • Lotus79, on 10/12/2007, -26/+1This is such a great idea. Junkies and people that OD are just myths anyway. I am being sarcastic, for those who can not tell.
    • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The only myth is that drug laws prevent "junkies and people who OD" from getting their hands on drugs in the first place.
  • bwjacket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Penn and Teller do this topic justice...
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3653114296815352489&q=*****+war+on+drugs
  • MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2I think it is pretty irresponsible to claim the law enforcement in general wants this, when it is a clearly the minority opinion.

    How would you like "Americans prefer Christianity" - heck, that's even a majority opinion and it is falls into the same problem this headline does.

    -Mike
    • yoda133113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, given that it is the majority opinion, the statement "Americans prefer Christianity" would be a valid statement, to say the "All Americans are Christian" would not be true.

      And the video doesn't say anything about this being a majority or a minority opinion, in fact I would be willing to be that FAR more than the 5,000 members of this group support such a stance, or at least similar.
  • taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5I'm addicted to Digg.
  • Jadix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23More people smoke marijuana than voted for our president.
    • MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5Does that make it right?

      -Mike
    • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11>Does that make it right?

      What, smoking up or voting for George W. Bush?

      /I keed, I keed ;)
  • Lotus79, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6It is basically like alcohol in my opinion. People drink and have a good time, but why must they always overdue it? They get piss drunk to the point that they do not even know their current location. The same thing can be said about drugs. If used in a small dose, it will not kill you. Some people, on the other hand, overdue, and abuse drugs to the point of no return. I believe drugs are illegal for that reason alone. To protect people from themselves. This is just my opinion. I hope no one is offended by it. :)
    • uziq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12> I believe drugs are illegal for that reason alone. To protect people from themselves.

      That may be one of the reasons, but it doesn't make it right.
    • yoda133113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17In a nation that claims to promote freedom and liberty above all else, to protect someone from themself is wrong.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14If you do a little research you will realize that a lot of illicit drugs have a lower abuse potential than Alcohol, and a lot of them aren't fatal in even massive amounts. For example, it's impossible to smoke enough Pot to die. Likewise, you can't die from an overdose of LSD (it's very non-toxic), nor can you die from an overdose of DMT.

      Also, most people who overdose on heroin and die do not die from the heroin, but from the substances it is cut with (cut meaning mixed in with to increase the weight of the heroin, to increase profit for the dealer). In fact - and this surprised me - we don't know the LD50 of a heroin addict. They would need a lot of heroin to overdose and die (but I'm not saying it's impossible! H is dangerous!). Most heroin deaths can be attributed to Quinine or Fentanyl, and some other substances the heroin might be cut with. If we give prescription heroin to addicts, they wouldn't need to commit crime to support their habit, and they would know that they are getting a clean product.

      If we want to reduce harm and death from drugs, we should focus on education. We need to teach people about tolerance, dependence, addiction potential, the dangers of poly drug use (mixing drugs), who should NOT use a particular drug, what the real side effects are, and so forth.

      Most Ecstasy deaths are attributed to drinking too much water or the drug being laced with something lethal like PMA.

      Here's something to keep in mind. Whenever you see a negative news piece about drugs (such as an overdose), ask yourself: Would this have occurred if drugs were legal?
  • sLydE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I emailed this to my Governer, Lt. Governer, Senators and House Reps in both the state and federal branches. This is VERY important. Let's make things change!
  • uziq, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3whoops,bury this.
  • Lotus79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@uzig and yoda133113

    I agree with you both completely. I was just stating my opinion on why drugs are illegal.
  • ddegx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I am very glad that this news about the world wide drug (WWG) problem is coming to the top of the news; thanks to LEAP and Digg.
    The war on drugs has been known to be a failure in Latin America for quite a while. The US has had it easy compared to South American countries like Colombia where thousands of people die every year because of the drugs.
    You guys are young and have an opinion, please pass it along.
    No more drugs, no more VIOLENCE , no more BS about drugs. The best way to fight drugs is education.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It worked in the netherlands... Lowest addiction rates of the WORLD.

