digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Former Narcs Say Drug War is Futile

foxnews.com — When former police officers, prosecutors, and judges speak out against the war on drugs people are more likely to listen. It isn't just liberals and libertarians either, even died in the wool law and order conservatives are coming around to see that bad laws don't solve problems they just make a bigger mess.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChessPieceFace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Very, very interesting. Clicked on a link for LEAP and found this essay most persuasive: http://leap.cc/publications/endprohnow.htm
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -17/+48The "war on drugs" is a huge success. Drugs are more expensive than ever, the police are more corrupt than ever, it's easier than ever to have someone innocent locked away, our prisons are more crowded than ever, and . . the government gets to have all the excuses to search you in your car for no apparent reason, or, violently invade your home without warning because you just might be sitting on your couch smoking a relatively harmless plant minding your own damn ***** business not hurting anyone else not causing any trouble what-so-ever and we can't let you do that because THATS DANGREOUS !!1! LOL

      The government is larger than ever and has the power it wants, but like the romans had a million slaves it wasn't a surplus they wanted more A wino never has a surplus he always wants more.. And guess what the government wants MOAR. Their fake "war on drugs" has gone so well for them they have come out with a sequel we all know as the "war on terror".
    • MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -26/+15@Jon, lay off the cocaine dude. It's a hell of a drug.
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26You know, although Jon comes off like a dick, his points are true. Thanks to the 'war on drugs' there is now more then ever a massive amount of liquid cash flowing in and out of America, laundered daily. You can't buy or kill for that kind of economy. Vices are what keep America in business when honest work is in the *****. Some say Drugs are the only thing keeping the economy from crashing when it's unhealthy. When unemployment is high, people still drink, smoke and gamble. Sometimes more then before. The depression sure taught a valuable lesson.

      Here's something to think about. Any corporation trading on the NYSE is not subject to a deposit audit when transactions exceed $10,000 like an average citizen would be. It's expected that companies like GE, Sony, Whirlpool, GM, will launder an estimated 1.5 trillion dollars every year.

      Hmmm, Carlos Escobar just opened up a home appliance store in Ecuador. It's fully stocked with over 10 million dollars in inventory. And look all his employees are driving brand new bullet proof Escalades. Like it or not, that IS the reality.
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@chesspieceface

      That articles solutions reminded me of something John Lennon once said.
      He was asked, "How can Nixon end the war in vietnam?" His reply, "Declare peace."
    • strabes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Jon: I couldn't agree more, except for the profanity. This is a pretty good article.

      I read the following book last year and it really changed my opinion on this issue: http://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204
    • Longstreets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This website should be required reading for every thinking member of our society

      The first couple of lies read :

      "The first thing I need to tell you good people is that the US policy of a "war on drugs" has been, is, and forever will be, a total and abject failure. This is not a war on drugs, this is a war on people - our own people - our children, our parents, ourselves."

      "With each passing year of this continuing war, the "drug problem" has become exponentially more dreadful - an unintended effect caused by the "war on drugs" itself."

      This insanity is corrupting our whole system.

      http://leap.cc/publications/endprohnow.htm
    • Longstreets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In my previous post I meant to say "lines" NOT lies......lines ! Ha-ha!

      The next paragraph has this stunning revelation:
      "As an undercover drug agent I found out that in spite of this massive drug war that
      these teenagers could get all the illegal drugs they wanted but they couldn't buy beer.

      How can that be?
      The answer is so simple , beer and cigarettes are legal commodities and the people who sell them are licensed to do so and there is no way they're going to jeopardize that license selling to under aged kids."
    • davinanderson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One of the best books that I've read in recent years is along this same subject, co-authored by a former narcotics cop, a veteran of the Baltimore Police Dept. The book is called "The Corner" and was eventually made into an HBO miniseries.

