digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The war on Drugs: The other war we can't win

seattletimes.nwsource.com — The ironic truth is that humans have used drugs - psychoactive substances ranging from opium and coca to alcohol, hemp, tobacco and coffee - since the dawn of history. Problems get triggered when substances are associated with despised or feared subgroups, according to a careful study by the King County, Wash., Bar Association.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -87/+11We could win the war it if we had the political will to tell the countries that actually produce drugs (Colombia, Bolivia, Vietnam, Afghanistan) that either they do something about it or we will. All you have to do in napalm the fields. We have Predators and satellites, we know where the fields are, we just have to do it. That will never happen though.

    There is untold billions upon billions of dollars tied up in illicit narcotics the world over. Everybody from the gigantic banks down to the crack addict in the alley have their hands dirty. If we were actually stop the drugs from coming into America, the economy would take a massive hit. So it will never happen. And therefore people like my sister (who was an addict) will continue to die.

    Oh well.

    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -6/+77"There is untold billions upon billions of dollars tied up in illicit narcotics the world over. Everybody from the gigantic banks down to the crack addict in the alley have their hands dirty. If we were actually stop the drugs from coming into America, the economy would take a massive hit. So it will never happen. And therefore people like my sister (who was an addict) will continue to die."

      Prohibition makes it obscenely profitable. Every nickel spent on the war on drugs only raises the prices.

      Prohibition makes it dangerous. Addicts die because dosage and quality of black-market drugs are unregulated.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46You are insane. Did you even read what you wrote? You're advocating mass murder to save lives.
    • ulcards2033, on 10/12/2007, -7/+60So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly. We, a nation supposedly about freedoms and protecting them, should not only continue to deny freedoms to our own citizens, but also force these restrictions on others? It's not anyones fault that your sister became an addict except her own.
    • drjones78, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51Doesn't matter how many cocaine fields you napalm, people will find a way to get high. Theres plenty of ways to do it with over the counter products and drugs, as well as many other things found in nature, that you will never be able to possibly control. Its time to stop all this nonsense. People like to get high, and will risk jail and lives to do it if you dont let them do it legally. Its futile.
    • mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35Yes, we should do that because the drugs, by themselves, reached out and strangled your sister *rolls eyes*

      As callous as it might sound, your sister killed herself by her own voluntary action. If she, knowing the dangers associated with drug use, could not or did not take appropriate steps to limit her use and/or the danger, then the blame lies with her and not the availability of a substance. A drug cannot be of harm to any person until that person actively decides to begin using it, and decides the quantities in which it will be used.

      There are many more who have the sense and prudence to enjoy recreational use of drugs without being so foolish as to become ensnared in highly addictive ones, or taking hazardous combinations or quantities.
    • BenSerwa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Heroin is now 300x cheaper than when the war on drugs began. It's also turned from 5% pure drug to 95% pure drug. If your sister died of an overdose, blame the war on drugs, which caused overdoses like that to be possible. Napalming the fields might put a small dent into it for the short term, but the long term truth is, people who want drugs are always going to be able to get drugs, no matter what anyone does (including if you stick them in prison).

      There's also the matter of the sovereignty of those countries, of course. What happens when those countries go, "Hey, your laws don't apply here?" If the US is worried about being the target of terrorism, flying over the borders of other countries to napalm them is not the way to go about helping that situation. The world would be pissed. They'd basically be ***** all around.
    • Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -43/+3I agree wholeheartedly, Blooms. I disagree with the way the war has been waged thus far, we need to take it to the producers, not the addicts. Harmful substances such as opium and cocaine are originating in only a few locations really, and if we had the political will, we could sanction those countries until they do more to help.

      Arguements such as the one above are from those who believe it is morally right to intoxicate oneself and want to make it as safe as possible. I can agree with the safety, but I don't believe people need to be experimenting chemically. In any case, nepawoods, how do you do dosage for someone who craves the substance over anything else, and will lie/cheat/steal to get more than your small, safe dosage? How do you manage such an addictive substance as cocaine and meth?

      If you want to disagree morally, please shoot back with an arguement other than 'it feels guud!'. 'It's my body and I'll do what I want' holds slightly more weight, but we still have laws in place to keep people from harming themselves, so, I don't want to hear that, either.

    • ixtapalapaquetl, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25You couldn't be more wrong, my brother.

      The problem does not lie with the producers. It lies with those who create the demand. When you limit the supply without addressing the demand, you only create scarcity. Such scarcity is what fuels crime and violence due to the enormous profit potential.

      The only meaningful way to fight the drug problem is to go after the American users. Eliminate the demand, and all those fields in Colombia will start producing corn within a month, guaranteed.

      We are the problem, not them.
    • mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Jagdhund:

      You can arbitrarily claim, and without any basis in reason, that an individual becoming intoxicated (you know, we use that term to describe imbibing sufficient quantities of alcohol too, you asshat; explain to me the logical distinction between alcohol and other intoxicating substances, since one is apparently accepted and the other not) warrants intervention by officious bystander ***** like yourself, but then you exclude two perfectly good reasons why a person might want to take drugs?

      ***** off back to church and return to your bible studies. Being told what to think is more your domain than trying to think for yourself.
    • signal15, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31The war on drugs isn't all about a war on drugs. A good portion of it is about social control. Certain groups of people are more likely to deal and use drugs, and the government can use the war on drugs as justification to control these groups to a degree by putting them in prison.

    • Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4@mugen

      What the hell makes you think I approve of alcohol? Because it is legal? I don't even want to touch on that subject.

      I asked for you not to spew back two arguments I hear often, not that they are irrelevant. I've come to my own conclusions about these things. The people telling me not to drink or do drugs are telling it with their actions, not their words. I've seen how it ends up.

      I'm not going to return the insults, because that is childish, but all I ask is that you try to argue like a civilized person.
    • TBagwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@theblooms

      congratulations on missing the point entirely. win = you
    • carltonsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10And why do you think napalming the fields will get rid of it? Of course, we could foment more hatred against America by the small farmers in Central and South America and in Asia. Then they will simply grow the same stuff elsewhere. If there is a demand, people will provide a supply. Money talks...[you know the rest of the statement]
    • outbreakofevil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Prohibition is retarded. All these stupid teenagers get high simply because it is illegal, and the idea of doing something that is morally (and legally) unacceptable just makes it all the "cooler".


      "In any case, nepawoods, how do you do dosage for someone who craves the substance over anything else, and will lie/cheat/steal to get more than your small, safe dosage? How do you manage such an addictive substance as cocaine and meth?"

      @ Jagdhund

      Well, they wouldn't exactly be craving the substance over anything else given that they were given more managable doses from the beginning. Sure, dosage won't work for junkies. It's like giving someone any amount of money that they want whenever they want, and then telling them they can only take $5 a day.
    • mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Jagdhund:

      You are contemptible. You are presumptuous in the very strict meaning of the word: without having ever tried any of the more popular illicit drugs (and perhaps not even alcohol), you presume to be able to pass 'moral' judgment on the use of those drugs.

      Immoral by whose authority? For what reason?

      Your authority? hah. Jagdhund the arbiter of contemporary morality. You do not even give no reasons, other than for one solitary and quite disappointingly inane observation: you have seen 'how it ends up'.

      For whom? People who resorted to drugs to evade dealing with problems in their lives? People who never had the money or stability to support casual, recreational use? I suspect that you are inventing experiences which you have not, in fact, had. Even if you are being truthful, what you describe is but a small, visible subset of total drug use.

