digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Admit war on drugs has been a failure

heraldnet.com — Since it started in 1970, American law enforcement has arrested 38 million people for nonviolent drug offenses, nearly 2 million last year alone. The number of people jailed for violent crimes has risen 300 percent, but the prison population of nonviolent drug offenders has soared 2,558 percent.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JordanTW90, on 11/26/2007, -11/+45No matter how illegal, we still love them!
    • Andysan, on 11/26/2007, -13/+3What if all "drugs" were made legal and then taxed by the government according to how dangerous they are? Then only the spoiled rich could afford them - right? And then who would even make the stuff? Oops ... I forgot about smugglers. The point is - there is no easy solution. Eliminating drugs is not a practical option but minimizing the damage is probably the best outcome ... kind of like what is now being tried.
      • mitgib, on 11/26/2007, -1/+27I do not drink, I do not do drugs, I fully support taking the crime out of drugs. While I'm sure it happens, cuz everything seems to on some level, when is the last time someone was mugged to get a 6-pack? Take the profit out of drugs and you'll see much less violent crime as well. Take the crime out of drugs and you'd see Americas prison population decline by huge numbers. Less prisoners = less tax dollars supporting them, less prisoners = more tax payers = less tax per person. Oh my, 75% of law enforcement would be unemployed, boo-hoo, most of those in LE need retraining anyway, on how to serve, not abuse.

        Tax the drugs and distribute the drugs in the ready made alcohol taxation and distribution channels. If we took 10% of the money saved on prison reductions, savings from law enforcement, and the whole host of other things spent to support the return to slavery in America, along with the new tax revenue, and invested that into education on the use of drugs/alcohol, and treatment for those addicted that would like to end the addiction, it may take a generation, but overall I would bet we have less problem than we do today.
      • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3"kind of like what is now being tried"
        You are lying, the "war on drugs" aims to create a "drug free america".
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/26/2007, -1/+17Isn't it ironic that the country that's trying so hard to be so drug free also has the pharmaceutical industry's penis as deep as it can go into it's own ass? coincidence? I think not.
        • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Also ironic that when you take a non-violent decent person, and stick them in a federal "f!#ck you in the ass" prison for a year or two, they often come out much more of a criminal than when they went in. So, how does this benefit society again?
      • Azurensis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4If drugs were taxed according to how dangerous they were, alcohol and tobacco would be two of the most expensive drugs out there.
  • LoneRanger85, on 11/26/2007, -152/+10Huh, I feel left out. I didn't have any youthful indiscretions. I guess that means I'm smarter than B. Hussein Obama. Or more moral. When B.Hussein Obama says he "experimented" with drugs, I don't envision test tubes and a lab coat.
    • acu8509, on 11/26/2007, -6/+61Are you too stupid to spell Barack? Or are you just trying to use his name in a douchebag attempt to defile his namesake. Or it could just be that you were 'that' kid in schools that taunted his moral superiority for not trying drugs, but always tried to fit in as a way to make himself feel like he was right. Either way, nobody is impressed.
      • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -28/+3That kid? Um, I'm going to venture to say more than just one kid would not do drugs in school. I love how people like you try and discredit someone by trying to make fun of them with ridiculous *****. Bravo. Now I may ask, are you a liberal between the ages of 12-25? If you are it makes perfect sense.
        • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -2/+20Do you even know what a liberal is? Did you know that libertarians also oppose the "war on drugs"? I am sick of retards like you, assuming that only "liberals" would want to end the "war on drugs".
      • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I think I just threw up a little. I almost forgot people as disgusting as you existed. Thanks for reminding me. I'll try to avoid you in the future... like by blocking you.
    • RAEP, on 11/26/2007, -5/+36Drugs are cool, where have you been? Drugs have always been cool. Except meth, meth is uncool.
      • Schneckehaus, on 11/26/2007, -12/+2Heroine, barbiturates, oxy, methadone, opiates, and meth are ALL uncool.
        That ***** is disgusting.

        All drugs are disgusting to a degree, I even refuse to use stuff like allergy medicine and pain killers most of the time, but those really take that cake.
        • mem2, on 11/26/2007, -0/+13so you steer away from caffeine and alcohol etc as well I hope. If so good on you, at the very least your not a hypocrite. Now if you can avoid stuffing your own opinions down every1s throat who does not agree with your sentiments - kudos.
          • Schneckehaus, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Hey, I didn't say I don;t do drugs, I just said that they were disgusting and I tend to avoid overuse.

            I do lots of drugs :/
            Mostly psychedelics though.
        • Rammsteined, on 11/26/2007, -0/+10Yes, but some people find sex disgusting. Which is good, because they'll never have children :)
          • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2No, they have sex anyway. They just hide it and pretend that the kid actually belongs to their brother in law or something like that.
        • JDove6, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7oxy isnt uncool for people with afflictions who really need it.
          • JayD16, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Or if you're a conservative who listens to Rush Limbaugh...
      • Btzarro, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Republicans aren't cool,They were probably stuffed in lockers.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 11/26/2007, -2/+23I will do it for him. Barack Obamalamadingdong
    • reckless8594, on 11/26/2007, -7/+6You idiots, it's quite obvious "ultraright1" is being sarcastic. His name is is ULTRA RIGHT for Christ's sake!
      He's not that funny though.
      • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -1/+15How can we tell if he is being sarcastic or not when neocons really are that retarded?
      • Beakerz, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Click the right reply button please.
      • Btzarro, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1So hes a Neonazi?
    • mllawso, on 11/26/2007, -3/+6Your troll-fu is weak. Try to learn the ways of the masters; for example LoneRanger85.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8I never did drugs as a kid, and I don't plan to do drugs whether they become legal or not.
      Having said that, I don't consider myself any more moral than people who smoke pot.
      • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Thank you. I don't consider myself any less moral than people who don't smoke pot.
    • kubedawg, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7I agree. Most people try pot at least once in their lives, and to tell you the truth, it's not bad to do so. I wouldn't try it when you are 15 or 16, but maybe when you are closer to the age when you are able to join the army or smoke cigarettes. there is a great feeling I get from being high. I feel a bit colder for a few minutes, but then my eyes dry out, so wearing contacts while high is a no no.

