What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
345 Comments
- bodycounter, on 03/31/2009, -2/+210FTA - "Someone described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. That's a perfect description of the war on drugs."
I have been saying the same exact thing for YEARS. To see this on cnn.com is fantastic vindication. - digg4peace, on 03/31/2009, -1/+140two words: Al Capone.
Prohibition does not help anything but criminals, and people like Dick Cheney who are heavily invested in the private prison industry....like I said, it only helps criminals... - Sunscreen, on 03/31/2009, -2/+115"I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free."
-Ron Paul - mikeazorin, on 03/31/2009, -2/+79Just saw this on CNN and was about to submit it. Good article, with enough media coverage, maybe Obama will think about this issue rationally instead of just smiling and laughing it off.
- bootie, on 03/31/2009, -1/+74Cafferty in my eyes as always been an honest, straight-shooter, on point guy in the world of diarrhea of the mouth talking heads these days. The more exposure these stories get the better chances we have in getting some of our personal freedoms back. This is a good little piece and I hope the news outlets continue to pick up and report on the evolving thought process of the public on this "war" on drugs.
- skiboarder2k1, on 03/31/2009, -2/+70I agree. I was surprised to wake up this morning and see something about the legalization of pot on the front page of CNN, something that I normally only see here on Digg. CNN also has an entire page devoted to their iReporter's opinions on the legalization of it. First we will see it trickle down through the MSM and then, hopefully, into the White House. Also if you begin to read some of the comments of the people who are against legalizing, just replace the word "pot" or "marijuana" with the word "alcohol" and nothing will change.
- Yousty, on 03/31/2009, -2/+69Right now this article is sitting at #9 on CNN's most viewed articles for the day. Let's get this to the front page so we can get it to #1!
Also, thank you Cafferty for not being afraid to speak your mind! - z3rged, on 03/31/2009, -1/+55Poll right now on the front page of CNN. "Should drugs be legalized so they can be taxed?" 59% yes 41% no
- norman619, on 03/31/2009, -1/+45Any war on an inanimate object is silly.
- theremixtrack, on 03/31/2009, -2/+39I like weed. I do not like laws against marijuana.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -3/+40Marijuana law reform is no longer a political liability; it's a political opportunity.
- mjk340, on 03/31/2009, -0/+33"Drug Policy Alliance: The Netherlands". DrugPolicy.org. 2007-12-18. http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/west ...
"Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category." - InSearchOfTruth, on 03/31/2009, -3/+36I'm a hard core conservative who was on the fence about this until after I read this article. Legalize it.
- thewhits, on 03/31/2009, -1/+33Legalizing Pot is going to happen whether the politicians like it or not. (they don't)
- BenderFlexo, on 03/31/2009, -2/+33Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955) - DrummerAndrew, on 03/31/2009, -1/+32Brief, but well articulated article. The WOD is not doing anyone any good. At all. The people who want drugs are good at getting them. And it's an inverse proportion kind of deal, too. The more the WOD succeeds, the more the drug dealers have to be criminals, and the more well armed and prepared they will be. The violence stems from the fact that little parts of the war have worked. Otherwise, it'd just be small time dealers looking to make a buck. Stop the WOD and stop persecuting personal freedom.
It's an issue of individual rights. The government has no place to say what I can and cannot do with my body. - zephc, on 03/31/2009, -0/+27Watching an interview with an anti-drug-war spokesman, the interviewer (from CNN) asked - playing the devils advocate - wouldn't ending the war on drugs destroy a lot of jobs in the prison and law enforcement industries? He didn't answer with the obvious reply which is 'Yes, but do you really want a large part of your economy based around incarceration of otherwise non-violent people?' Really - what kind of *****-up bizarro Earth do we live on where something like the prison-industrial complex and these polices are acceptable?
- GnralHavoc, on 03/31/2009, -1/+27That quote describe the American Government a lot these days doesn't it.
- fyngyrz, on 03/31/2009, -1/+26The problem is, the cost in human lives and taxpayer dollars is not a cost that is of significant concern to politicians.