      Do you think that all drug use inexorably leads to perdition? I would observe a massive number of individuals, of every age and socio-economic class, who are capable of using illicit drugs in a manner no different to alcohol; that is, as an infrequent casual indulgence, without any impact whatsoever on any other aspect of their lives. What do you say to them? They curiously defy your presumptous sanctimonious 'moral' nonsense.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I live in the netherlands, by no means a perfect but in this case a most certainly enlightened country. In our country a policy of tolerance has worked and has produced the consistently lowest addiction and death rates and very low convinction rates. And we would get petty crime under control too if we would be able to release police resources from still having to go after the addicts - who are effectively the victims.

      On a different note:

      http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/
      http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2382/
      http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm

      If someone's sister dies, she dies because she was sick and her brain had a deficiency that made her crave a different neurological balance - not because her soul and free will somehow led her astray, seduced by some externalized evil that needs to be eradicated. She was sick man, honor her memory. Respect who she was and acknowledge her disease.
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Jagd-

      "Harmful substances such as opium and cocaine are originating in only a few locations really, and if we had the political will, we could sanction those countries until they do more to help."

      For one thing, remember that this is a supply and demand issue. Even if you managed to totally annihilate the cocaine trade, it'd be replaced by synthetic substances that could be produced anywhere in the world. Technically, any of this is already feasible - it just costs a lot more to maintain a huge chemical facility than it does to terrorize Columbian farmers who have no other way of making a living. As for opium, not only are there synthetic variations on it as well, but poppies can be grown indoors just like anything else. You could grow opium-producing poppies in your windowbox, if you so desired. The only reason that 'all' the opium comes from one place is that - again - it's cheaper to get it where it grows naturally than to create a suitable environment elsewhere. The bottom line is this: when there is demand, there will be supply. It's just the reality of the situation. Hell, there are whole industries waiting in the wings for a chance at taking over the illicit drug trade. If you take coke off the market, you'll just see a surge in other 'party' drugs.

      Finally, we've done this before, if you'll recall. In the 1980's, we fueled an inter-cartel war in Columbia ostensibly to stem the cocaine trade but in reality to secure ready access to Venezuelan oil. We chose a side that would 'play nice' with us in the end, gave them old Soviet helicopters and AK's, and let them loose on their competitors. Burned fields, stormed farming communities, shut down hundreds of processing facilities. In return we chose to focus our energies on one cartel rather than the other. A kind of "you scratch my back..." deal. Well, we both scratched some backs, but the cocaine trade continues, and Columbia is a more dangerous and violent place than before.

      The only possible path to control is through legalization, as we saw with the alcohol prohibition. Unfortunately, we live in a bureaucracy where a government program's most important goal is to avoid obvious obsolescence, and the War on Drugs is worth its weight in Columbian Gold.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@Jagdhund

      "I can agree with the safety, but I don't believe people need to be experimenting chemically."

      a) People do need to experiment chemically, and they will never stop. It is part of human nature. There are tribes in South America who don't know how their wives get pregnant, but they know that if they peel several bushels full of bark off a particular kind of tree, scrape the inside of it out, mix it with water and boil it down to form a paste, dry the paste to a powder, then blow the powder far up into each others nostrils with a hollowed out stick, they have visions. How'd they figure that out? We have it in our nature to seek out consciousness altering experiences.

      b) People who use drugs, legal or otherwise, are not all "experimenting". Do you drink coffee? Think it should be illegal? Consider coffee drinking as "experimentation"? People use drugs, legal and illegal, to acheive a desired effect.

      "In any case, nepawoods, how do you do dosage for someone who craves the substance over anything else, and will lie/cheat/steal to get more than your small, safe dosage? How do you manage such an addictive substance as cocaine and meth?"

      People don't overdose because they crave unsafe dosages. They overdose because they end up taking more than they thought they were.

      "If you want to disagree morally, please shoot back with an arguement other than 'it feels guud!'."

      Prohibition doesn't work. Education does, but not in a repressive atmosphere. How do you morally defend relegating the production and distribution of drugs that people will inevitably take to an unregulated black market? How do you morally defend making millionaires of petty thugs?

      "'It's my body and I'll do what I want' holds slightly more weight, but we still have laws in place to keep people from harming themselves, so, I don't want to hear that, either."

      The drug laws don't keep people from harming themselves, they make it more likely. And the most popular illicit drug, marijuana, is virtually harmless anyway.

    • Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Jagdhund,

      How far are you going to go to keep people from "hurting" themselves? And how do you define "hurt"? Marijuana seems to have little, if any, long term physical effects. But if you want to keep people from hurting themselves, why not outlaw boxing, or sports on the whole. More people have died from playing football than smoking marijuana. Mountain climbing is risky, why not outlaw it? Hell, too much cholesterol will kill you. Outlaw twinkies?
      Or is the problem with super-hard substances that are addictive and dangerous with repeated use? Occasional cocaine use won't kill you (why Charlie Sheen is still with us). So should cocaine be legal, but crack not?

      People like taking risks. It's an adrenaline rush. People choose to get their fix in many ways. Sure, some are drugs. But some are skydiving, sports, or gambling. Whose morals should we use to justify a nation's laws? Perhaps the Amish? Maybe Howard Stern? Personally, if I'm not restricting anyone else's freedoms, I don't see why MY PERSONAL ETHICS are not good enough to rule me.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7
      http://leap.cc/
      even a good number of narcotics officers think th war on drugs is insane.
      Of course some people will tell you there are only two choices
      either we are totally hard core on drugs or we force our population on heroin.
      Many decriminalized states are still very hard on drugs, just the people are forced into rehab instead of jail
      they actually ave a higher success rate and the people coming out of rehab dont have a criminal record which would make their lives situations even worse.(which is often why they are on drugs in the first place)
    • vampares, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1That's what we need, more China White and Micheal J. Fox's running around.
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"As callous as it might sound, your sister killed herself by her own voluntary action. If she, knowing the dangers associated with drug use, could not or did not take appropriate steps to limit her use and/or the danger, then the blame lies with her and not the availability of a substance. A drug cannot be of harm to any person until that person actively decides to begin using it, and decides the quantities in which it will be used."

      That would assume that people who do drugs are thinking reasonably. Which drugs prevent a person from doing. It's just silly to expect anything different.
    • tyho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The drug war is a complete failure. The reason there is so much crime associated with drugs is because of the illegality.
      The reason we can't legalize is there are too many people making a profit on both sides of the war. It also doesn't help that the old timers have had the negative stigma drilled into them for a generation. I hope we have a chance to correct this farce when they all die off. Let people be free, even if they kill themselves.
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1If all drugs did to a person only affected that person I really wouldn't care.

      However they affect everyone who comes in contact with a user.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I think about 99% of all of you totally and completely missed my point. I will try to further explain.

      Look, I full well know that what my sister did was inexcusable. Yes, she killed herself. I know that. Believe me, you don't have to remind me. That said, I have seen first hand the ravages of drug abuse, and how it utterly and completely destroys families. Drugs are evil. Period.

      Did anyone force my sister to shoot up? Of course not. Do I place 100% of the blame squarely on her shoulders. Absolutely. She chose her path. I chose mine. But that still doesn't mean drugs aren't evil. They are.