      I'd also never actually buy pot. I've only smoked if I were at a friend's house and they offered it. I absolutely love the smell of good pot, and while the taste doesn't do the same, the good smell often overpowers the taste when I'm getting high.
      I'm not lazy because I smoke pot, and I'd hardly call myself a menace to society because of it either.

      People need to start waking up to these falacies about marijuana and their supposed harmful effects. People don't become more paranoid when they're high, they're inherintly paranoid because of the risk they are taking by smoking the pot in the first place.

      Who was it that said, "The punishment for doing drugs should only be as harmful as the drug itself"?

      These days are marked with our words, the words of the young generation becoming adults, and we will continue to fight this drug war that is only causing harm to the people who are not doing any harm to themselves or society.

      My name is Chris, and I smoke marijuana.
    • starkruzr, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2-10 points for failing to call him "B. Hussein Osama."
    • JayD16, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2"Huh, I feel left out. I didn't have any youthful indiscretions."
      Thats because no one likes to share with assholes.
      • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1The mark of a VERY boring person.
    • ijustfloat, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1G _ F _ C K Y _ _ R S _ L F

      Buy a vowel and schedule a sterilization appointment please.
  • mattewood, on 11/26/2007, -13/+106Yeah I give Obama credit for admitting he's done drugs before.. instead of the usual political cover up shenanigans.

    LoneRanger: If the 85 in your username means you were born in 1985, you are still youthful, so stop wasting away your life and go experience all life has to offer! lmfao 1985! Man I feel old, I actually remember that year clearly.

    Almost all Americans have done drugs.. and the majority have even done "illegal" drugs. It's time to stop treating drug use a crime, and instead treat it as a social dysfunction. Treat drug addicts like alcoholics and not like murderers, so they can get help and continue being productive members of society, instead of animals locked up in cages.
    • toastgodsupreme, on 11/26/2007, -0/+21Yup. In fact, the only person that I've personally known to do drugs that was also a problem to society, was my brother. My friends, even my room mate are fine people. They don't steal, they don't kill, they all have respectable jobs and are fine people as far as I know.
      • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -26/+5Yet they still feel it fit to do "illegal" drugs. I mean does "illegal", get any clearer than that, maybe telling them "You are breaking the law", To there face, might have an impact. I stand for this for ALL drugs including pot, which ***** my whole ***** family up. My ***** hippy dip ***** parents thought it was "Totally awesome, One Love, trippy", and all that BS. They both spent half there pay checks on pot and the occasional coke snort, and never made an effort with anything else but, them selves, as the "One Love" phrase goes, I feel it is uncompleted. It should read, "One love... Selfish Self Love". As for me I became a product of the Public school system with out any guidance, started smoking pot myself at 15, and wasted my life in and out of college making minimum wage for the past 20 years. Up until recently with the help of AA have I been able to stop and start making something of myself. Sure pot wont hurt you all that much, but it will help you if your only goal is to do absolutely nothing with your life.

        I give you the fact that the judicial system in simply throwing offenders in jail does nothing to help it, but I do know that I had every opportunity in the world to make something of myself and stop smoking, but I didn't. Besides, if the government made pot legal among other DEADLY narcotics that you can so easily OD on, the ***** would really hit the fan. Knowing through my own life what pot did to me, I certainly wouldn't want that for the WHOLE nation.
        • senatorpjt, on 11/26/2007, -0/+25One of the reasons that drugs will never be legal is because people like to blame them for their own failures. I used to be like that, then I got my ***** together. Only difference is that I never stopped smoking pot.
        • Schneckehaus, on 11/26/2007, -2/+16The drugs aren't the problem, your parents are the problem.
          1. morality > law
          2. pain killers are drugs
          3. meat has mind altering chemicals in it (tryptamines)
          4. alcoholism is more common than any other addiction, and it is legal.
          5. tobacco kills more than any other drug, also legal.
          6. there has never been a death attributed to marijuana in history
        • PistolSO, on 11/26/2007, -1/+16Have you watching too much Reefer Madness? Pot is neither deadly(no one EVER ODed on it) nor a narcotic(it doesn't affect dopamine). Glad you're in the program for help with that LEGAL, neurotoxic, violence-causing drug known as alcohol.
        • Sawta, on 11/26/2007, -6/+3I will agree that tpzoso is correct in saying that pot never motivated him to do anything with his life, and that it was a large financial burden for his parents when it came to buying stuff, but I draw the line at blaming pot for all of his problems.
          I want to see pot legalized for people who need it to ease the pain of illnesses, not some alternative to getting plastered at a kegger then driving around until they kill someone or get a DUI.
          I understand that doing drugs hasn't motivated you to do amazing things in your life time, but can you really say that it has made your life any worse (Besides..you know, inhaling smoke into your lungs for 20+ years).
        • DaSuHouSe, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3there != thier

          Also not doing something because it's illegal means you agree with a lot of stupid laws: http://dumblaws.com. Here's a quote you should think about:

          "Good men must not obey laws too well." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
        • JayD16, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4Last time I checked, people who don't do drugs can also be ***** parents.
        • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1"maybe telling them "You are breaking the law", To there face, might have an impact."
          Haaahahahaaa haa hahahaaaa aaa haaa ohhh..... hahhahahahah.... damn... hahaha ge heheee ha hahahaha! What an ignorant moron!

          Lets go back to grade school for a moment and repeat the words of your mother:
          "If your friends told you to walk off of a cliff, would you do it?".
          Then lets remember that lawmakers are NOT gods or even very intelligent most of the time.
          Now, try again?
          Funny idiot.

          By the way, your parents were clearly assholes. But you are confused about the cause. They would clearly have been assholes even if they were only snorting salt.
      • Pritchard, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8tpzoso and toastgod:

        I had bad experiences with drugs too. Twas my biological brother (but now disowned). It really messed up my viewpoint on drugs for a long time. I don't like drugs and I'd never do'em, but I think they should be legal. These people who do these ***** up things are to blame. Things like pot especially won't do that ***** to you...
    • andy17null, on 11/26/2007, -4/+9Don't act like you guys haven't.
    • jbennett1128, on 11/26/2007, -0/+12Now if only Obama would be honest and tell kids that using drugs doesn't make you a bad person, doesn't make you a criminal, and marijuana isn't as dangerous as they've been told...and promise to end the drug war.