The value of the drug war to the government - and it is considerable - is that it employs huge numbers of people fighting it; it provides a "hard on" stance for politicians that your median-IQ family will stand shoulder to shoulder with, and re-elect for, because they've been made *very* afraid that the boogy-man of drugs will come and destroy their children. And they simply don't have the sophistication to discover that the facts are that the war is far more dangerous to their kids than the drugs are.
The percentage of citizens that can actually think through the implications for personal liberty, or who actually know the history of alcohol prohibition, is actually fairly small. Don't be fooled by the anti-prohibition sentiment on Digg and other net sites; this is a very small group (compared to the US voting population) and it is a group that has very little influence.
If you want to actually solve the problem, that is, eliminate the portion of the war on personal liberties called the drug war, then you have to do something about its ability to benefit politicians, to route huge amounts of money to law enforcement and prisons, and the businesses that supply and support law enforcement and prisons. That's a huge task to undertake, and I don't really see how it could be accomplished.
People have known for decades that the drug war is ineffective in reducing drug use. What they fail to understand is that isn't the point, and it never was. That's just the spin that supports the movement of vast sums of money into the pockets of the people who are responsible for managing the war itself.
As a people, until we face these realities and *deal* with them, we can't solve this problem.
Just look at the derision and disrespect which which Obama treated the overwhelming call to legalize that most mundane and harmless of illegal drugs, marijuana in his own Internet "call for questions." He not only didn't take the issue seriously: He thought you people were *funny*.
Star thinking about solving the actual problem. It isn't what you think it is; or at least, that's not the issue that drives the situation. - charlie6969, on 03/31/2009, -0/+24President Abraham Lincoln (December 1840):
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded" - inactive, on 03/31/2009, -8/+32I'm afraid Ron Paul's stance is far too subtle for America today. His world is the world of Jefferson, Washington and well-written essays. Our world is the world of Twitter, Lindsay Lohan, and emotional knee-jerk digg/bury weightlessness.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -2/+25I agree, and it didn't really jibe with the rest of the piece. The cartels are here because an unmet *demand* is here, not because we didn't build a 100 foot wall guarded by rabid bears and lions.
- Unreal411, on 03/31/2009, -2/+25If they legalized all the drugs there wouldn't be a war on drugs, just a profit.
- markusfarkus, on 03/31/2009, -0/+22Source?
I thought crime and drug use went down after they legalized drugs. I could have sworn I read somewhere recently that the rate of teenagers smoking pot over there is less than it is here. - penny3, on 03/31/2009, -2/+24"A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -Abraham Lincoln
- jasdf, on 03/31/2009, -0/+21Everyone needs to go to the home page and vote...although it would only be a small drop in the bucket since therer are over 160,000 votes at the moment.
- Nosferotu, on 03/31/2009, -3/+23Jack Cafferty is the man.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+20Relative to the quotation; voting for the same two political factions over and over again expecting different results each time makes most of the United States...
- papashawn, on 03/31/2009, -1/+21Cafferty gets it...why doesn't Obama?
- maz2331, on 03/31/2009, -5/+24I can support ending the WOD with one provisio: those free to do the drugs may not avail themselves of any welfare programs of any sort while doing so.
- Nosferotu, on 03/31/2009, -1/+20I am hoping that within the next couple weeks we get an apology from Obama for the whole "laughing at the issue" thing a few days ago.
Then maybe within the next year, real steps forward? - Guigemar, on 03/31/2009, -4/+22The "War on Drugs" is a mature, multinational, trillion dollar industry with extraordinary lobbying and campaigning power. Good luck opposing it.
- CrazedLeper, on 03/31/2009, -3/+21The US gov't well knows the principles of economics and business. They have seized enough drugs to be able to collapse the drug trade and stem the tide of drug-related crime by distributing confiscated drugs to existing, confirmed addicts (without making new ones). Instead, they chose to "fight" an unwinnable war. Why? There's always a reason, don't shrug your shoulders and assume that they are actually trying to do what they *told* you they are trying to do.