      And exactly how is napalming coca and poppy fields mass murder? That makes no sense whatsoever. What does make sense, if we are serious about the so-called "War On Drugs," (which by the way we aren't. Not by a long shot!) is stopping the production of drugs. Sure, after one field is burnt, they will replant somewhere else. So what? Napalm that field. And again and again, and so on and so forth. We know EXACTLY where the fields are.

      But we won't do it. I know that. You know that. We all know that. We won't do it for one reason and one reason only, which I already mentioned. Money. Human life is cheap. Dirt cheap.

      Do I feel sorry for drug addicts like my sister? Nope. They know what they are doing. Nobody puts a bong or pipe to their lips, or a needle in their arm without knowing EXACTLY what they are doing. The problem is, drug addicts LIKE drugs. Hence that's why they use them. Does that make it right? Hell no.

      The '60's was the birth of the "If It Feels Good, Do It" movement where anything goes. Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll. The '60's was also the birth of exponentially escalating crime, massive degradation of public schools, destruction of inner cities, and all manner of the general *****-up-edness that now infests America. Coincidence? I think not.

      The only way to stop drug use is to completely and permanently cut off the source. Cut off the head, and the monster dies, so to speak. But again, we won't. Far too much money invested in it.

      Is the present "War on Drugs" totally and completely ***** Up Beyond All Recognition. You bet. Is it a complete failure? Indubitably. Do we continue along the same path? Nope.

      I have taken 500 Level coursework in Criminal Justice, including a GREAT course entitled "Drugs and Their Impact on Crime." (Earned and A.) My sister is a deceased addict. I have 3 first cousins that are addicts, one of which is homeless right now. I like to think I know what I am talking about.

      We either need to tightly and legally regulate drugs, and stop what the ***** we are doing right now, or we need to go whole hog and actually FIGHT a real WAR. The latter will NEVER happen, so the former is probably the only way out of this mess.

    • stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The problem isn't the producers or the users. It's the people who want to inflict their twisted morals on others.
      You can get your high from tobacco, alcohol, jesus or whatever. Just don't get all high and mighty and put me in jail for having a toke.
      I'm not hurting anyone. Why do you want to hurt me?
    • Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@blooms

      Well spoken, once again.

      @mugen

      You tell me that I need to think for myself, and attack my opinions when I do? I can see that you're way is the only way and that I need to agree in order to not face more judgment from you.

      You think I've 'invented' what I've seen. That is false. I've had three friends and two brothers, with different situations, try different types of drugs. None of them are the same afterwards, even the ones that quit. One completely lost his personality and is very detached and quiet now.

      About the only thing you have right is that I haven't tried anything, except alcohol (which just tastes awful). I do not approve of it, I'll never need to. I am a DD for my friends when they need one, and I'll always be there for them when they're down, and I'll always urge them away from the substance abuse. That is my stance, and I don't quite care if you think it is passing judgment.

      You are quite out of control in your posting, mugen. All I ask is for civility.
    • LeroyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The war on drugs is absolutely ridiculous.

      Drug use is not going away anytime soon. It needs to be legalized and regulated.

      - Strictly control drug import
      - Tax heavily
      - Eliminate drug crime. Drug producers/distributors would have better incentive to legally grow and distribute coffee beans, than to try illegally importing a now low-ticket item
      - Eliminate quality issues. Drugs with unknown purity or additives (laced drugs)
      - Direct a portion of the tax to strengthen existing rehabilitation and prevention programs
      - Reduce prison population
      - Reduce operating costs of the prison system, the justice system, and law enforcement.
      - Keep billions of dollars from exiting our economy to fuel terrorists and murderers
    • thelordofcheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your sister was just a stupid bitch. It wasn't the drugs fault. It was hers. I'm glad a ***** like that is rotting right now.
  • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+55The whole concept of "waging war" on abstract concepts - terror, poverty, drugs, christmas - is fallacious.

    That's why all such wars are unwinnable (or, if you're defending, unlosable).
    • flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@Azur2
      I think Jr. was following the example or Sr. ... Drugs, Terror. I think the concept on paper is ... noble?, but like you said, too vague to win. Success can't be measured.
    • enivid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3What if you're neutral? Un-neutrable?
    • mogus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I think that for many people the title is based on the assumption that we should only fight wars where a definitive victory is attainable. There are many wars and forces we struggle against that we many never fully overcome, but that does not destroy the value of the fight. I will probably die within the next 80 years, but that does not mean I give up the struggle for life.
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@AZUR:
      The whole concept of "waging war" on abstract concepts - terror, poverty, drugs, christmas - is fallacious.

      That's why all such wars are unwinnable (or, if you're defending, unlosable).

      I agree with you, Azur. How can you have war on a type of fighting tactic such as , "Terrorism"? Thats like having a war on "conventionalware" or a war on "aerial combat". How can you beat a concept? That is a hell of an enemy.

      No one can stop and idea whose time has come.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@mogus

      But you don't call your struggle for life a war on death. Calling it a war is just a way to reduce a complex set of problems to a simple concept, i.e. drugs are bad, let's fight drugs.
    • Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Yes, the war on crime is also unwinnable, we may as well legalize burglary and tax the hell out of it. This is because people like to kill and steal, they always have. You can't stop people from committing crimes, they will always find a way.

      Sound familiar? Yes, I despise your defeatist attitude towards such things. We can always reduce such things, even if you cannot destroy them. We're not going for black or white, we're going for a shade of gray that we can deal with.
    • funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4These "wars" are not intended to be won. They are intended to be continuous. It's like a "jobs bill."
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Jaghund

      "Yes, the war on crime is also unwinnable, we may as well legalize burglary and tax the hell out of it. This is because people like to kill and steal, they always have. You can't stop people from committing crimes, they will always find a way."

      Bad analogy. The vast majority of people do not kill or rob or commit crimes other than drug crimes. The vast majority DO commit drug offenses at some point in their life. And society, really, doesn't care. A Presidential candidate may have used illegal drugs in the past, and nobody considers it an issue with regard to his fitness to lead the country. If he were a burglar, murderer, rapist, etc. it would be altogether different.

      "Yes, I despise your defeatist attitude towards such things."

      Defeatist? Here is defeatist for you: Education can not work, so we must give government the authority to imprison people for their own good, regardless of whether they have done something that hurts anyone at all.
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jagdhund: Yes, a "war on crime" is unwinnable - there'll always be crime.
      That doesn't mean that you can't defeat specific criminals, or solve specific crimes. Every policeman goes to work knowing that at the end of the day there'll still be about as much crime - and I doubt they feel it's pointless. I know the victims don't.

      "War on " is really just PR, an attempt make a message more enthusing to the people than a "let's spend 20% more on law enforcement!" or "I'm feeling really cramped by the constitution and would like to bypass it!" would be. It's silly. It's misleading. And it's dishonest.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's not a war on drugs. It is a war on drug users and suppliers. We must not forget that. It is a war against our own people for their beliefs . A mass Genocide!
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jagdthudt (really, schweinhundt)

      If cops could solve ANY BURGLARIES AT ALL it might make a ***** difference. But nooooo, the piggies are too busy stealing other people's property in drug bust confiscations. So don't tell me about giving up in a "war on crime." The pigs are the criminals.
  • homerj14, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5the Goverment doesnt support usually anything they cant profit off
    • BenSerwa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11As if the government couldn't make money off of drugs if they wanted to...
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8supporting a war against drugs, and voicing that support, will win votes.
    • brizzad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4thats what they said about alcohol years ago
    • Mr.Ortiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If drugs were legal, they would be taxed as heavily as cigarrettes. The government's profits would be HUGE. Unfortunately, you can't win an election (yet) if you say drugs should be legal.
    • nj10ii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You can't win a election by saying your going to raise taxes either.