      How about some paradox ehh?
  • gossipninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Drugs can be bad, but I take a libertarian approach, it is about personal responsibility. It isn't so much the drugs that are the problem, like in prohibition, it was the black market and crime associated with drugs. I don't think that many people care if you sit at home and comfortably get high but when you mug people, rob houses and whore yourself out to get a fix then its bad. Someone above mentioned how other countries successfully have legal drugs, the reason the US fails at this is we are a culture of excess. If one is good then 10 is better. We also seem have more people who refuse to take personal responsibility.
    Ultimatly, I would be fine with drug legalization so long as those who abuse it DO NOT just get government hand outs when they screw up and lose their job, or can't take care themselves or their children, or when overdose. If they can do drugs and not have to rely on my tax dollars to bail them out when they screw up, then I have no quarrel with it.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Treatment and education would cost a lot less than the amount we're spending on the Drug War. Not to mention that most of the money for those can come from the tax revenue generated from the drugs themselves.
    • pauljaroszewski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We need to wait a few decades for the older generation to die off before we can really get some forward thinking people in elected office. I don't think that ENOUGH Americans are ready for such honesty, just yet. We should be taking any and all measures possible to reduce violent crime. We live in a violent society, where guns and explosions are acceptable on tv, yet sex and nudity are much less accepted. What a backwards country we live in.
  • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6My problem is the jails fill with people who got busted with a join, or some seeds, its pointless, its tax payer money going to nothing, these arent bad people, that dont need to be locked up. Without the mafia we wouldnt even have alcohol and cig's isnt that amazing when you think about it? Our gov doesnt need to control what we choose to do with our bodies, if someone wants to shoot up then so be it, its their choice, if they die, oh well, they made the decision. I can see keeping certian drugs off the streets (crack, coke, herion) etc, but the point is, they can try to stop it forever, and it will never stop, or deter someone from doing it , that really wants to do it.
  • nighthwk1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3According to the numbers in the video, it costs every US citizen about $230 each year to pay for this "War on Drugs"...
  • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Every respectable person should know about alcohol prohibition in the past. If you didn't you were an ignorant f***.
  • fleetskeet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If the "War on Drugs" was a business, which it is, it's much more profitable to keep the drugs illegal.
  • rmmcclay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow...the video is truly a ray of hope. I hope it makes the rounds!

    Thanks for the post, asdfasdf.
  • reeder5002, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0i like the thought a lot, but when i think of my friends dad who spent his college savings on crack, i wonder how would the world be better if crack was legal and available at any walmart cheaper than some columbian could provide. The whole buckling down on practice of drugs might be harder than what we do now.
    • milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6you point is silly, since he did crack even when it was illegal. That was his choice and he is to blame.
      There are many alchoholics who spend their life savings, and beat their family, but if we tell them to stop drinking they'll be making bathtub moonshine by days end.
  • stinknugget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I concur! Everybody go into their police station and ask for a complaint form. :)
  • vulcanx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Excellent video. I was already for legalization, but it was really great to know that there are officers who support it as well.

    I want to try to get these guys to speak at my university now. Hopefully we all can.
  • tech10171968, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've always found it illogical that all the negative generalizations attributed to illicit drugs can also be said of alcohol and nicotine - but only alcohol and nicotine are legal. From what I can see the only difference between legal drugs, like cigarettes and beer, and illicit drugs (like marijuana) is that nicotine and alcohol usage are supported by a multimillion-dollar industry with lobbyists in Washington.

    The Ganja industry, on the other hand, apparently hasn't bribed (ahem, I mean "convinced") enough politicians.
  • kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4and just in case folks think that illegal drug gangs are just a 21st century version of Al Capone - well, its gotten a bit more serious than that...