      Until he does... Ron Paul Revolution
  • whymanwhy, on 11/26/2007, -6/+23Ok, I admit it...
  • guestaccount, on 11/26/2007, -12/+6If I must... :)
  • mikusjay, on 11/26/2007, -2/+115The war on drugs is successful in creating criminals out of ordinary citizens, a huge black market for all types of illegal drugs, organized crime, and plenty of junkies who lacked sufficient help to get them back on their feet. It's a great tax burden on every citizen and destroys plenty of families. Rehabilitation be damned..
    • madm0nk, on 11/26/2007, -0/+35These are the exact problems that were caused from alcohol prohibition, but learning from history is apparently not allowed in D.C.
    • fauxXenophanes, on 11/26/2007, -14/+2Yep , that's MY *****' job, to get junkies back on their feet !
      • mikusjay, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Hey, you're right.. instead we should jail them all at the taxpayer's expense. =D
      • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Yerah, and we should pay to take normal decent, non-violent people, and keep them in jail until they are no longer decent, non-violent folks. That is a good use of our resources!
    • BoBbOrAzE, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5It seems that most of us realize what is really happening and want something to change. Well let’s just see who we have to choose from then. Every candidate supports the “war on drugs” except for - Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich… sounds good to me!
    • funkywood, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1The problem is some people can handle some drugs responsibly while others can't.

      How about, ooh, licensing them? If you show yourself to be incapable of handling the responsibility of driving a car you get a warning, a fine or you get banned, either temporarily or permanently. It's not a right. Its a priviledge with serious responsibilities that you must pay for and show that you can be trusted with.

      You also have to buy insurance to cover the risk of harm to others. You take more powerful, dangerous drugs, you pay a higher price and higher insurance. Drug companies legally producing them have an incentive to produce safer highs we want without the risks. Voila. Market economics gets to work on the problem. No, it doesn't go away totally anymore than uninsured drivers and yes people will still die (but probably less than now) but at least the law abiding majority aren't lumped into prison along with the illegal 'joy riders' and the money raised goes toward helping mitigate the problem instead of fueling gangs and criminals.

      How about starting with alcohol as a test bed? We'd all have safer streets without the few loose cannons who turn into violent nutters after a few pints of stella. Why should these dicks' right to alcohol come before everyone else right to have a fun night out without getting attacked and worrying about some ***** wanting to start a fight all the time?

      Sorry to post this twice but it's always "legalize it, it's harmless" or "Now way, it's lethal". It all depends on the user.
      • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Good thoughts, if they did not show a complete ignorance of the lifestyles of many users, or of the actual danger of the huge majority of users. Perhaps you should take out insurance to walk down the street (you never know who you might knock over).
        You seem to have the right intentions by my standards. I just think that you need to meet more people.
        • funkywood, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1If you mean the total addicts I agree. Addiction is the problem and I would personally keep heroine and crack illegal. As soon as the user doesn't have control it doesn't work and you need to get back to hard ways. But prison is just the strongest form of discouragement.

          The benefits I would hope for would be that teenagers would have less reason to go near dealers and so the addictive stuff in the first place but also that the licensing would engender more of an attitude of respect for drugs instead of seeing them as a laugh or "sumat to do".

          It's true I haven't experienced the effects up close but it would be nice if some parts were considered.
  • shabumike, on 11/26/2007, -5/+68"The number of people jailed for violent crimes has risen 300 percent, but the prison population of nonviolent drug offenders has soared 2,558 percent."-

    And most of them aren't white.
    • mb3581, on 11/26/2007, -1/+30sounds like its almost as successful as the War on Terror...
      • fauxXenophanes, on 11/26/2007, -14/+3Violent crimes / drug offenders, and no correlation between the two, what a wonderful world !
        • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Your statements don't even make sense anymore. If you are going to troll, at least use proper sentence structure so we can tell wtf you are trying to say.
          • GeneralFault, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2I almost dugg him up because he was stating the obvious that most drug users are not violent.
    • MrSarcasm, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1yeah and?
      • shabumike, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1can't you be more sarcastic than that?
  • whyufail, on 11/26/2007, -27/+19Digg pothead army invasion in 3...2....1...
    • acu8509, on 11/26/2007, -5/+13yo...sup?
    • mrjit, on 11/26/2007, -2/+43There are plenty of us "non-potheads" and "non-druggies" (non-users) that also think the War on Drugs is ridiculous. I would rather have a world full of pot smokers than alcoholics. Hell, if more people that drank could legally obtain pot, there would probably be better health, less addicts, less bar fights, less domestic abuse, and less total ***** because I'm sure plenty of the people would switch from alcohol to weed... but, that's not what out Government wants.
      • fauxXenophanes, on 11/26/2007, -13/+3Better health never includes "smokin" anything.
        • mrjit, on 11/26/2007, -3/+14You missed the point at the end where I was going on about how plenty of people would switch from alcohol to weed, which most would say is more healthy.
          • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -1/+7Cannabis can be taken orally as a food, drink or pill (a fact neocons have been ignoring for years).
        • rarson, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6You don't have to smoke weed to get high.
      • wendelgee2, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2Uh. "The latest buzz on booze's body benefits"
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21778634/
        • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3A good reason to lower taxes on alcohol but this does nothing to justify the "war on drugs".
    • SpykerSpeed, on 11/26/2007, -1/+33I'm a frigging teetotaler and I'm for the legalization of drugs. The war on drugs is a pathetic attempt at government intervention where it doesn't belong.
    • nigh7dagger, on 11/26/2007, -3/+0You were late to the party.
  • bingo000, on 11/26/2007, -12/+64Any war is a failure.
    • nigh7dagger, on 11/26/2007, -21/+2Look at Desert Storm. That was NOT a failure (unless you're from Iraq).
      • subterfuge, on 11/26/2007, -1/+24exactly! it was a successful defense of american liberties. because our rights are located in kuwait. well, the right to buy oil cheaply, anyway.
      • iFrikkenR, on 11/26/2007, -6/+3Wasn't really a war though. Was a fairly short military operation with a VERY CLEAR objective in mind - to get Saddam the ***** out of Kuwait. The objective was completed when Saddam withdrew.