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-1160126-1466034?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+corner&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

      Great read that really puts a human element to the argument.
  • dlbear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Unfortunately I don't think there's much chance they'll be successful, at least in the near future, there's just too much $ at work in institutions & industries that have an interest in maintaining the prohibition.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I agree. There are powerful textile and agribusiness lobbies that do not want to add another product to the American agricultural landscape that they would have to compete against. The fact that hemp grows so easily is a major factor in limiting it's legal availability to the public.
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Not to shoot holes in your conspiracy theory, but the textile industry would actually pose to gain from it being legal, as they would gain access to a cheap and easily grown plant they could use in their pre-existing factories and distribution lines and customers. You can't easily start up your own fabric company.
    • questionable, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0As long as hemp rope doesn't become popular, I'm all for it.
    • ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@GabrielsS - HA! It's hardly the textile business that would be worst hit - The prison system, the CIA, the FBI and of course the drug dealer's bribees would kill to make sure this doesn't happen. Keep spreading awareness like these people are doing, put it to a vote, and tell them tough *****.
    • dlbear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ardenr Precisely. Add to that the liquor industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the drug-treatment & drug-testing consortium. the insurance industry, and on and on. The number of jobs lost would be a severe shock to the economy.
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"there's just too much $ at work in institutions & industries that have an interest in maintaining the prohibition."

      Many of those institutions are government. Some law enforcement agencies get as much as 25% of their budget from drug seizures. What's their incentive to win the war on drugs? If they win their budget gets chopped by a quarter.

      That aside, people have been getting high since the beginning of time. No law, no matter how draconian or restrictive, has ever been able to stop them from doing it. We're wasting vast amounts of money and resources trying to do something that mankind has never been able to accomplish. We keep doing it in spite of every statistic indicating the war on drugs is a failure in every way except making our country a little less free.

      It's insane...we're insane.
    • H3LLSL33T, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Precisely. Add to that the liquor industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the drug-treatment & drug-testing consortium. the insurance industry, and on and on. The number of jobs lost would be a severe shock to the economy."

      I don't think this would take away from any of these "industries". Liquor will not be affected as it's easier to get pot than liquor, probably for the fact that most dealers I have known were more than willing to make deliveries. Pharmaceuticals won't be effected because there will always be a market for aspirin, Tylenol, and other drugs, many of which have therapeutic value beyond just pain relief. i.e. blood thinners, muscle relaxants. I don't believe that companies will stop testing for drugs just because they become legal. If you come to work drunk, you will most likely get fired and required to submit to an alcohol screening. There will be a market for drug treatment as people who use will continue to want to quit, and the government can still require treatment if the substance is used in the commission of a crime. I'm not sure about insurance...how will they be effected?
    • dlbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@H3LLSL33T The primary reason most organizations do random drug screens is because it reduces their insurance rates.
  • Alfdog, on 10/12/2007, -38/+0They are "former" Narcs, maybe the people still working at keeping drugs away from kids think differently?
    • andreo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"They are "former" Narcs, maybe the people still working at keeping drugs away from kids think differently?"

      When I was growing up I could get drugs at any time, if I wanted to. I've had them offered to me for free before also. I didn't do them because I didn't want any part of them. Not because I thought that I would be going to jail. I'm sure that the people try to help keep drugs off the street are doing a noble thing and have great intentions. But honestly, it's a loosing battle. People are still getting high. Drug dealers are still getting rich. People are still dieing from both direct use of the drugs and the side effects of dealers trying to secure areas to sell them.

      The only thing that will keep kids off of drugs is education and their parents. If the parents and the educators can give kids a clear understanding of just what they would be subjecting themselves to the kids would listen. None of the garbage ads like "this is your brain, this is drugs, this is your brain on drugs". No show them what happens no matter how gruesome it is. Let former and current drug users talk to the kids. Let them see and hear how they live and the life that they have to deal with every day.

      And as for the people that are already on drugs. Laws are not going to stop them from using. Sure they may get caught buying, using, or transporting some drugs. And they may spend some time locked up. Be it a day or a year. But that will not stop their drug use. Their friends (the non-drug using ones) and family is what will help them through getting off of drugs. Not to mention a time where they just may say to themselves that they've had enough of this type of life and want to re-join society and do it themselves.

      As sad as it may sound. And even more so if its a family member or friend. If someone is intent on ***** up their life there are no amount of laws and no amount of cops, narcs, or ATF agents that will be able to stop them. We cannot babysit everybody in the country. It is simply not possible.
      I think if drugs were legalized you would find that the vast majority of people simply lack interest in taking them.
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Further, and going off of andreo's point, it's important to remember that age laws for controlled substances are often much harder to get around than it is for a youth to find a local dealer.

      When I was a budding (no pun...ah, what the hell) pothead, it was impossible for my friends and I to get our hands on alcohol. Without knowing people who were over 21, and living in an area where I.D. checks are mandatory for EVERYONE, it took some serious, serious planning to have a night of drinking. Even getting cigarettes required finding someone who was willing to buy them.