    Drug Money for Hezbollah?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/01/attack/main520457.shtml

    Hezbollah drug ring broken up
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4117960.stm

    How the war on drugs helped Hezbollah
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2322076,00.html

    this is a crazy situation we've allowed ourselves to sleepwalk into.
    Legalise all drugs - BUT ring fence the billions of $$$ we currently spend on the drug war and spend it on rehab programs. Legalisation wont work unless we have a comprehensive addiction treatment programs in place.

    • jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hezbollah certainly isn't the only non-drug centered organization to push drugs for money...
    • kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i was only giving Hezbollah as a recent, topical, example. of course, there are plenty more, the Taliban being another obvious example.


    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Taliban, CIA, 1/3 of Afghanistan's economy is heroin export and most of Morroco's economy comes from exporting Hash.
  • dreimanis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3not legalize drugs, but shoot everyone that's selling them.
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's approximately what the war on drug means.

      And it doesn't work.
  • xN8x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Boo prohibition! Hooray LEAP! (said in a "red stripe commercial-esque voice)
  • Flagg3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Unfortunately, logic has absolutely nothing to do with why drugs are illegal. It's simply a way to control people and to legislate religious morality.

    Could you imagine how much money could be saved if we legalized drugs, gambling and prostitution? Ignoring the money that would be saved by simply no longer investigating, prosecuting, and jailing these people, all of these morality crimes could be taxed, and regulated!

    Now, yes, I know that these are bad things, and that there are arguments for why they should all be illegal, but the simple fact is that making these things illegal does absolutely nothing to stop people from doing them, it simply makes those people criminals.

    Drug use is very dangerous, but the fact is that people who are genuinely addicts simply don't care if they are illegal or not, they will always abuse substances until they get help for the chemical imbalances that causes them to become addicts. (People who are depressed or bipolar are especially susceptible to drugs that raise serotonin levels. SSRIs go a long way to deal with this problem, and can in fact help these people fight the urges that would be otherwise impossible to resist.) The simple fact is that most illegal drug abuse is a form of self medication, for people who are in genuine need of medical help. Is it fair to punish people for their addictions simply because they don't have the money to go to the Betty Ford clinic, or to simply doctor shop for all of the drugs that you desire?

    Again, gambling can devastate people's lives, but for those that are truly at risk, they will always find ways to gamble, and the fact that the state promotes and sponsors certain forms of gambling makes anti gambling laws a bit hypocritical. A Long Island, NY woman was recently arrested for embezzling 2.3 million dollars from her employer to buy NY Lottery Tickets! Again, these people need treatment, prohibition does nothing to solve the underlying problem.

    And yes, there are countless examples of how prostitution can and does devastate young girls lives, but that is all the more reason to legalize it, so it can be regulated, and monitored to prevent such horrific abuses. It's legal in Nevada, and it should be legalized everywhere to prevent underage prostitution as well as the spread of disease. It's another hypocritical law. Pornography is legal, so it's legal to be paid for sex on film, but it has to be filmed? If we stopped wasting our money fighting victimless crimes, we would be able to help the people who need help, and stop 'helping' those who don't.

    Legislating morality is never right. These laws need to be abolished so that we can spend our money fixing the problems, instead of sweeping them under the rug.


  • TheElectricFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i've been saying this for a long time(and even wrote on of my highschool research papers on the topic).... if drugs were legalized, the drug trade would be delt an unrecoverable financial blow...

    and this is all coming from someone who doesnt take drugs but pays lots of taxes to enforce the laws regarding them
    • Flagg3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"and this is all coming from someone who doesn't take drugs but pays lots of taxes to enforce the laws regarding them"

      Ditto. I actually can't stand drugs of any kind, and the few times that I have tried them, I couldn't wait until they wore off. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that a war on drugs does nothing to solve the problem for those that do have a problem.

      It's just plain common sense.

  • TheElectricFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3apparently most law inforcement nutjobs(sorry for the insult) forget that originally the constitution gave everyone the right to "chemical freedoms"... oh wait, untill congress recognized that ethnic and social minority groups began abusing them, and in conicidence with racism at the time decided to take opportunity to go after them....


    I plan to print this article up, burn the vid to a DVD and let my mother deliver it to the D.A.R.E officer at her school....
  • balkanboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dream on - it will not happen. There are too many Americans who harbor the (mistaken/misplaced) belief that if drugs were set loose on the general population, one of two things will happen: 1) their children will get hooked on it, and/or 2) we'll be a nation of junkies soon thereafter.

    The #1 hypothesis is fear-based as well as, in part, based on a lack of parental responsibility. People want to legislate morals, have the state take care of their inaptitude to raise their own children. Any drug law is about as meaningful as seatbelt wearing law. Unless you can count on the ethics of individuals to self-regulate, no amount of legislation is going to prevent people from inflicting harm upon their selves. Instant example from my personal life and the community I live in - they want to ban 10 year olds who ride scooters from riding on the sidewalk because some ***** felt "threatened" by a 40 lb kid on his 10 mph scooter - can you believe this *****? I emailed the list that discusses this (the city mayor was on it too) and told them by pushing kids off the sidewalks, they risk getting the kids into accidents with vehicles rather than humans - which somehow I think defused the stupid notions about enacting that meaningless ordinance.... Same with drugs - can you really stop people from using (or abusing even) drugs? ***** no. They've been doing it for 2000+ years, and it isn't stopping. Let the drugs themselves regulate the ***** who abuse them - it will eventually kill them if they abuse too much of it (no, I'm not talking about marijuana, but rather crack or heroin...). Recreational drugs should have never been banned anyway. I say do away with all drug bans - make them all legal, and let people's stupidity sort it out.

    The #2 hypothesis is rooted in the theory that ligher/recreational drugs are a "doorway" to heavier *****, and once you open that can of worms, good luck trying to get them back in, right? Wrong. Let's assume for a moment all drugs become legal tomorrow. First thing that will happen is, prices will drop significantly as legal production increases. Instead of paying 50 for an eighth for pot, you'd be paying 5 all of a sudden.... or less. Same with coke, heroin, whatever floats your boat. Let's assume that those who were afraid of the law and never tried them before - now all of a sudden try these newly legalized drugs. Ok, so maybe that's another, at worst, 1/2 of the population who never tried them will do so at least once over the next 5 years. Within 5-10 years, whatever increase in drug use that resulted from the legalization of drugs will have not only dropped off to the previous (pre-legalization) levels, but most likely, they will probably drop even further below those rates. Once the forbidden aspect is removed, and people's curiosity is satisfied, drug use will become a trivial, unimportant matter, like drinking beer today. Yes - many will die in the process of finding out the chemical characteristics of heroin and its addictiveness, or crack's *****/brainfrying abilities - and you know something? We're better off without those ***** anyway. Those who remain, will have an educated opinion of most drugs (check out erowid.com for more info), and will know better. You don't do something that you know will eventually kill you just because you are a) desperate, or b) makes you feel good, or c) you are stupid - and even if you did do that, you deserved it anyway. We all pay a price for our stupid decisions,and sometimes that price is death.

    Once that's done away with, law enforcement can focus on better things, like stopping REAL criminals who maim, kill and steal from doing their bidding and stop wasting my tax dollars on stupid things like trying to stop people from killing themselves.

    G'day.
  • KenMo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would like to know how many of you who (or is it whom) feel so strong about this issue are actually registered to vote (in the US) AND take the time to learn about the candidates and issues AND go out and vote every time?

    As they say. Talk is cheap!

    Until EDUCATED voters start speaking at the ballot box, nothing will change.