The drug trade is providing the cash flow that has been supporting the US economy since the loss of it's manufacturing infrastructure to cheap overseas labor. That's why they went into Afghanistan. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 but they did burn all the poppy fields, which significantly impacted the US heroin supply. It is widely known that ousting the Taliban has had the secondary effect of greatly increasing the heroin supply in the US. So how do you know that the secondary effect was not the actual primary goal?
By "fighting" a "war on drugs", the US is actually spreading drugs. It works on the same principle as using water on an oil fire; it only spreads it. They well know this so they set up an infrastructure that allows gov't agencies an excuse for having drugs in their possession, tracking drug trafficking and monitoring drug dealers while still *looking* good and just. The same as a pipe carries waste away from your toilet, it can carry it back. They are using drug agencies to actually spread drugs.
Of course, there is the occasional well-publicized drug bust and the even more rare public destruction of confiscated drugs (as far as *you* know) but your government is not really trying to stop drugs from entering this country.
This gov't is addicted to drug money so they set up biased drug laws and let the police put on a show for stupid and naive Americans by publicly arresting *certain* people for using the drugs that they allowed in the country. Now they have an excuse to target whatever population segments they want for lengthy stays in privatized prisons, another US growth industry.
Absolute power corrupts--absolutely. - neilyn, on 03/31/2009, -0/+18FTA "The Mexican drug cartels now have operations in 230 American cities. That's 230 American cities!"
oh *****! it is! - covertbadger, on 03/31/2009, -2/+19Legal gambling didn't ruin your mother, a chronic lack of self-control did. You think I shouldn't be allowed to have a few bucks on the game for interest because your inheritance has been frittered away?
- PseudoThink, on 03/31/2009, -12/+29I was right on board with his article until this line:
"[Drug cartel operations] have been able to infiltrate those [American] 230 cities because we have not bothered to secure our borders."
This is the same kind of mentality that makes the RIAA think that the music industry's aging business model would work great, if they could only just secure their music better. Ignorant and ridiculous. - wigren, on 03/31/2009, -1/+17I like your comment.
- norman619, on 03/31/2009, -0/+15It's funny when they realize at 18 they can go to war and die for their country and vote but they can't buy beer.
- Talphin, on 03/31/2009, -2/+17And Freedom
- keyforce, on 03/31/2009, -0/+15I agree with this guy.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+15Wrong. Try debating with facts instead of lies next time.
- awggie, on 03/31/2009, -0/+14Exactly! Consider your notions challenged, sir.
- Frankyfan3, on 03/31/2009, -0/+14"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
Albert Einstein
Physicist and Professor, Nobel Prize 1921 - wishninja, on 03/31/2009, -0/+14Your equating rape or murder to useing drugs is not a correct "extension of that line of thinking".
- joshmoney, on 03/31/2009, -2/+15I'm really sorry to hear about how it affected your loved ones but ask yourself if you would have preferred the alternative; would you have rather had the government send out agents to knock down the doors of your house, grab your relatives, toss them into a van, and lock them up in prison for years?
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+13"90% of hard drug users started with marijuana". Don't you mean alcohol?
- Kyzzyxx, on 03/31/2009, -0/+13You mean like the ratings of your statement are free-falling?
- jparkinson, on 03/31/2009, -0/+13just voted
Yes: 60%
No: 40% - RaGE78, on 03/31/2009, -4/+17“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
-Albert Einstein - Fustigations, on 03/31/2009, -0/+13Damn. I must be turning into a kooky old conspiracy theorist. That all made a lot of sense...
It also seems to me (proving a conspiracy theorist growing within me) that the "war on drugs" provides a marvellous excuse to keep and increase a domestic police force willing to subdue the populace with a completely "reasonable" excuse to feed the public to keep them off the scent. Damn. Now I'm all paranoid, and I haven't touched any weed in years... -
Show 51 - 100 of 347 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is