      Meanwhile, at that same point in my life, I could acquire LSD, mushrooms, coke, pot, ecstacy, and any number of random pills with a simple phone call. At worst it was a hassle and took a lot of phone tag; at best it was like curbside service. Had drugs been controlled in the same way as legal substances, it would have been a real pain to get them.
  • 4Ajax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17It is so stupid to punish an addict. They are addicted! GET IT! Sheesh, take the money out of the equation and watch how fast the drug dealers disappear Help the addict punish the dealer that is how this should be done.What a freakn waste of money this has been.
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"About 58 percent of federal prisoners are being held for drug law violations--more than 42 percent for drug trafficking and about 15 percent for other types of drug crimes."
      http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/prisons/pris.fedstat
      "Justice Department surveys show that 52.7% of state prison inmates, 73.7% of jail inmates, and 87.6% of federal inmates were imprisoned for offenses which involved neither harm, nor the threat of harm, to a victim."
      http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/one_million/onemillionexec.html

      I wonder if more come out of prison rehabilitated, or hardened criminals.
    • emoseman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0If you don't hold people accountable for their own criminal actions you are doing them no good, especially if they are addicted to the drugs with which their criminal activities are derived.

      Making drugs legal is a cop-out. Legalizing drugs and selling them behind counters at pharmacies would help to ensure their consistency and quality. But, pharmacies get robbed all the time for their drugs. So not only are you protecting the health of the addict, you are giving them a specific source to get all of their drugs.

      To prevent someone from getting addicted to a narcotic, it would require that narcotic to not be available to them. This includes alcohol.

      And as far as the implications of how much the ineffective "War on drugs" costs, who gives a *****? This is one of the few cases where to fed is actually spending money to keep its citizens safe and healthy.
    • mhoosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It is so stupid to punish an addict. They are addicted! GET IT! Sheesh, take the money out of the equation and watch how fast the drug dealers disappear Help the addict punish the dealer that is how this should be done.What a freakn waste of money this has been."

      Another point, if it does become legalized, there will be more support societies (like alcholics) for addicts.

      I used to smoke a lot of pot when I was younger, even now if the situation arises when i'm offered some. When I used to get pot through dealers they would always try to convince me to buy some of their other types of drugs (cocaine, lsd etc.) which I know are more harmful.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"If you don't hold people accountable for their own criminal actions you are doing them no good, especially if they are addicted to the drugs with which their criminal activities are derived."

      Nobody's talking about not holding people accountable for their criminal actions, properly defined (i.e., arbitrary legislative definition of acts such as smoking particular plants as "criminal" excluded). If someone robs you, arrest him the robbery: it's got nothing to do with whether or not he smokes one particular plant over another, etc.

      There's no such thing as "addiction" - drug abusers use drugs because they want to, not because they "can't help it" due to some magical chemical reaction that removes their will :)
  • jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2On a similar note: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070115/hl_nm/study_drug_abuse_dc
  • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4http://digg.com/videos/educational/Grass_The_History_of_Marijuana_2
  • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If I could have dugg this again I would digg and digg and digg!!!
    Some of the most refreshing news that I've read in a long time. Interesting it was on Fox News, not a personal favorite source of mine.
    • reb42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not from Fox, just syndicated there - its from Reason.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is nice to see some sensible stuff on Fox, even though it was written by a senior editor of Reason.
  • hhOwArdrOarKk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"You have 10 seconds to comply"
    "9"
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15You think that we would have learned from history, Prohibition did not work all it did was create some very wealthy people...the Kennedy clan for example.

    The money from the drug war is better spent in other places, like treatment and rehab. Legalize, regulate, and tax Drugs, Gambling and Prostitution and you will remove the profit for organized crime and gangs.
    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I agree with every point. I was a heavy user of marijuana from 1968 through 1990
      and I've observed the drug scene from quite a few viewpoints, from small time
      growers to organized crime, and the worst thing that could happen to the
      underground pusher is to legalize recreational drugs . That would undercut not
      only the pusher, but also the importer and the cartels and other organized gangs,
      as did the legalization of alcohol. The terrorists, exporting hashish, opium and
      cocaine, would find themselves in a much lower income bracket. And instead of the
      expensive prisons to have the junkies cold turkey, we could afford clinics where even
      the destitute can find medical help. Petty crime would plummet, as so would homicides,
      and it would allow us to use prison cells as places where we keep dangerous criminals
      off the streets, instead of harmless drug users.
  • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Why is there even a drug war? The people in America is suppose to be their own. Noone is suppose to govern them, decide what they can and can not do as well as force them to pay taxes. They are the kings and queens and they are the law.