        If anything, it was more of a military slap on the wrist for misbehaviour
      • bingo000, on 11/26/2007, -1/+11What's happening in Iraq today is a clear extension to so claimed "Desert Storm" war. If you call a war successful at the cost of American life (or otherwise), resources and well being you're so wrong. When did the human life become so cheap? and what for?
      • analogkid01, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0I love how people refer to Desert Storm with such great pride...conveniently forgetting that before it was Desert Storm, it was Desert *Shield* - which was not located in Iran, Syria, Jordan, or Turkey. Where was it again? Hmmmm...
    • wendelgee2, on 11/26/2007, -6/+1WW2?
      Most wars are failures. Others are qualified successes.
      • art42, on 11/26/2007, -2/+4I'd say WW2 was a complete failure, especially from the Axis' perspective. The Allies would not have gone to war without the Axis' aggressions...
        • KamikazeeDriver, on 11/26/2007, -2/+1"Especially from the Axis' perspective."
          Of course, that was the plan.
          For the Allies, WW2 was a complete success. Not all wars are fought in vain. Just the majority. We had a place in WW2. Watch Band of Brothers, jibrony
          • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4How can it be a complete success when we killed thousands of people and wasted billions of dollars?
  • MortalCoiled, on 11/26/2007, -5/+24It seems that the Bush administration just can't win ANY wars, even against itself.
  • laeteralis462, on 11/26/2007, -3/+80I pray for the day when theres as much media coverage on the failure that is the "war on terror" as there is on the failure that is the "war on drugs".

    NEWSFLASH: A war against anything as broad as drugs or terror DOES NOT WORK. Let me reiterate that.

    A WAR
    AGAINST
    EMOTIONS
    OR PLANTS
    DOES
    NOT
    WORK.

    The only reason why the government wages war on ridiculous, broad things such as drugs or terrorism is to use that as an excuse to wage an immoral, evil war on something else.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 11/26/2007, -2/+34Don't forget the "War on Poverty". That's a riot.
      • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -2/+18They've been winning their war on the poor, i suppose.
      • subterfuge, on 11/26/2007, -4/+2yes. it WAS a riot.
    • madm0nk, on 11/26/2007, -0/+10Any type of war on anything is a renewable resource of income for those few who are in that sort of business e.g. Lockheed, Rockwell, Grumman, KBR, G&E, and some others I can't think of. And those who are in the position to declare any sort of war benefit from this by investing in those businesses and making some serious cash. We lose a few poor people as casualties to the war and in return some people at the top (those who started the war) get some kickback. It's been going on in this country for quite some time. I hope that people will wake the ***** up and do something about it, but it seems that most people don't even want to believe, or they choose ignore the problem because it really isn't going to effect them in their lifetime. Damn this is depressing .... I need to move to Australia.
    • mhearne, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Remember that all public servants, from the President on down to the common soldier, swear as part of their oath, to prevent war from being waged within the borders of the United States.

      Maybe they should name these campaigns by something other than "The War On" this or that.
      • rarson, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I don't remember that from my oath...
    • ctrlv, on 11/26/2007, -0/+10That always made me laugh- the war on drugs. First of all, at least call it the "War on Some Drugs". Pharmacies and Alcohol stores are still operating in broad daylight so if they are truly waging a 'war on drugs', they should look there first. And secondly, it's not a war on drugs because this is not a fairy tale where drugs are some mystical evil force that can be brought down with your mighty sword. The reason they call it that is because they can't exactly call it the "War on American Citizens" which is the most fitting name for it.
  • zachshmack, on 11/26/2007, -1/+86Failure? My stocks in private prison contracting firms have gone through the roof!
    • Sirmittenz, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1i can only wish i could have been alive in the 70s to invest in such stocks -_-
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/26/2007, -6/+13In before LEGALIZE IT!!!
  • Lynxplus, on 11/26/2007, -1/+13..and a waste of money, time, and lives.
  • neuropsychguy, on 11/26/2007, -24/+3If it is a failure then why is drug use down so much from the 70s and 80s? I'll admit that it might not be the "war on drugs" that directly lead to the decrease in drug use but it certainly had an effect.
    • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -0/+11"If it is a failure then why is drug use down so much from the 70s and 80s?"

      It's not, depending on the numbers you're giving.
      • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -5/+2The numbers are only higher because there are more people. Percentages have shown they have decreased.
        • ShnowDoggie, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4links?
          I have not really seen anything that shows that drug use has gone down in 30 years. I do think drug use was higher in the 60s.
        • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -7/+2http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drug ...

          The most prominent drug use years were the 70's to 80s. Through most of the 60's it was mainly a use in a certain social crowd and not the main stream. Today use of narcotics is not all that prominent, pot however has exploded in use through the 90's and still continues today. Quite sad. It usually happens to children in High school, and as difficult as it is to get into a University these days, Pot just doesn't help. Take a minute and consider the majority of pot smoking teens compared to drug free teens, now consider which ones go on through school and make something of themselves and our nation. Thats another thing, people always blame the government for things all of our nations troubles, but have they ever considered to look at themselves?
    • subterfuge, on 11/26/2007, -2/+10the war on drugs has definitely had an effect. now, the CIA can monopolize and smuggle cocaine into the country all by themselves.
      • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -5/+2That is quite the accusation. Being backed by the treasury themselves, why would they need to get in to such a risky business.
        • ChaosMotor, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8To pay for secret wars and black ops that don't go well on a line item budget. Here's an article on a plane owned by the CIA crashing in Mexico with six tons of coke on board.

          http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/content.aspx?aud ...

          Surprising? Not at ALL. This has been going on since the CIA was inaugurated.
          • tpzoso, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Hahahahahahaha. You believe what the mexican government tells you??? THEY ARE THE ONES LYING DUMBASS? Do you not watch the news????? YOU MY FRIENDS ARE ***** RETARDED. And of course, the cash/ cocaine inflow on CIA operated planes/purchased fuel, is 100% undocumented, the cash just comes in, no body questions anything? Lol you people are all a bunch of loosers.
    • iFrikkenR, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3It's not, it's just less public now.
    • wendelgee2, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4Education. Cultural shifts from one "in" drug to another.
  • rakous, on 11/26/2007, -7/+15The war on Drugs is a failure, but who can blame them for trying? Ohh all the innocent and wrongfully accused people can! Legalize it people and the United States would be a lot more happy.
    • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -10/+4You cant live through your whole life trying to buy happiness with drugs, you will realize sooner or later that is something you must gain through hard work.
      • ChaosMotor, on 11/26/2007, -0/+10Doesn't matter. You have no right to send someone to jail for making a choice that harms no one but themselves, and quite often doesn't even harm themselves.
    • shotgunefx, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Legalize grass, sure, maybe make it a fine at best, but make better tests for DUI, etc. Though keep penalties high for selling to kids.