      Oh wait...
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's as east to grow pot as it is to grow tomatoes. THAT is what the government is truly afraid of. An untaxable way for the people to have a good time.

      Think about that. What kind of evil subhuman ***** like to enslave people to taxation and keep them from enjoying themselves? Our government is full of people like that.
  • Holosoth, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2Who said we were at war with drugs?
  • Agilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16[chong]someone waged war on drugs? oh man, i hope drugs win[/chong]
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Bulls*#@t!
    We will NEVER stop drug abuse in the US by attempting to stop production. Americans like to get high and as long as the demand it there, drugs will flow into this country.
    The drug war is a fool's errand.
    Legalize it all and tax it like tobacco.
    That way we might be able to pay off the huge deficit that Chimpy has allowed to grow while he has been in office, in forty or fifty years.
    The war on drugs,,,policy that is ineffective, costly and hopeless. Sounds rather like Iraq!
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3No one expected drug use to cease entirely. That is not what would be considered a "victory" in this war.

    However, drug use absolutely HAS descreased substantially since the "war of drugs" began.
    • BenSerwa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Wrong. Blatantly false. Do the research and try again.
    • nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@broomett...I'd sure love to get my hands on whatever made you so high you could believe that lie. Study after study after study shows all people do is switch hit; LSD in the 60s, free basing in the 70s, coke in the 80s, ecstacy 90s, etc etc etc. There is absolutely no difference in the level of drug abuse. In the 50s, housewives (and Elvis) had their Bennies. The rate of use is the same. Illegalizing drugs, however, has caused people's homes to be raided in the middle fo the night by mistake, countless murders on the streets, and for our prison population to be the largest in the WORLD. LARGER THAN CHINA. Now theres something to call a win!
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Bull *****

      If you are not a coward, watch this:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3653114296815352489

      A prohibition of a highly desired commodity will cause the growth of criminal syndicates, the product to be used with no quality/safety control, and a massive development of distribution infrastructure. I SHIVER in terror just how much pain our society will have to endure before we learn this lesson.

      In a few years we will have chemical sequencers, able to synthesize chemicals with desktop devices, in the privacy of your own home, and generate literally millions of different psychoactive chemicals in effective strengths as to have an effective dose in the milligrams. Imagine microtabs with designer drugs more addictive, arousing, longlasting that any of the existing drugs existing today. In a few years we will see users move away from old narcotics such as crach, heroin, cocaine to new substances that are as easy to produce as you desk top publishing and printing a grocery list. Just download the chemical formula, run it through a chemical synthesizer and print a tab. These technologies WILL exist and WILL be obiquitous.

      When that times arrives, do you want to prosecute? Sentence? Send all who break the crimes to prison? Even if you'd have to send 10 million to prison? Or 20? Even if you'd have to become WAY worse of a police state than you are now?

      Oh yeah, I forgot, the frog is already medium done and can't jump out of the boiling water anymore. Or maybe the frog simply doesn't give a ***** anymore and wants to die because he knows what's ahead.
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21There's no drug problem - there's enough for everyone!
  • Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Here, take this pill instead.
  • gothsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The article entitled "Drugs Win Drug War" from The Onion just about encompasses it for me.
  • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8We can't win in the war against shoplifting, or thievery, or illegal parking, but we do it anyways. Its the right thing to do (of course there are those who believe the ideas of "right and wrong" are wrong, and that no one has the power to impose on another what is right or wrong. These people also have no place in debates in the first place). Politicians call it a war to draw attention to the issue, make it more urgent. Arguing over the fact that it is called "The War On Drugs," is making an issue out of a non-issue. Fighting against drugs is the right thing to do. The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens.
    • ulcards2033, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17And what exactly are they protecting us from with the prohibition of marijuana?
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Politicians call them wars to reduce them to the simple terms of "us" versus "them", then declare themselves solidly on the side of "us" to win votes.
    • mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4ulcards2033:

      Those who support prohibition and who are not total dicks typically justify it as working at removing the reason for other crimes i.e. if drugs are not available, users will not commit further property or personal violence offences in order to be able to support the use of drugs.

      Whether it does indeed have that effect or instead simply massively increases prices, and therefore results in far more property crime to support a given level of use, is always hotly contested.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Protect who, now? Throwing users in prison isn't protecting them. Taking away their lively hood and turning them into bottom-feeding lowlifes with zero career prospects, newfound criminal friends and a healthy hatred for the state doesn't protect anyone else, either.

      The only thing getting protected by the war on drugs is the profits of those who sell them.
    • TheChihuahua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7But who will protect the citizens from the government? Enough of this hand-wringing 'think of the children!' attitude, people NEED to be held responsible for their own actions. All those examples you've given are examples of behaviour that is illegal, and rightfully so - but why should, for example, marijuana be illegal? Are people not intelligent enough, in this day and age, to make their own informed choice as regards to such substances, do we really need government controlling EVERY aspect of our lives?
      The problem with phrases such as "War on Dugs" is that it turns a complicated issue into a simple, black and white situation, same as "War on Terror". The Bush administration seems to have cultivated this "Good guys vs Bad guys" attitude on so many issues, and all too many people seem more than willing to lap it up.
    • nj10ii, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Its a gateway drug for the majority and you know it.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You're right, just because it isn't winnable is no reason to quit the War on Drugs. We should quit because it's stupid. The WoD causes far more injury than drugs do, or ever would.

      Most people nowadays favor legalizing marijuana. That would be a good start if we could ever bring it to a referendum. It has been brought to vote in Nevada and Colorado, where it lost. But if we keep pushing it, it will win one of these days, and then we'll start to see some positive changes.
    • ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@spartan777

      "Fighting against drugs is the right thing to do. The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens."

      So I take it you're for gun control, anti-smoking legislation and anti-trans-fat legislation, Social Security, welfare and other social safety-net programs.

      How far would you take the government's role as protector? How many non-violent users need to be turned into criminals for us to be safe. The ones that use coke? How about heroin? OK, psychedelics? Pot? Caffeine? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Where do you draw the line? Cigarettes kill more people every year than alcohol, heroin, coke, and meth combined. Why hasn't tobacco been classified schedule 1 if it really were about protecting people and saving lives?

      It's your opinion that the war on drugs is the "right" thing to do. I think the right thing to do is not put non-violent people in jail because what substances they chose to use to relax or enjoy themselves differs from you.

      And don't give me the whole "dangerous criminal element that is associated with the drug trade" argument. You know just as well as I do that the only reason aspects of the drug trade are dangerous is because it is a black market. You don't see people shooting each other in the streets anymore over the alcohol trade, do you?
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Killing those who don't believe in god used to be the right thing to do. They'd burn them actually. Well, times change.
    • ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@spartan777

      I modded up your post back up.

      To win the war, they need to stop featuring drugs in movies, newspapers, lifestyle, etc... Stop promoting drugs. It needs to be removed on the whole. The same as perversion and the other vices that everybody knows ruin countries.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"...turning them into bottom-feeding lowlifes with zero career prospects, newfound criminal friends and a healthy hatred for the state..."

      They way I understand it, drug dealers and major druggies are already like this (note that I didn't say casual users, so all you guys can rest easy, I'm not accusing you).