    I wonder why more people doesn't rise up and want their liberty back. To once again as it was once after the revolution at the late 18th century. When people really was their own sovereigns for the first time in history.

    ***** it, I wanted to immigrate and become my own sovereign and then as I researched the topic, I noticed how opressed the people are in USA at this time. Such a wonderful gift that the founding father's gave the people. Gone, totally gone today.
    • questionable, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4So, wait. You don't want roads, traffic lights, highways, public education, courts, legal system, and all that jazz? Yeah. Right. You don't want anyone to defend you when someone comes into your house and tries to steal your ***** and murder your ass?

      If you want all that, you have to pay taxes. Stuff doesn't spring out of the ground for your use and protection for no reason. And if you're saying the government has no right to tell you what to do, I'm sure your parents don't have any right either. I mean, ***** the MAN. FIGHT THA POWER!

      The people in the 1700s weren't sovereign. Most revolutions ended up being rule by the powerful or rule by mob. None of that own sovereigns ***** you're saying.

      Government is a lot better than trusting the people.
    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@questionable

      Yes, we have to have taxes, but we demand that taxes be spent
      wisely. The drug war is not spending our tax dollars wisely. It's
      medieval in it's theory and futility. As so many others have
      pointed out, even the likes of William F. Buckley agree, the drug
      war makes the problem worse. We don't want our government
      making our problems worse.
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And if drugs were legal you could tax it. As it stands, drug dealers only pay marginal taxes. For instance when they buy a new fur coat. Flat sales tax would do away with that. Tax the money going out, not the money coming in.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Right now, I guess, taxes are needed because of the current culture/political climate. Though, with a radical culture shift, it should be feasible for people to only pay for what they use.

      However, taxes were a hell of a lot lower before the growth of government and stuff functioned fine (I'm not saying there were not problems but that people should think twice before getting government to fix a problem, its solution is probably counterintuitive.) This drug was is a nice example of how big government has become, and how it has corrupted society.

      The main problem with classical liberalism was that it had a mechanism in which allowed government to grow. They put the right to bear arms in the constitution for a reason because they knew that government would grow. If one group of people have the right to tax someone else eventually their organisation will get larger, as history has shown.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually the 1st Amendement states that you don't need to pay taxes if you don't agree what they are used for. It is the means of a non-violent protest. To say that you will need to pay taxes means you are under a monarchy and that you are owned by the ruler. That is not the case as you own the ones the taxes goes to.
  • Wind8reaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It's as simple as this: Prohibition does not work.

    It didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with something as innocuous as pot and it doesn't work with any of the multitudes of other drugs that have been outlawed.

    It's time to try something new. Set up government pharmacies, tax the heck out of it. Send anyone who sells to children straight to prison for life, no probation, no parole.

    The "profits" from the sales can in turn be rolled over into a recovery fund. Will there be an initial "surge" in drug use? Probably, but there will also be drops in robberies, burglaries and other drug related crimes. This will also seriously hurt the street gangs that are currently ruling places like South-Central LA, Harlem, and other gang infested areas (no drugs, no money, no incentive to join the gang).

    Thank you
    • Dred, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The problem with this is taxing it, anyone can grow pot in the basement, garage or backyard. It would be impossible to tax it if it were legalized. Then the other problem would be the workforce, if someone was hurt on the job and they smoked pot, how would you test for it to know when they smoked it during work hours or the night before. This is just a few off the top of my head. I am sure if someone thought about it long enough they would come up with a lot more.
    • chownrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@Dred
      "The problem with this is taxing it, anyone can grow pot in the basement, garage or backyard. It would be impossible to tax it if it were legalized. "

      Anyone can brew beer or distill alcohol as well, but most prefer the convenience purchasing them instead. The same goes for pot.