      Heroin, crack, Oxys, etc? No ***** way. You'd be an idiot to think it. It makes people into worthless zombies. Considering half the kids I hung with as a teen are dead from OD'ing on heroin, and my town was hit hard by oxys as well. Having seen it first hand, I can tell you it is the dumbest idea ever. An epidemic of teen suicides, bad, bad news. Junkies who will rob there mother's blind for there next hit. It turns people into garbage.

      Then again, seeing we are pretty well planted in Afghanistan, and how prodigious they are at exporting heroin, it's hard to believe they can't throttle that down. Also hard to believe the government can't control Oxycontin as it's all on paper. I guess I should say, they aren't. For Afghanistan, to keep the peace and Oxys because big bucks to the pharmaceuticals.
      • procrasti, on 11/26/2007, -2/+2Yeah, prohibition is really working to keep your friends alive. Shame they couldn't get a known dosage and had to die. I guess you'd take up those drugs if they were legal too, wouldn't you?
        • shotgunefx, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1One, dosage had nothing to do with it for the most part, one of my friends (my best friend actually), died, was resuscitated, and immediately ran away from the EMTs and into a nearby restaurant and into the bathroom and booted again and died. From what I'm told, this was shown on Boston 24, though I never watched it, well because I didn't want to see him dead in a toilet. Did he want to quit? Certainly, he hated what it did to his life. Everyone tried to help him, but he was beyond help. It robs people of their humanity and just changes them into drug-seeking blobs who are a huge burden on society.

          Certain drugs are fine in moderation, cigarettes, alcohol, grass, *maybe* coke, though I have my doubts from what I've seen. People can function on those, they can hold down a job, etc. You cannot be a functioning heroin addict for long, or OCs and meth for that matter. It just doesn't' work that way. You legalize everything and here's how it goes.

          Kids pop pills, like OCs, it gets expensive quick, can't afford it, trade out to heroin. Game over, that simple. Anything that consumers the user should be out, that simple.

          And the last thing I want is the government feeding addicts or even private companies, people think jail is profitable? The government or big business being sanctioned pushers is bound to be a lot more profitable, and also a great way to pacify large segments of the population.
          • procrasti, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2When people can't get what they crave, they binge on it... then they go without and then binge again in a never ending escalating cycle until they die. Those that get a constant supply can go on to live functional lives... Read up on the ongoing swiss experiments where they provide heroin addicts as much heroin as they want. They max out on a dosage that's effective for them, and then bring their own dosage down THEMSELVES. They stop their involvement in crime and many go back to work. Also, they have the HIGHEST rate of long term rehabilitation of any program EVER, and no one has yet died from overdose.
            Why does giving people what they want end up in a reduction in use?
          • shotgunefx, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Been trying to reply to procasti's comment for 20 minutes but digg just keeps giving me a session error so...

            Most of the kids I know weren't jonesing and they still kept upping their limits. I'd actually say that about most drug abusers I've met. I also believe the medical literature bears out the that tolerance is built up fairly quick.

            Say what you want, legalizing heroin will raise the number of users, hurt society and create a huge burden.

            Though I think clinics using a medical grade heroin instead of methadone is probably a good idea as methadone is even harder to kick.

          • procrasti, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Program administrators also found little support for the widespread belief that addicts' cravings for heroin are insatiable. When offered practically unlimited amounts of heroin (up to 300 milligrams three times a day), addicts soon realized that the maximum doses provided less of a "flash" than lower doses, and cut back their dosage levels accordingly. -- http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm

            Legalizing doesn't mean unregulated and I highly doubt legalizing it will (significantly) raise the number of users. Again, the Swiss experiment resulted in LESS heroin users starting up.
  • bushisterrorist, on 11/26/2007, -21/+11Who do you think is the biggest drug smuggler?

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
    • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -3/+11"Who do you think is the biggest drug smuggler?

      United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars."

      Please don't link the very true governmental involvement with drug smugglers and international terrorists with the 9/11 *****. It makes the reality look like fiction.
  • gamer3999, on 11/26/2007, -31/+9maybe people shouldn't do drugs. that way they won't go to jail
    • fauxXenophanes, on 11/26/2007, -2/+9Oh what kind of ***** is that ?
    • madm0nk, on 11/26/2007, -2/+19Of course! That's it, you have figured it out. Just do what you are told and shut-up. Personal freedom is for suckers!
      • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -11/+2I agree, I might as well just go shoot my neighbors Dog while I'm at, I mean, I hate that thing, it wont ever shut up! Personal freedom entitles me however to kill it! So I think I will.

        NEWS FLASH- Drug use affects your productivity in society, therefore by doing drugs you are not only affecting yourself, but in a capitalist system affecting the possible productivity of a society, and that my friend is punishable by law! Please don;t rebuttal with saying, well then, shouldn't alcohol also be illegal? NO, Alcohol has a FAR lower rate of addiction and is easily a controlled part of a SOCIETY.
        • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Shouldn't fatty food be illegal by your neocon standards? Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin used the same reasoning to ban drugs, so I guess neocons are really no better than communists.
          • tpzoso, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1How do you get of calling me a neocon? much less, a communist? I speak from the heart, Pot ruined my family, my mom and dad neglected the ***** out of me through my childhood, because a some so called ***** "Stress" they had, that required they put pot before me. In my opinion all pot heads should be castrated so as not to further hurt SOCIETY.
        • ChaosMotor, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6I just love how you consider all drugs as a class, and compare them to a single member of that class, alcohol, to justify it's singular legality.