      What are they protecting us from? From losing our minds. That's what has happened to too many of my friends who do pot. Of course, people can smoke casually, and that doesn't do as much harm, but, too often does it go from casual to junkie to they've lost their minds. Of course Amsterdam doesn't have much more crime, they're all too high to hold up a store.

      I am not for taking away people's guns (people will stay violent with or without guns), I am for smoking legislation, and any safety net legislation is bull. Saftey nets don't help anyone, they only make people feel more comfortable slacking off. Alcohol is very healthy in moderation, and I'm against cigarettes at all. One reason no politician ever goes for anti-tobacco legislation is because of all the revenue cigarette-taxes generate.
    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Its a gateway drug for the majority and you know it."

      And pot leads mostly to junkfood.

      While we're at it, lets outlaw junk food, because that too is bad for you. Being fat reduces your lifespan, and is just generally. . . . unacceptable. The government needs to step in to protect it's citizens!
    • MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@spartan777

      "We can't win in the war against shoplifting, or thievery, or illegal parking, but we do it anyways. Its the right thing to do .................."

      Your talking about two completely different things. When someone steals from another person they are violating that persons rights. We all have a right to defend our selfs against threats to our person's and property so the police acting on our behalf are justified in apprehending thieves. People who use drugs violate no ones rights. No one should face imprisonment for putting a potentialy harmful substance in threir body.Just because you don't condone anothers activities doesn't mean you have a right to stop them. A lot of people don't agree with religion and some think it is actually harmful, would they be justified in imposing their ideas on those with religous beliefs by having it banned? If someone commits a crime while on drugs that is a different story but nontheless the crime should be what they did, not the fact that they were high at the time. If you think drugs are bad then by all means encourage others not to use them, lead by example but you really have no right to impose your beliefs on others. In a free and tolerant society this is how we do things, not by force. Accept that others see the world different than you. Its sad that a country that claims to be the freeist in the world has more people in prison than anywhere else and that the majority of those who are serving time are there for exercising the freedoms that the government is supposed to be protecting. Drug laws make everyone less free because if we allow government to have the power to inprison us for using them in order to protect the "common good" then they can apply this same logic to justify banning other things that you may not agree with, and indeed they have. That is what is a stake here.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If th egovernment were actually going to protect people, it would herd all the narcs into a warehouse, seal the vents, and gas them like the mad dogs they are.

      Key a car with a DARE bumper sticker today for freedom.
  • DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The farmers in Afghanistan offered to grow corn instead of opium if they were paid the same price. Which would have actually meant very cheap corn. The US and UK governments turned them down.
    • okiepoke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Proof? Reference?
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...I want some proof of this.

      "Farms in Afghanistan" is quite a lot of people. They're generally not all in agreeance with each other, either.
    • creoderiot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0'agreeance' is not a word

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aagreeance&btnG=Google+Search
    • MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The farmers in Afghanistan offered to grow corn instead of opium if they were paid the same price. Which would have actually meant very cheap corn. The US and UK governments turned them down."

      And rightfully so. They shouldn't be bribing another country not to produce drugs and your argument that corn would be cheaper is wrong since the bribe money would have to come from the taxpayers. This would also lead to a shortage of opium based drugs which in turn would drive up the value of opium giving the farmers an incentive to grow it again.
  • Sell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I must say that ALL the posts above are the stupidest and most ignorant replies I have seen on the subject of drugs on Digg yet. I don't have the time to comment on each ridiculous post but I think theblooms set the moronic tone for the rest of the thread.
  • BuffalOBisoN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why is marijuana illegal? Look : http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html
  • Mullinator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I never could understand why people are punished for making mistakes that affect their own minds and bodies rather than the minds of bodies of other people. If I smoke marijuana in the privacy of my own home what exactly is the negative effect this will have on anyone other than myself?

    I completely agree with Milton Friedman when he said that treating drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal issue is the way to go.
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Aha, there you go.

      You are 100% right. In the (Paraphrased) words of John Stuart Mills, there should NEVER be a law 'for your own good'

      Anything that's not addictive shouldn't even be an argument. It should be legal, PERIOD.

      The actual argument comes with the addictive drugs (Not saying which side I'm for), it's that someone taking an addictive drug is much, MUCH more likely to engage in behavior that will damage someone else who is not addicted to any drugs. That's when there's the problem. Addictive substances are usually not very good for society at large.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As an organism that is chemical in nature, and dependent on one's own chemical balances, there is nothing that is not addictive.
  • kanemano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7There will always be drugs, until there is a cure for pain
  • ckinney23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fighting against drugs isn't the right thing to do, because most politicians use it to further their own careers by improving their image. I really doubt that very many politicians main goal is to stop drugs for the sake of stopping drugs. The government isn't protecting it's citizens at all; the war on drugs isn't stopping anyone, nor has it ever. The government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens as a whole, but I wouldn't want much from a government in the way of protecting people from themselves; that's a pretty dangerous idea, considering the extent of the United States government's power. If the war on drugs was dropped tomorrow, little would change. The people doing drugs would keep doing drugs, based on their choices. The people who don't use drugs won't start just because it happens to be legal now, aside from the few who actually see laws against drugs as restraints from doing them. The resources spent on this could actually be going somewhere valuable, like into domestic and international humanitarian programs.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think it's meant to be won. The war on terror will go on in the same fashion.
  • swordfishbg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I love marijuana...
  • iandanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@spartan

    What about alcohol, or cigarettes, they do a lot more harm than any narcotics do, yet the government doesn't outlaw them wholesale. What about sex, gambling, life endangering "sports" that cause massive adrenaline rushes? All of these activities affect the same part of the brain an can cause the same addictive responses, yet the government taxes and regulates the above, despite their harm to society. This is because it is both inordinately expensive and unrealistic to try and force people to behave a certain way. Why? Because all life is suffering and people are miserable. The American state was not intended to have the mechanisms to limit personal recreation because it is intrusive, and the line is impossible to draw. The government can educate, it can incarcerate when you endanger the lives of others, but it is not capable of imposing moral judgments about personal beliefs or actions because the government is composed solely of people who are no higher moral authority than any other, and because it would have to be far larger and involved in every persons privacy than can coexist with a free society.

    Freedom or "security." People are going to die, they are going to suffer, but they should be allowed to enjoy what they want while they are on this earth.
  • SmartITGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One frustrating stupidity in this whole matter is -
    This is a war NO government can win. BUT, governments don't like to lose, so will keep trying in vain until the end of time.

    Think of all that money that could e saved by not wasting it on losing battles.

    Remember the old addage...
    If you're having fun, you're probably breaking the law.
  • AloofDufus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I can't quite bite off drug legalization, but I would advocate doing away with the convoluted and unfair income (and illegal?) tax system and move into a flat federal sales tax on everything but food & clothing. That way EVERYBODY pays taxes, including those in the illegal drug industry. We'll never stop illicit drug use, but we can take some of the profit away to make our tax burden more balanced.
  • nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Jaghund is a moron; I can't reply to its replies, so I'll just post here. Why not just legalize burglary? Because, moron, burglary is a crime committed against someone ELSE. Using drugs, if they were just legal, has NO victim. That's the point. Personal drug use is victimless; you fools who think you can tell me what to do and what's good for me, and make illegal everything you think is good for me would call for anarchy if we outlawed religion because we think it brainwashes too many baffoons who ruin our lives with idiocy. Yet there you go cruising along thinking that DRUGS are our problem, while we think your BRAIN is OUR problem.