    • choad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@dred

      Home-produced tobacco and alcohol are still prohibited, even though the products are strictly legal. The cost, labor and expense of production make a trip to the liquor store seem like a better deal. For the same reason, state-sanctioned reefer stores will be a much better bargain than the legal risk and effort and expense of home growing. And since weed costs next to nothing to produce, weed will most likely cost much less even if heavily taxed. Less of the nations income will go towards weed (and what does go towards weed will amount to government income) and the black market will be completely eliminated.
    • feucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@dred

      The grow-your-own argument is specious, you could argue the same about alcohol, I brew beer occasionally (legal in the UK), but most of the beer I drink is made by breweries, and so is the vast majority of beer drunk in the developed world. Ditto spirits. If you could buy it over the counter, why would you bother growing hemp plants yourself, unless you were a hobbyist.

      The work argument, well these problems exist whether hemp is legal or not.
    • 47f0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The problem with this is taxing it, anyone can grow pot in the basement, garage or backyard. It would be impossible to tax it if it were legalized."

      Sigh - I know you think that you're thinking, but I think your thinking isn't well thought out.

      As noted above - legalized alcohol can only work because I can't grow it in my basement. Problem is - I can (and do). Basically, all you need is yeast and sugar. It's completely simple. It's easier than growing weed. But somehow, alcohol still gets manufactured profitably - and taxed.

      So you're going to have to dig up a little better irrationalization to prop this argument up.
  • muleking, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I don't know, if you take down Mr. Big, including his skull form, we may win this battle.
  • Morifen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shouldn't it be dyed, not died?
    • pants428, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yes, in fact the whole description is pretty painful to read..
  • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I even donated to LEAP (http://www.leap.cc),
    and I never donate, until now.
  • allenu, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Really? Here's another headline for you: Current Narcs Say Drug War Is Useful.
    • AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6where's the link?
    • Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He left out the subtitle: "for stuffing their wallets."
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RTFA. These guys felt this way when they were NARCs. Its just harder to speak out against a system when that system signs our pay check and holds your pension account; and when the corrupt cops that make tons of money from the drug war are the same guys standing behind you with a gun during a drug raid.
  • 5xSTUN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Have a look at the late Peter McWilliams book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country." The entire text of the book, including the insightful quotes inserted on each page, is right here: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

    I read it back in 1994 when it was published, and it blew my mind.
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. I own that book, and Reefer Madness. Both are very, VERY insightful reads on how things have slowly turned to crap, and how it devastates the common man.
  • heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Capt. Obvious reporting for duty! I heard I was needed at this thread. Where can I help?
  • d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3I can tell by the posts so far in this thread that few of you are parents.
    • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm a parent, and I'm all for legalizing, ending the stupid "war on drugs".
      Does that make me less "good" as a parent?
    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8In order to put the pusher out of business, you have to take the
      profit out of pushing. No matter how many pushers you incarcerate,
      there will always be somebody there to take his place. Making pot
      illegal may sound like it makes good sense, but it doesn't work that
      way. Prohibition served to popularized booze, as the underground
      economy found ways of distributing their products. Go to any
      high school, and there will be drugs sold there. You want your kids
      to rub shoulders with the underground economy? Take the exorbitant
      profit out of that industry.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I'm a parent who is pro-legalization. I challenge any father of a teenage girl to consider whether he wants his daughter to be in a car with a boy who's been drinking or a boy who's been smoking pot.
    • MateFrio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't want any of my daughters to be with a guy drinking or doing drugs. If they are underage they shouldn't be doing either.
    • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@MateFrio:
      If anyone is drinking and driving or smoking pot and driving they should be penalized, regardless of their age. But that was little to do with the effect of the war against drugs in this country.
    • greenjohnsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not all drugs are harmful. More harm has come to individuals in the US b/c of its current drugs laws than has originated from the drugs themselves.
      http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/1963/Legalize_Marijuana
      http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3551210a3600,00.html
      http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3447637
    • jamthehut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Parents should worry about child advertising. If Pot or any other drug were legal, in the U.S. you'd immediately see ads on TV for it. I also wouldn't be forced to buy any more goddamned barbies.
    • feucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Don't confuse prohibition with lack of supply. Banning things does not make them go away. It does make them more attractive to organised crime, and children.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I am a parent and I support legalization because I would rather have my daughter go to rehab than jail. I would obviously like it if she could avoid both places but I understand that I don't control my child's life. I just try to guide it to the best possible destination. I would also prefer that drugs be legalized because it would lift the taboo of talking about drugs. Then if my daughter was determined to experiment, I could atleast let her know what she was getting into, get her the drug she wanted without worrying about wether it was real or poison, and provider her with a safe place to try it.