          Also, productivity can go ***** itself. We don't live in a "capitalistic society" (aka fascism), we live in a federal democratic republic. If anything that can "affect the productivity" of our society were a crime, love would be outlawed.
          • tpzoso, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1WAKE UP CALL, a federal democratic republic is a CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM, YOU WORK FOR WHAT YOU GET, AKA CAPITALISM! Oh, and btw I never classified all drugs as a class! Did you somehow derive that through your clouded high of a vision entitling you to be smarter than by pointing out untrue facts? The fact of the matter is YOU CANT BUY HAPPINESS, it is something you must attain. I speak through growing up with the ***** ***** of having two pot head ***** tards for parents!.
      • madm0nk, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6You obviously fail to see the difference in a law that protects ME from MYSELF, and a law that protects me from your dumb ass.
    • sb66, on 11/26/2007, -1/+19yes what nerve to actually disobey the government regarding their own bodies! they must hate freedom....oh wait..
    • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -9/+1I agree.
      • Beakerz, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Maybe you should go outside more... your extremely white.
    • absurdist, on 11/26/2007, -1/+7Maybe you shouldn't make inane comments, that way you won't be mocked.
    • mhearne, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Maybe the responsibility for the whole "Problem" should be taken away from the Attorneys General, and given over to the Surgeons General, so that some competent research can be done. Maybe the drug users should behave more maturely, so that the drinkers will look foolish.

      How about this? How about if we take pot out of the mix? That way we can make some room for some of the violent criminals who are being released in their stead.
    • Tweekster, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1because they are fun.
      since when is having fun a problem
    • gofalcons, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4No! People I think that he's right! We shouldn't do drugs unless we have a peice of paper from a doctor who got his information from an agency saying that these drugs are safe because a medical company paid hundreds of millions of dollars for "testing" and the tests just happen to come out in favor of the safety of these drugs. Even if they do happen to kill a couple hundred, maybe even thousands of people "Vioxx anyone?* it's ok because this peice of paper said it was safe and all patentable drugs come with side effects right? If there wasn't ***** added to the drugs then they couldn't be patented and then how could medical companies make billions in profits off of something like heartburn? Which, if you've done your homework, you know it can be taken care of with a couple of tablespoons of apple cider vinegar.
      *disclaimer - I am not a licensened physician or medical doctor. Any advice that I have given is only a method that I have personally tried and may not work for you. Talk to your doctor before starting treament for any medical ailment. Use this suggestion at your own risk.* .
      God forbid I should be allowed to put anything in my body without a corrupt agency telling me that I can.
  • edebolt, on 11/26/2007, -20/+6In the long term economies will have to compete to survive. Currently the most productive economies take a very dim view on drugs IE death penalty or very harsh sentences. China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Malaysia. Get caught with drugs in these countries and its hell to pay. Perhaps the powers that be don't want to fall behind with a workforce of crackheads and stoners. Your going to digg me down but its a fact stoners tend to be the least productive and contrary to myth not terribly creative.
    • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -2/+8"In the long term economies will have to compete to survive. Currently the most productive economies take a very dim view on drugs IE death penalty or very harsh sentences"

      We're not a manufacturing economy, we're service-based.
      • edebolt, on 11/26/2007, -6/+2productive does not imply only manufacturing output. Production like in GDP includes all services and economic output. For the record there is still a lot of manufacturing in the US and currently is the 2 or 3rd largest exporter depending on measurement criteria. Go to a company like Apple, Cisco, Boeing and see what their drug policy is. The don't encourage drugs because of the negative correlation to performance.
        • ChaosMotor, on 11/26/2007, -0/+9I don't think the purpose of life is to be a strictly subordinated member of a highly productive society. The purpose of life is to LIVE, and you have no right to tell others what choices they can or should make in their pursuit of happiness.

          And do you honestly believe no one at Apple smokes pot? Please.
        • chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1If you think there's not private recreational drug use in the product design departments of large american companies, you've got rocks in your skull and have never held any position of merit in a large corporation.

          Quit your gamestop job and get a real career, then come back to us.
    • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3The people that support the "war on drugs" should move to these "productive" nations like China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea so they can see how great big government really is.
      • edebolt, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1North Korea productive? maybe you should put the bong down and pick up a book or try google and learn something.
  • Zenas, on 11/26/2007, -3/+19The war on drugs was not ommenced to fight drugs in our nation. It was started as an excuse to take more of our freedoms away in the guise of fighting drugs and protect the real drug kings. The Government knew the drug war wouldn't succeed from the Prohibition Act of the 1920s which was repealed. Get a clue.
  • s35wf, on 11/26/2007, -13/+14Most drug arrests are for miniscule amounts of marijuana. Marijuana IS NOT a drug! It's a PLANT! Legalize IT!
    VOTE RON PAUL 2008!
    • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -7/+8"Marijuana IS NOT a drug! It's a PLANT! Legalize IT!"

      Don't be an idiot stoner, it's a drug the same way alcohol and tobacco are.
      • gofalcons, on 11/26/2007, -1/+4I don't think he's being an idiot stoner, the dictionary term for drug is so broad that if you took a lemon and started promoting it as a cure for scurvy *which we all know that Vitamin C is* it then becomes a drug.
      • scrogger, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2don't be a dumb ass chaosium - he's quoting Arnold Schw. (who actually said "Marijuana's not a drug, it's a leaf"
        • chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I'm not against decriminalization and I appreciate the message but it's a meaningless statement and is only good at preaching to the choir.
    • fauxXenophanes, on 11/26/2007, -8/+2WOO HOO !! Ron Paul for President ! Jackie Martling for Vice President !!
      OH YEAH !
  • taxali, on 11/26/2007, -1/+16What a great YouTube questions for the Republicans, no?

    "Can all of you, as congressman and senators, admit that the war on drugs has failed."
    • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -14/+3I don't understand how lower numbers=Failure, its only a failure if they give up, which with all this complaining about legalization of drugs, obviously hasn't happened yet.
      • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -9/+2lol I knew I would be dugg down, just proves how ignorant drug users can be, Thanks for proving my point!
        • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4Keep on bitching like the attention whore you really are, it makes burring you so much more fun.
      • ChaosMotor, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7You only fail when you stop trying? Have you ever heard of sunk costs? Cut them off. Forget them. They're gone. Find something profitable to pursue.
  • Barnolde, on 11/26/2007, -2/+18The government would never admit their own mistakes, that'd be a mistake. The government also doesn't care about its citizens and the criminals that its created, that's an even bigger mistake.
  • crapmatic, on 11/26/2007, -2/+25I don't really put much faith in the policies of a government that tolerates alcohol but criminalizes something like pot. A lot of families became seriously ***** up over alcohol problems, while weed is more on the level of a cookie addiction.