    That's probably the least logical thing I've submitted but I just can't think straight; either I'm stoned (hmm, not right now) or too enfuriated by the notion that the government gets to tell me what's good for me. Frightful.
  • henrybg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5here's a new idea:
    Legalize everything. We only buy from local, organic growers who are not junkies, but doing it because there are junkies and because drugs will exist regardless. We tax the piss out of the sales, and use that money to fund clinics. The whole process pays for itself, and then we can find out who is really worth a damn in this country by people staying away. Our social problems do not have to do with drugs, drugs are just the result of other problems that exist. However, most gang violence is a result of drugs and the black market. In a true capitalist society, like you idiot Republicans want, eliminates all government regulation, including drugs. But we smart people understand that tax is necessary, so why don't we work together to get this thing fixed...turn to Holland for the answers. I will never be a junkie or a new user just because they are legal...and just because they are illegal, I'm not prevented from finding them on every street corner anyway...why not make the money off of the drugs legally?

    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Taxing the piss out of drugs will only send them underground again. People who think there's some kind of El Dorado waiting to pay off the National Debt if we just legalize drugs and tax the piss out of them are not thinking realistically. In fact, tens billions of dollars will be saved when the War on Drugs is ended, but that won't be enough to get the US out of debt, not by a long shot.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Marijuana should be completely free and unregulated. Farmers should be able to sell it at roadside stands like they do sweet corn and melons.
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@mutatron
      Not being a drug user I don't know what the cost of most illicit substances are but given the huge risk involved with distributing them I would imagine that the Government could tack on quite a bit of tax before the cost approached what they cost now.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The price of most drugs is almost all risk. If drugs were legal, and the risk gone, keeping all drugs at the same price via taxes or even lower prices, would still bring in a ton of cash!
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can't tax something and expect the market to stay the same. The more you tax it, the more you drive it underground. If you try to enforce a high tax it's practically the same as enforcing a prohibition.
  • Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It's the simplest of legal principles: a law which is unenforceable should not exist within a properly functioning system of criminal law.

    And it's the simplest of rights theories: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - not the life the government wants you to lead, restricted to liberties the members of government feel comfortable with, pursuing a sort of happiness that legislators consider appropriate.

    So how can it possibly be illegal to grow a plant in the privacy of your own home, whether it be cannabis or magic mushrooms or what have you, and consume it for one's own gratification.

    What utterly mad conception of personal liberty believes this activity to be outside the rights of the individual, and surpassing an extreme at which government must intercede to limit and control the life of the private citizen on his own property?

    What hairbrained legal system believes that it can function as Houseplant Police in a nation of millions?

    Frighteningly, most of them.
    • nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's beautiful. I couldn't agree more. Many couldn't agree more. How is it that this insanity continues?
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
      I think this sums up what constraints we should have on personal liberty very well. So my right to get high shouldn't end until I behind the wheel of a car.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It continues because we're talking about it here instead of talking to our representatives at all levels of government.
  • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The odd thing is, heroin is very low on toxity. You can live a full and productive, if somewhat drowsy, life. If you give an addict pure heroin and make sure he uses it in moderation he'll sleep a lot but trouble no one. And how much does the heroin cost? I assume no more than coffee per gram. How much will he use per day? The equivalent of 10 lumps of sugar? That would be 3 coffeecups, or about a dollar of brown. If you give him this heroin he won't hurt anyone. He won't have a very productive life and cost society a little. So do most chronic disease sufferers, who tend to cost a lot more. So basicly the average heroin addict costs society anywhere between 50.000 and 250.000 euro or dollars per year, depending on age and imprisonment, largely from petty thefts. If you give him the heroin, he costs about 10.000 - and he can live as long as any normal human being.

    Can we start by taking heroin out of the equasion... and instantly cut hundreds of billions of profits from unspeakable terror/crime groups? Just have the state grow and distribute heroin. Register the addicts. Supply free heroin and health care. Treat the ***** problem like you would treat a chronic disease.

    Richer nations, including europe and the US, will save BILLIONS in wasted law enforcement costs, spiralling health care costs, aids spread, criminal damages and the misery of having to see loved ones being demonized.

    It could be your sister growing up as a heroin junkie, out there in the slums. With free state-distributed heroin she would be just someone who is sick, nothing more. She may even hold a simple job. But she wouldn't die.
  • gareth805, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Cocaine=drug, heroin=drug, nicotine=drug, alcohol=drug.They are all drugs and addiction to all of them should be treated the same way, but its not. Prohibition failed and now alcohol is a billion dollar industry, as are cigarettes. The problem is people like the DEA have multi-billion dollar budgets to fight this futile war and they wont give the $ up easily, then of course add in the preachers and religious nutters who think they know whats best for us...



    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.dea.gov/agency/staffing.htm

      I didn't think it was possible for them to have a billion dollar budget. But according to them, its close to 2.5 billion dollars in 2006. Thats ***** nuts.

      Is keeping people off drugs really worth that much?
    • curunir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The last figure I saw for federal spending on the WOSD (War on some drugs) was somewhere close to $7 billion. You can't count just the DEA's budget, you have to also count all the grants going to states and local law enforcement for drug fighting programs. This does *NOT* include the criminal justice court and prison costs, which are mostly state responsibilities. It also doesn't count the cost of productivity (and tax revenue) from locking up users that could otherwise hold jobs.
  • nikkesen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And in other news, bear ***** in the woods, the grass is green and the sky is blue. More at eleven.
  • Kaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe we should start picking the right wars.
  • trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why would we want to stop the drug war?
    1: It promotes a niche economy
    2: It shows true business Darwinism
    3: Government raids bring in millions of illegal drug money.
    4: Plenty of workers for license plate stamping.
    5: Promotes ingenuity which symbiotically promotes security which symbiotically removes freedom.
    • curunir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"3: Government raids bring in millions of illegal drug money."

      Yes, and this was part of the fed's plan to bring the local law enforcement back into the fold, when they started expressing doubts. The cops that actually dealt with the issues began to realize that the prohibition was a losing battle, and causing more problems that it solved.

      Enter "asset forfeiture". This allowed the cops to seize assets and use them for their own purposes. Basically a way of bribing law enforcement to tow the party line for the feds. And it worked like a charm. Of course, they had to basically rape the constitution to do it, but nobody reads that anymore, anyway.

      The really ironic part of this bribery system is that, in many cases, the really big drug dealers - the "kingpins" that the government kept insisting were the ones they really wanted to nail - are now often offered plea agreements if the don't fight the forfeiture. Since the big money-making dealers were the only ones with enough resources to fight the forfeiture. Other times they didn't really have enough evidence to make a drug conviction stick, but you don't need a conviction to get the property.

      It also encourages an overabundance of no-knock swat-style raids against unarmed citizens. Some old hippy growing weed in his closet is suddenly a major target, since the cops can seize his house.

      http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_info1.shtml
  • avolant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2SPINNING QUICKLY IS A GATEWAY DRUG
  • ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Just one question:

    If i choose to:
    1. Plant a seed on MY property
    2. Grow it in MY soil
    3. Harvest MY crop
    4. Process MY produce
    5. Enjoy the bounty of MY labour

    Where the f*#k do YOU come into the equation?

    Answers please
    • vampares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Roll me a bone and I'll show you.
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1When you are on the road stoned. When I have to work with people who are stoned.