      A know a few people are going to read that and think, "OMG! How could your be willing to allow your daughter to take drugs?" Well, I remember what it was like to be a teenager and I know that most kids that I knew at one point or another wanted to try drugs. I did. My parents did. Their parents did. I bet even your parents did wether they are willing to admit it or not. I just prefer that she be as safe as possible while doing them if she chooses to.
    • Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8When I was young, it was much more difficult to get Booze that it was pot. Pot I could get literally anywhere because it was uncontrolled. Booze was tougher because it was from liquor stored that rigorously checked ID.

      If I were a parent I know damn well that I some point my kids would likely try pot, because I don't live in denial. I would much rather the pot they did try came from a government controlled grow up and that it was random crap, possibly full of pesticides etc...

      And I would like it better that all pot sold wasn't controlled by organized crime and no one was being killed over illegal grow ops, turf etc..

      Would you rather your kids get their hands on government controlled/tested/approved Alcohol or Bathtub Gin like during alcohol prohibition?
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It seems to be difficult for many people to imagine what the alternative to "The War on Drugs" would actually be like.

      Drugs would not be "legalized", they would be "decriminalized"...there is a big difference. There would still be laws on the books defining things like driving while intoxicated and furnishing substances to minors as criminal behaviour. There would be laws that actually controlled so-called "controlled substances".

    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@drmobutu,

      So cigarettes and alcohol are not legal, just decriminalized? To me, decriminalization means local authorities won't bust you for holding, but the Feds will still come after you and it still isn't legal to sell. That's not what is needed. Legalization is what is needed. But as you suggest, just because it's legalized doesn't mean there can't be rules.

      When marijuana is legalized, you won't be able to smoke pot in most public places, and you'll lose your license if you sell to minors. An adult giving pot to a minor would be a misdemeanor. The effects of driving under the influence ought to be investigated scientifically before making any strict laws about it.
    • ChessPieceFace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@3d3m

      Are you saying that when one becomes a parent they lose the ability to reason?
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ mutatron

      This is what I mean when I said people don't aggree on what "decriminalization" or "legalization" mean, or what an alternative to the current system would be. Sure, alcholhol and cigarettes are "legal", but there are laws that govern their manufacture, sale and use.

  • MateFrio, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Deny There is a Hell
    Deny There is a Heaven
    Elect Idiots
    Appoint Corrupt Judges
    Deny Fair Representation
    Devalue Life
    Take Away Personal Freedoms
    Create a Police State
    Make Rules for Everything
    Criticize Morality
    Outlaw Morality
    Legalize Drugs
    Ruin Families
    Rule the World

    It is all a plan.
    • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Morality can be viewed in many different ways.
      Do you think it is moral to incarcerate non-violent addicts, because they have a disease and have difficulty controlling the cravings?
      That's like tossing someone in jail for having a heart attack. Like throwing the book at a diabetic, who eats a jelly doughnut.
    • MateFrio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Mworthin:

      If we are trying to help non-violent addicts legalizing drugs is not the way to do it. I am also not saying that the prison system is a good way of helping addicts back into society though.

      Keep drugs illegal, as drug use IS a problem, but find a better way of helping those who are dependent or addicted.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So easy to criticize when you don't have to come up with any answers to the problems that you point out.
    • Tsuyoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@MateFrio

      Having a hard time understanding what your little post means. On that little list of things are apply to both sides of the political spectrum (in the two-sided politics of the US). I suspect that you are trying to slam people with progressive values. If so, you are completely off base. Striving to keep our liberties and be free from opressive laws based on other peoples moralities and religion is a just cause. Striving to have working solutions to society's ills that aren't draconian and don't make even worse problems is also just.

      Seeing conspiracies everywhere, though, is a sign of a diseased mind.
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3MateFrio, one of us is very confused, and I'm hoping it's not me... Please explain to me how these things are bad at the same time that legalizing drugs is bad:

      Take Away Personal Freedoms
      Create a Police State
      Make Rules for Everything

      How can you make drugs illegal _without_ those three things?
    • sanguinekane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@MateFrio
      Some of those things in that list don't make any sense. Why would the country become a police state and then legalize drugs? Those two don't usually go together very well.
  • Dred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Been knowing this since I was a kid.
  • republick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9War on Drugs and the War on Terror are really
    Wars on Personal Freedom.
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah good ole' Bill Hicks.
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Not all drugs are good.....some of them are great."