    And I say that as someone who enjoys a cold brew but wouldn't know where the hell to find weed.
    • Kr4t05, on 11/26/2007, -1/+10Dugg because cookies rock.
      (So does weed.)
    • wendelgee2, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Any rightwingers got any reasons for why weed should be illegal while booze is readily available? Or, do you think booze should be illegal?
    • cabal911, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8I think pot should be as legal as alcohol. I agree with crapmatic that alcohol does worse things to families than pot ever has. It's a crazy misdirected society...
    • zeromancer, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3pot should be more legal than alcohol. imo. but the real question i have is why is pot illegal in other countries? the didn't all make it illegal to single out mexican immigrants did they?
      • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4The US has been using the UN to force the war on drugs upon the rest of the world.
  • Chubs879, on 11/26/2007, -6/+7"Barack Obama admits that he 'experimented with pot and cocaine.' Ho-hum."

    So Ron Paul thinks that the constitution is a good idea. Ho-hum.
    • Tweekster, on 11/26/2007, -3/+0obama has a chance, ron paul doesnt
    • gofalcons, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3You say it like that's going to stop people from voting for him.
  • someone173406, on 11/26/2007, -3/+5dugg for pointing out a truth.
  • indierockzombie, on 11/26/2007, -4/+13With the time,effort, and money the government has wasted with the war in Iraq and the "war on drugs", we could make this country a utopia.
    • tpzoso, on 11/26/2007, -9/+3How does that make sense? Are you high?
      • indierockzombie, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5What part of this is hard to understand? What I'm saying is that if we used all the money and time that we wasted with these "wars" then we could do so many more useful things for this country.

        ***** that response took a little outta me, I need to go smoke :p
  • mroberts, on 11/26/2007, -3/+11LoneRanger85 == Blocked
  • jayfarer, on 11/26/2007, -1/+16A failure?! Look how good it's been for the prison industry! All that money to build new prisons!

    Oh, you meant a failure for the people.
    • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3A victory for the free market is a victory for the people!
      • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5True, but the "war on drugs" violates the very concept of a "free market".
  • radarplane, on 11/26/2007, -5/+16I've decided to not support anybody who doesn't support the legalization of marijuana at this point. There's no way Obama would be in the position he is in now if he had been caught, so it's only political cowardice that allows him to not fight to repeal the law. I remember when he admitted to inhaling on Jay Leno, and I checked his website to see if he'd repeal marijuana laws. What a wimp.
    After these elections are over, I'm going to support NORML financially. I don't like stoners or alcoholics and I don't party much, but this is ridiculous.
    • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3Why wait until the election is over? Start donating to Ron Paul and other political leaders that want to end the "drug war" asap.
    • shotgunefx, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Marijuana also has legitimate medicinal purposes which being cheap and non-patentable, doesn't jibe well with the drug companies. A lot of people with anxiety would do just as well on grass as paxil, but then they wouldn't make the big bucks.

      When my brother was dying of cancer, grass helped him a lot in turning his 2 months into over a year. They were injecting him with inhuman amounts of everything pain related (not counting the drug pump implanted in him), platinum based chemo that could kill him if he breathed cold air? Sure. But god forbid he have a joint.

      But they'll sell you Marinol (grass without the fun part) for $300+ a jug and it doesn't work as well.
  • Phusion, on 11/26/2007, -0/+10The numbers for nonviolent drug arrests since 1970 (the drug war's inception) are nuts.. 38 million and 2 million just last year? give it up!
    Re-posted article on Smokedot, the site for medical marijuana, news, laws and discussion. Looking for a few good newsies too!

    http://www.smokedot.org/07/11/25/admit-war-on-drug ...
    • Tweekster, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0Non violent and violent now mean the same thing. lets get actual accurate stats please
  • dank123, on 11/26/2007, -4/+11anyone that doesn't watch Fox News could tell you that the war on drugs has been a miserable failure - but only a failure for humanity and real people. These rich and powerful ***** aren't going to stop arresting people for drugs when it is a huge money maker. Privatized Prisons + arresting millions of nonviolent offenders = $$$$$ Then they can take the money and drugs they confiscate and reintroduce it right back into the black market they created to continue the cycle. Ibuprofen kills more people every year than all illegal drugs combined. Using neo-con ***** logic, maybe we should think of protecting the children from ibuprofen?
    • Zenas, on 11/26/2007, -5/+4Right on. The CIA is the world's biggest drug pusher tops only by the Jewish mafia.
      • chaosium, on 11/26/2007, -1/+4You guys come SO CLOSE to not sounding like frothing idiots. Try harder next time, Stormfronter.
    • Tweekster, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3that is a masssssive fail on your part. 500 people die from ibuprofen deaths each year. 8,000 from drug deaths, another 8000 for deaths related to drug related murders. I think the war on drugs is *****, but dont make up *****
      • sabach, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2True but the number of deaths due to medical errors in 2001 was 783,936. I propose we ban doctors instead of drugs.
        http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/Leading_Caus ...
      • dank123, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3where the hell do you get your info from? Ive gotten a list of several sites that say ~10,000 die every year from NSAID's(aspirin/tylenol/ibuprofen), on top of the 70,000 that are poisoned or injured every year from taking them.
  • kainnation, on 11/26/2007, -3/+8We need to make room in prison for all these murderers, rapists and men all over the country caught on national television trying to have sex with your extremely underage daughter.
  • AWooWoo, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2So I assume if it is a war, we should see an army opposing the FDA.
  • AaronS2000, on 11/26/2007, -1/+101. Make Drugs Illegal
    2. Build More Prisons
    3. ?????
    4. Profit

    ?=arrest non violent citizens.
  • Zenas, on 11/26/2007, -0/+18The so-called war on drugs hasn't been a failure, in fact, it's been a huge success. Like all other so-called wars, like the War on Poverty, this war on drugs as accomplished exactly what the Authorities wanted - more money for law enforcement, more customers for the lucrative prison system, more confiscated goods more intrusion into our lives, more reliance upon for government for a problem they created in the first place. The so-called war on terrorism is the war of all wars - no real enemy, scares the useful idiots ***** and creates the Police State of all Police States.
  • soulpiercer7, on 11/26/2007, -1/+5not true, Bill Richardson belives the drug war "isn't working" and that change is needed. He's also the governor that passed the most liberal medical marijuana bill ever that requires New Mexico to provide it for anybody who needs it. It also lets patients grow it themselves.