      Drugs affect everyone. Not just the people using.
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@archer75
      I hate that argument. Of course you shouldn't be allowed to drive while stoned or work while stoned. You can't drive while drunk or even drive when you are too tired. Lets just start with the assumption that legal drugs would have the same restrictions placed on them as alcohol. And base you arguments as to the problems from that reality
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1While yes one would hope they would have the same restrictions as alcohol this wouldn't change anything. It certainly hasen't now.
      Drugs affect everyone. And legalizing them only affects me more. It has happened even with them being illegal. And legalizing them is just going to increase thier usage. Nothing good can come of it.
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1because stoned drivers typically tend to kill people more than you know not stoned drivers

      there would be numerous deaths as a resullt
    • Misogyny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, damn stoners driving 10 mph in a 30 mph zone...
    • salivalnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@archer75 -

      You're ***** ignorant. As far as I read, no one's advocating driving while stoned, or working with machinery while stoned.

      We're talking about smoking a joint in the comfort and privacy of your living room and playing Wii Sports like an unco spaz. It's a bit of fun and it's harmless.

      Putting people behind bars for doing that is not going to solve anything.

      People who drive while high should face the same consequences as those who drive while drunk. And the consequences need to be more severe.

      (Anyway, there was a video on digg recently about how pot use doesn't affect your ability to drive. Although the tests weren't scientific in any way, it was an interesting example. People I've driven with while high have always been heaps more cautious than they would be normally and tend to drive slower, but I still agree that any true conscious-affecting drug doesn't mix with driving.)
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1But that's the thing. You don't get to legalize it and then choose where people do it. They are going to do where they are going to do it and we already have problems with that.

      Legalizing it isn't going to suddenly change how and where people do drugs or how they behave when they do them.

      It's not going to create this happy little world where people only get high in thier homes every now and then and then only leave thier homes when they are completely sober and have no addiction problem.

      Legalizing it only solves part of the problem but creates another one. It destroys lives and it destroys families. And when people are out of thier minds they can get very violent. It affects everyone.
    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"When I have to work with people who are stoned."

      I ate a special brownie before I went to work one day. That was the most productive day of work I ever had.

      Then again, I have a desk job. I wouldn't suggest that for a machining job or something where you inherently are in danger or are possibly putting other people in danger (ie. cleaning skyscraper windows or driving an 18 wheeler).
    • MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ChrisDeBurg

      Nice, and this very logical argument doesn't only apply to drugs.
  • ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@archer75

    Exactly right. THAT is the time when YOU enter the equation. I will agree with you that when i start to drive stoned I'll hold my hands up and admit that it's a danger to other people. People who drive stoned deserve to be arrested and charged.

    What about if they don't drive, work, operate heavy machinery etc etc.?

    When do you think the CRIME occurs?
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The crime occurs when babies are born as crack babies
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Well we just aren't talking about pot here. But everyone I know smokes it. You would think that when people turn 30 they would have more motivation in thier lives. They just spend the last 14 years of thier lives in the same dead end job doing nothing to better themselves.

      Granted that doesn't affect me unless I have to work with people who regularly smoke and those people have no motivation or ambition and generally a poor work ethic.
      I don't know about you but I hate having to pick up the slack for those losers.
    • salivalnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@sfpfc

      Someone needs to come up with a control mechanism for fertility and reproduction anyway before we over populate the planet (which will happen in our lifetimes, unless you're over 60) - we can add this to the criteria.

      I'm looking forward to the days when water is so scarce you have to buy it off a back-alley dealer just to get 'the good stuff.'
    • ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@sfpfc

      I'm not female but good point mate. Obviously no need to keep to the salient direction of the debate. Just throw in some morally pleading phrase like "crack babies". Can't argue with that!
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes I do agree a crime is committed when babies are born addicted to crack. But should we outlaw something because there are people out there who misuse it. Just about everything in existence has a use that is illegal. Cars are legal and kill far more people and babies that drugs do each year. But the real question is how many people other than the user are killed by Drugs vs. Cars. If you OD on drugs and die well it was your own damn fault for doing that. It's not the government job to protect you from your self.

      But I would argue that making crack illegal actuals make the problem worse. Some one who is on crack would be more likely to seek medical treatment with out the stigma or worry of jail time.
    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@sfpfc

      http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/crack_baby_myth.htm

      The "Crack Baby" stories are largely exaggerated. Although, I would say, being on any drugs not prescribed by a doctor is an extremely unwise and negligent thing for a pregnant woman to do.
  • SomeLlama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3" sfpfc
    The crime occurs when babies are born as crack babies"

    This has been proven to be propaganda, there was never a problem of "crack babies", babies being born addicted to crack.. it was a lie.

    "archer75
    Well we just aren't talking about pot here. But everyone I know smokes it. They just spend the last 14 years of thier lives in the same dead end job doing nothing to better themselves..
    I don't know about you but I hate having to pick up the slack for those losers."

    So you admit to being a loser because you are in the same dead end job as all of those other people who smoke pot? Why do they have to "better themselves"? Why do you feel the need to pass judgement on others who seem to be perfectly happy? Is it jealousy? It seems like hypocracy since you are in the same poisiton...

    so because you don't like something they should have to go to jail? PFfft, I hate people who post on forums so they should make it illegal.
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.webmd.com/content/article/4/1680_51834.htm?lastselectedguid=%7B5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348%7D
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and chris its not some sick moral plea as you might think, its merely stating the obvious
    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I'm not in a dead end job with the people that I know who smoke regularly.

      I pass judgement because drug users directly affect me. They affect thier unborn babies. They affect the children that they do have. They affect thier families and they affect those they commit crimes against.

      There is just no good that comes from drugs.

      "This has been proven to be propaganda, there was never a problem of "crack babies", babies being born addicted to crack.. it was a lie."

      So smoking crack is good for babies then? You are losing any shred of credibility you hoped to have.
    • ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@sfpfc

      I wasn't claiming that you are sick. I was simply implying that you were getting away from the point. My point was: if i ingest a certain substance (not necessarily an illegal substance) and then drink drive/drug drive/ work with you...whatever......when do i cross the line between what you consider legal/moral and illegal/immoral behavior. Is it when i ingest the substance or when i commit the deed?
    • TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@archer75 opened his mouth and said "There is just no good that comes from drugs."

      If you actually believe that then you hold no credibility at all and everyone should ignore your illogical tirade of opinions.

    • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Prove me wrong then.

      I don't know how people destroying thier lives and the lives of others is a good thing. How all the violence brought on by a high can be good? And drugs can affect babies, children, loved ones, co workers and people whom they don't even know.

      Just how are drugs good?
    • ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@archer75

      "There is just no good that comes from drugs"

      Could you please explain where you came to this conclusion. I will readily except that you think that "bad things come from drugs". I can agree with you on that point! But please, out of respect for the others in here, please explain how you came to above conclusion.
  • morphkons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2enough already. The "war" on drugs is about money/power - period. It was designed to created another military industrial congressional complex paid for by taxes that can be reliably counted on to vote republican. Police, prosecutors, prison guards, consultants who design prisons, contractors who build prisons, their relatives, ad infinitum. It's a very big business. As a bonus the people they lock up and thereby disenfranchise are people who would have probably been more likely to vote democratic.
    • theberton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the "they control us" issue.

      So very, very true.

  • stalinvlad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, there you have it, every other retard wants to moralize someone else
    Think of the votes sucking up to such flabby brained wankers will return!
  • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@chris Its all a matter of debate I really have mixed feelings toward the two. Either way, it wont change the fact babies will be born sick or other negative effects like deaths from car accidents.