    I applaud all of you (even when I don't agree with you) who take the time to learn about an issue then actually do something besides cry about it.
  • Katana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Drugs are illegal in America because the good ***** isn't grown in America, if it was i bet you could buy them like cigs/alcohol. They say they do it to protect people, BS, they sell guns in walmart ffs, they don't care about your safety.
  • sunyata322, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was a great powerpoint of theirs that I used in researching a paper about cocaine legalization. Too bad I can't find it anymore =/
  • duality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is one of the most worthwhile diggs I've examined in a long time. However, we're only looking at one side of a gem with numerous lines of symmetry through it.

    Since my best topic is general technology, I'll explain what I mean by this statement in that medium.

    A long time ago (decades, that is), software was written and shared with the world, and we saw how well the system worked. Then times changed, and people started hiding their source code from each other. However, one person, who most everyone on Digg will recognize as Richard Stallman, took a different approach. He kept what he wrote open and free. Because of what he started working on back then, we have both free software and open source software. He showed that software worked better and just made more sense when it had as few restrictions as possible.

    Fortunately, there was no reason for the government to make sharing software (especially your own work) explicitly illegal. The existing copyright laws were enough to satisfy the businessmen of the time.

    Turning this gem in your hand and looking at the other sides, you see drugs, terrorism, pornography, education, amateur science, and a myriad of other issues. The U.S. government fights a war on drugs "for the good of the people", but they have wasted money and made no progress. They fight a war on terrorism, but they have spent money and probably made negative progress. They campaign against pornography, but it's easier than ever to get it now, and sex crimes have actually gone down significantly because of it. Education is a joke in the U.S., and a dangerous one at that, because our school system has been legislated to the brink of oblivion. Science is grinding to a halt, as amateurs with curiosity and brains find that all the interesting stuff is prohibited because it "might be dangerous".

    The common thread? Each of these issues would practically (eventually) solve itself if it were released from the bonds of red tape and federal stupidity. There are places for the government to get involved, and there are many more where it should keep its nose out of people's lives.

    Conservatives in America used to believe this. It wasn't a radical idea at all. Now, very few people on either side of the government seem to understand how it works. And with a large number of U.S. citizens screaming in a vacuum, one wonders if our government will ever be able to hear us again.
  • InfamousX241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree 100% with this, but how often have you seen a cigarette butt on the ground? If the streets were littered with roaches (joints too small to smoke) or needles, I think that could become a problem. I think laws like "no intoxication in public" or something of the like should be passed, and certain land-owners could decide if people could be intoxicated on their property.

    Sadly though, I don't think America will allow this to happen any time soon. On the positive side, a country that actually listens to the people (Canada) may be on the right track, drug laws are much softer here (I've seen cops encounter someone who is smoking marijuana and just tell them to move along).

    You'll never know what happens until we try it, the outcome of legalizing drugs is just too unpredictable.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If pot was legal you would no longer have roaches. Retail joints would be filtered, so you might find a few filters on the ground but these aren't smokable. You would not find needles on the ground, though. People don't inject Marijuana, and heroin would only be available by prescription, in a treatment center for addicts.
  • rubored, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Finally, they are realizing!
    +DIGG!
    Legalize!
  • neave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's so refreshing to hear someone talking rationally rather than spouting rhetoric.
    All we need now is a US president that has the guts to say the same thing.
  • CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." --Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit. FROM: Peter Dale Scott & Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Berkeley: U. of CA Press, 1991, pp. x-xi.

    Just because someone is gathering intelligence for the CIA it doesn't imply they are smuggling drugs for the CIA. The CIA is primarily an intelligence service. They are not a drug enforcement agency.
    • kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and invariably, in order to get the info, the CIA simply *have* to hire/blackmail/whatever some very dodgy characters.
  • d00fy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This will never take off. Not unless "they" corrupt it and murderloot, and then set up a more "security" for its "citizens".

    I say ***** it, let them continue down the road of destruction, the only thing I can give the public praise for is there stance on not surrending firearms. Firearms are prehistoric in comparision to the technology in place, but it's the principle.

    http://eld00fy.spaces.live.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.