      - Bill Hicks
  • k0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1War on Drugs is a way for the CIA to take the drugs and re-sell them.
    • MISking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Is that what your dealer told you?
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think you mixed up the CIA and the DEA. DEA seizes and resells them. The CIA helps them get into the country in the first place.
    • Tsuyoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Is that what your dealer told you?"

      A coke dealer around town was a narcotics officer who sold some of the contraband from his daytime job during his 2nd job where he worked as a guard for a popular hangout. So blaming the CIA could be baseless; but there is reason to believe that there are crooked law-enforcement officers that do really well because of the "war on drugs."
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The drug war has, and always will be, a fool's errand.
    The jails are overflowing with non-violent drug offenders. As long as the demand is there (and we all know Americans like to get high) drugs will flow into this country, unabated.
    Aside from the 20% of addicts that REALLY need to be sent to the Big House for lengthy periods of time, or forever, let's treat the non-violent drug offender's addiction as the medical problem that it is. This is not a moral lapse, it is a disease. It's about changed brain chemistry, not sin, as the evangelicals would have us believe. Medical, not moral.
    We should stop the persecution of drug addicts (please include alcohol in there as the USA's biggest drug problem). We should approach this problem more intelligently. Damn we might even save some money, while saving some lives.
    We might even do the right thing! What a novel idea!
    • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Take it further. No reason to differentiate between 'violent' users and 'non-violent' users. Just keep violence illegal. Whether the perpetrator is on drugs or not, violence is the problem.
  • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Use the following excellent tool to submit your Letter to the Editor of newspapers in your area. Try to keep your opinion coherent and lay off with the conspiracy theories, this will give you the best chance of being published.

    http://rnc.org/GetActive/WriteNewspapers.aspx
    • republick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yea write a letter about the problem with the drug war to your local newspaper and you can guarantee your self a visit from a narcotics agent.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then use a fake name when you submit the letter.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've written letters promoting drug legalization many times, and never gotten a visit. They've got "better" things to do with their time.
  • ivanmarsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: http://leap.cc/
  • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What politician is going to vote for legalization of drugs? They run on being tough against crime, drugs, flag burners, etc. Sound bite campaigns.
  • SD929, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Like a lot of things, just because it is hard to do, cost lots of money and might not be ultimately succesfull, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Drugs ***** up lives. Period. All you weed smokers can argue that's not the cause and of course it's not universal, but heroin, meth, and coke addictions destroy lives and lead to increased crime.
    • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Read the article: The cops aren't saying it's too expensive, or it's too hard. They're saying the war on drugs is not working.
      The are saying we need to find a different way. The article, (and the LEAP site, which the article sites as a source,) are not promoting drug use in any way. They are saying that we need to CHANGE THE WAY WE FACE THE PROBLEM OF DRUGS.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Drugs don't ruin lives. People that abuse drugs ruin lives. Greedy drug deales ruin lives. Bad drug policy ruins lives. Corrupted cops ruin lives. Drugs don't do anything by themselves. They just sit there like the inanimate objects they are.
  • mecca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Further Reading:

    Anyone who has watched The Wire, a police drama on HBO now between its 4th and 5th seasons, knows how cops feel about the drug war. The show is co-written by a former narc, and it realistically documents the cost we all pay for the war. For police, it’s the chance to do real police work, as they have to focus on 'hands-to-hands' and 'busting heads' on corners. For communities, the cost is watching one corner after another fall, slowly turning neighborhoods into open-air drug markets. For corner boys, sucked into the trade by the glamour and easier money than working at Wendy's, the price is that more than likely, they'll wind up dead or locked up at a young age. At the same time, the show doesn't stray from the toll that drugs take on addicts. At any rate, anyone who's looking for an exceedingly poignant version of this argument ought to catch a few episodes of The Wire or The Corner, an Emmy winning 2000 documentary.
    • Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't know why someone tried to bury your comment. "The Wire" is great in a sad but true kind of way. I especially loved the episodes with "Hamsterdam" as it relates to the war on drugs.
    • benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you beat me to it. I'm an obsessive fan of this show. I think watching it should be mandatory for all government officials (though thats wishful thinking, i know...)
    • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Was it the governor of Maryland or mayor of Baltimore who suggested that the war on drugs was not working? Needless to say he was ripped to shreds and his political career is over.