    If we had to choose that if baby could be born sick or healthy based upon the decision of it being legal, would we all choose the babies safety, Who wouldn't want the baby to be safe?

    hopefully everyone would say choose the babies health versus sacrificing the babies health so someone who wants to use cocaine, but we don't think of it that way..
    • ChrisDeBurg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@spfcf

      I believe you're coming to the debate with good intentions. I just think you're confusing the issue. Please believe me when i say that I, nor anyone else on Digg, wants babies to die or be born sick. I think that goes without saying.

      Surely you must accept that an individual can take (legal/illegal) drugs and be perfectly safe to themselves and everyone around them. I know that i have for the last 15 years. I firmly believe that people should ONLY be punished for HARMFUL ACTS AGAINST OTHERS. Simple as that
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0But it never will be a punishable offense if a baby is born that way. after the law is legalized, then there will many cases around the nation like this
    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@sfpfc

      I did a quick search on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and was very surprised there wasn't a clear set of legal ramifications. I think that mothers who drink, and their children are born with FAS should face child abuse charges--much the same as starving them or any child abuse. This clearly should be a crime. And as such, so should any other drugs that are known to cause birth defects.

      However, as was stated here before, the "crack baby" stories are largely exaggerated. FAS, definitely is not.
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Ive based this stuff off of webmd ie suffering from brain damage, premature birth, or miscarriages
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If we had to choose that if baby could be born sick or healthy based upon the decision of it being legal, would we all choose the babies safety, Who wouldn't want the baby to be safe?"

      Ah, the big, grand, hypothetical "IF". IF we had to choose between two alternatives of your choosing ...

      If we had to choose that if babies get stabbed in the head with kitchen knives or not based upon the decision of kitchen knives being legal, would we all choose the babies safety, Who wouldn't want the baby to be safe?

      But you see, we can outlaw irresponsible, dangerous use of kitchen knives, and leave conventional use legal. We don't have to choose between those two alternatives. Get the picture?
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ya but drugs have nothing to contribute, basically you get a chance to harm society, but you get nothing in return
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Addiction is a disease...makes a lot of sense to lock people up because they have a medical prob. Next are the diabetics and the cancer patients.
    The war on drugs is being fought against our brothers, sisters, cousins,parents and our children.
    Did someone say that the government has the right to protect it's people?
    Very funny way of protecting us...to go to war with us...
    The war on drugs is a fool's errand...it is a medical problem, stupid.
    Let's get the doctors involved rather than the Department of Corrections.
    Another misguided policy.

  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Did someone complain about taking shots at the president.

    Can you spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T??

    This is the sleaziest administration in US history.

    We should toss their tea into Boston Harbor, but we do not have the blls to do so.
  • carcrazy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1We may never win this war, but it doesn't hurt to try. I pray no one gives up simply because they were told they can't win.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are so wrong. So far, all efforts have done a great deal of harm. Yes, as for the "war on drugs", it does hurt to try.
  • 47f0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Once again, we're fighting the wrong war - in the wrong way.

    For a few reasons:

    1) Drugs are not a problem. A bold statement, but it's true. Drugs, more specifically, the abuse of drugs is a symptom - not the problem. As usual, we address the wrong end of the issue.

    2) Economy is king. Demand will be supplied. Always. There is no economic case history that even vaguely suggests otherwise. The best you can hope for is to manage (not ban) the supply intelligently and rationally. Suggesting that bombing coca fields in any way cuts the head off the monster clearly shows that you have your head stuck up the wrong end of the beast.

    3) Corrupt administrations prefer corrupt policies. Who doesn't want drugs legalized? There are three camps. The brainless, who have been spoonfed administration "criminal justice" education, and know nothing except to chant "drugs is bad, drugs is bad", The clueless, who think that grabbing the tail of the tiger will somehow control it, and the corrupt - the cops, judges and politicians who profit directly from the multi-billion dollar criminal industry we have created.

    Are you in favor of napalming poppy and coca fields? (which is, by the way, mass murder - there are people those fields.) There's an even simpler way. Put U.S. farmers to work growing pot, coca and poppies. You will see the Colombian drug empire, and the Taliban-funding poppy fields wither and die overnight.

    But if we legalize drugs, everyone will do them. Really? Odd how the people who make that argument are the first to say that they would never do drugs. Yet they presume none of the rest of us has their moral fiber. Hypocrites. I wouldn't smoke weed if they sold it next to the Winstons at 7-11. But then I should demand laws based on the idea that everyone else is weaker than me? Bull. People who want to do drugs will. Those who don't won't. Period.

    A fraction of the current budget wasted on this tragicly flawed and assinine "war" spent on social services, education, and addict management would result in a more productive society with less incidental crime.

    Clearly, as demonstrated by some of these posts, what we desperately need in this country is a "war on ignorance". The war on drugs will be waged correctly then - and only then. But those in power don't want that. We, the people have to want it - and want it badly enough to stand up and be counted when it matters. But in a nation of folks conditioned to believe it is the job of government to "nanny" them from everything they might do that's bad for them, I despair of ever seeing any such uprising of integrety and personal responsibility.
    • sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I doubt everyone who wants the drugs illegal here are really thinking those who support it are drug addicts, basically you know that it will be abused, some will become addicts, some will die, some will not be healthy at birth,
  • dstz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is a very dense and interesting article.
  • KidKronic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have met countless people who have tried to convince me that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine (when it is in fact less dangerous than all 3). Every single one of these people, incidentally, has come across as having an IQ below 70.
  • theberton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have been typing and erasing for about 20min now, trying to find a logical way to express an opinion on an idiotic topic like that. In fact, you could say the whole debate of arguing whether drugs should be legalized or not is the single biggest diversion we have been fed to prevent us from doing something about it.

    These pro or anti drug war articles are really becoming a pain. It is frustrating to read about either side as both arguments are getting nowhere, while big mafia people are cashing in and while most of you are paying the taxes allowing them to do that.

    I could elaborate on government funded research that is biased beyond definition and often flawed. I could elaborate on the anti-drug scare ads that feed me with no information but fuel my hatred of the subject. I could elaborate on human rights and economic issues that arise from this, "war on drugs".

    But I won't. Its hopeless. Unless some cosmic miracle happens in the near future, the drug war and the arguments associated with it will stay the little bubble we are captured in and left to fight amongst each other with no effect on the real world.
  • Mikesfedup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
    Drugs will continue to be in US society for years to come. People, you have to realize that this is the CIA's money maker and I am not talking any conspiracy theory here.

    The Bush administration has resisted pressure to take action against the drug lords, refusing to bomb drug labs and directing troops not to take action if they come upon opium crops or heroin production. According to New York Times reporter James Risen in his book State of War, Rumsfeld has met personally with Afghan military commanders known to be among "the godfathers of drug trafficking" and made it clear that their illegal enterprise would be tolerated as long as they remained allied with the United States.
    Aside from the impact of increased opium production on addicts and their societies worldwide, this resumption of large-scale Afghan opium production is a significant threat to Afghanistan's stability, since it is one of the major sources of the warlordism that has wreaked such havoc on the country. And, despite cracking down on opium production while in power, the Taliban are now taxing poppy growers to finance as much as 70% of their renewed military operations.
    As in Colombia, the ongoing violence since the United States launched its war five years ago has resulted in all sides taking advantage of the drug trade to advance their power and influence.
    The war on drugs? Yeah, right!
  •  

    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.