    you guys really need to check him out. He's got my vote.
    http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/home
    • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Richardson is trying to have it both ways. Vote for Dennis or Mike Gravel if you are going to vote democrat. Vote for Ron Paul if you are voting republican. Never vote for anyone that supports any form of the "war on drugs".
    • rockon573, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0Richardson has also been at Bohemian Grove.
  • 5xSTUN, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6There's a funny Demotivators poster that reads, "Consulting: If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."
    The same could definitely be said of the industrial concerns that keep the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" going.
    These guys are meeting behind closed doors regularly, plotting how they're going to profit from causing the downfall of human civilization.
  • ghostlywind, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7God created everything thus he made pot, so it's ok in my book.
  • saltmiser, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7as much as I hate mind altering stuff; it's true the war on drugs has been a failure and the only reason it's still here is because the government wants power. it's all about choice really I think. the government doesn't like my opinion though.
  • uziko, on 11/26/2007, -11/+1I think it's safe to assume that digg is mostly made up of junkies, potheads, and ron paul supporters.
    • gofalcons, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Then why waste your time bitching? Why don't you go to Red State or Hot Air dot com and join their war mongering circle jerk? I'm sure if you put up a thread about the "war on drugs" people will immediately get aroused because of the word war. *But don't ask them how many have actually served in the military or on the police force, The wilfully ignorant people who support these "wars" don't seem to like actually having to serve in them*
      • uziko, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Oh my bad I forgot people that don't like cops or wars, thanks for reminding me. I'll add that to the list.
  • uziko, on 11/26/2007, -9/+1By the way there is no "war on drugs". There are just laws banning the use and possession of them. When people break a law and get caught by the police then they are given prison sentences for breaking a law. There is no success or failure in the matter, just laws and people that get charged with them.
    • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Thats why our own government calls it a "war on drugs".
  • NatsuMatto, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6Yeah, there's no "war on drugs"... except President Nixon SAID there was in a speech. That's why, I guess, searching google for "war on drugs" gives over 1.5 million hits. I also guess that's why the government created a "Drug Czar" position...

    Do some research before you start spouting nonsense, "uziko."
    • uziko, on 11/26/2007, -7/+1wow, you don't get it do you, i'm saying that the phrase "war on drugs" that idiots like you use, is wrong because, well i'm not even going to waste my breath on you, it's just dumb, there is no war on drugs.

      you know what i had about 10 sentences that i was going to say to you but your just not worth it, by the way nice use of the "reply button" your a disgrace, way not to get what i said
      • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Are you retarded or do you just like pretending to be a dumb *****?
  • Zenas, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3I guess there's no 'war on terrorism' either if we 'think' like uziko.
    • uziko, on 11/26/2007, -5/+1I'm am left almost speeches at your stupidity, (almost because i was able to say this), I really wish that their was a block feature on digg, because you are a dumbass
      • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Speaking of being a dumbass, why are you still trolling this thread?
      • ChromaVita, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3There is a block feature. I just used it.
  • rheaume, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Shhya, read this and tell me thats going to happen in our lifetimes, the repug's reaction is indicative.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/25/ob ...
    • nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Thats ironic because he told CNN that he opposes medical cannabis but that hardly matters because he doesn't have a chance in hell.
  • BlueStreak69, on 11/26/2007, -6/+4People can be arrested for holding a plant, but they can't be arrested for holding a gun? What a country!
    • Tweekster, on 11/26/2007, -1/+0they would be arrested for both in that case.
    • gofalcons, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2They shouldn't be arrested for either one! *as long as the gun is registered and being carried in accordance with state laws*
  • bosoxrock, on 11/26/2007, -1/+18If you want to end the war on drugs, then speak with your vote.

    Ron Paul 2008
  • Tweekster, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0not all drug offenses are nonviolent. lets not lose sight here and hype stats that include violent offenders too
  • Spudster, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I swear this video was posted on digg before...
  • gofalcons, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3Man, it's so funny to see all of these people who really just repeat everything they hear Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz say. BLAH IT'S LIBERALS!! DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA! It's just hilarious. I'm serious, the political maneuvering of these people. Rather than saying "some congressman" they'll say "the democrats" or rather than saying "people are saying" it's "the liberals are saying" and then you have people like ultraright who eat that ***** up and think that everyone who disagrees with them is a liberal. There are many republicans who feel the war on drugs is completely retarded, me being one of them. However, the best way to get your way here in America is to make people think that it's not the overspending, bloated and warmongering government that's your enemy, no no no! It's your neighbor! The one who wants to smoke pot in the privacy of his own house. The one who thinks that this senseless war should end and for the soldiers to come home. That's right America, it's not big government that's your enemy it's those damn Liberals/Conservativers that are! Don't unite and become powerful as one nation, no divide yourselves and keep sqaubbling so we can attack Iran and keep the drug war legal and take your guns away and continue to steal elections! Remember, anyone who disagrees with you on one issue is YOUR ENEMY!! *not big government* (watch, someone will call me a stupid liberal now)
    • govsucks, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Actually, Neal Boortz is for the legalization of drugs, get your facts straight. And liberals are still destroying America, it is their liberal interpretation of the constitution that is leading to a rise in the power of Government and a reductions of individual liberty. The current crop of fake conservatives(compassionate conservatives or liberals light) are no help either.
      • gofalcons, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0Talking about Boortz had nothing to do with the war on drugs bud, i was talkin about people like you. People who repeat that everything bad that happens comes from liberals/conservatives. People who mindlessly parrot radio talk show hosts.
        • govsucks, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Yeah, cause all these people who call THEMSELVES liberal or conservative and have been at the helm of our ship for years have really put us on the right course! I haven't listened to Boortz in a couple of years. But I have watched as the people in D.C. have walked all over the constitution with liberal interpretations of the document. Liberal does still mean "Not strict or literal; loose or approximate" doesn't it?
          • gofalcons, on 11/28/2007, -0/+0Wait, what are you talking about dude? You're way off course from what I was saying. All I'm saying is to stop this 3rd grade name calling and blaming the other side liberal/conservative and look and see who is really driving the country into the ground. The supposed leaders of this country. And don't try that Bush derangement syndrome crap on me. Bush is just a puppet, just like Hillary, Obama *yes Obama* Thompson, Guiliani, Romney....and the list goes on. There are VERY few presidential candidates in this race who have any integrity, aren't controlled by foreign governments/corporations and actually care about this country and the constitution. Judging by your name, I thought you would get that point.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    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.