      When will these frickin idiots realize that the war is NOT WORKING!
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cable TV - possibly the most addictive substance known to man. ;)
  • funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Join NORML
  • BigCalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even the state of Texas gets it. Our politicians say we need 10,000 more prision beds which would equate to 2 max and 1 general security prisions. But they're also recognizing that there are too many pot smokers doing 10 yr bids while rapists and murderers who are near the end of their terms are being let go to make room. It's madness.
  • benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great story. Even though growing up I always had a hunch the drug war was futile, watching HBO's The Wire really opened my eyes to how public drug policy gets distorted and ***** up when implemented on the street. This article even further confirmed it.
  • tigger04554, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Prohibition of Alcohol created the mafia and organized crime.

    Prohibition of Drugs has kept them in business ever since.

    If alcohol was discovered tomorrow, it would be banned because it is much more addictive and dangerous than many of the illegal drugs out there in use by the masses. The way to deal with this is regulation - you destroy the business model of organized crime and they go out of business. Meantime you can regulate carefully and make recreational drugs as safe as possible, and keep them out of the hands of kids.

    But the current system of prohibition means it's easier for a kid to get hold of heroin or a handgun than a cigarette or a bottle of beer...
  • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's funny to me that the same people who constantly tout the ability of free-enterprise capitalism to solve any problem and deride anything the government does as inneficient, waste-of-my-taxes-spending are the same ones who want the government to solve the drug problem by brute force.

    Which is it: Is Big Governent Good, or Bad?
  • upandatthem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm not trying to be stupid or inflammatory here, just trying to figure out why 95% of the comments seem to agree with the story.

    So the argument is that prohibition doesn't work and that drugs should be made available legally. This sounds exactly like the way alcohol is handled to me.

    So we're saying that the alcohol setup works? I mean to me, it comes down to who is hurt by this decision. Right now, drug dealers and people who choose to even get involved with drugs (be it for money or some other reason) seem to be the ones getting killed. But with alcohol widely available to anybody who can find $5, that makes for a whole lot more people driving around drunk and killing innocent people. So yes, we don't have many gang-related deaths or organized crime problems from alcohol, but we do have a lot more deaths of innocent bystanders.

    I'm not saying one is better than the other here, but I don't really see any good solution. Am I missing something big?
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, you're missing the part where tens of millions of people in the US enjoy alcohol everyday without incident. You're missing the part where organized crime flourished because tens of millions of people didn't agree that alcohol should be illegal. You're missing the part where the illegality of drugs increases the harm to society while costing tens of billions of dollars, not only in enforcement costs but also in productivity losses of the victims of the Drug War. That's just a little bit of what you're missing.
  • Echarter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Having experienced the system I know that it is a devouring, greedy, black hole of corruption. Money and materials is what it wants. Take a stand to create an America that heals the harm of the drug scene, instead of feeding the fear that keeps the junkie coming back.

    here are a few links that shed light on the the true problem with drugs. The System.

    http://www.nevergetbusted.com/index.php

    This man is a former NARC training doing his duty to stop the war on your brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers.

    http://www.arcticbeacon.com/5-Mar-2006.html

    Here's a link to an article about a former DEA agent who recognises the true malefactors.

    http://www.powderburns.org/

    Here is a link to his site.

  • bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It doesn't matter. Rhetoric like "war on drugs" makes for good politics. It sounds tough. Decriminalization sounds weak. Certainly saying "it doesn't work" sounds like you're giving up, which sounds weak. People want politicians who sound tough. People don't necessarily do what's in their best interest.

    Still, its worthwhile getting the word out, if nothing else to keep drugs out of our schools. Drug pushers don't check IDs.
    • Echarter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More and more words like "good" in conjunction with "politics" appear to be an oxymoron. It sounds like you have given up. it also appears that you are attempting to enroll others in this. I want politicians to create an America that is free of corruption and systems that are conflicts of interest.

      Sheeple want a person to tell them what they want, how they want it, when they want it. Drug dealers don't sell to the kids they sell to the people that have money. The true malefactors have big fat grins, nice suits, and billion dollar hand shakes.

    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about the "War on prohibition!". That sounds tough. Or maybe "War on Wasting Taxes!" That sounds really good.
    • kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how about "war on the taliban"?
      guess where they get their money from? yup - you guessed it. the illegal opium/heroin trade.
  • hime77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have the pleasure of knowing man who has been to prison for drug charges multiple times. This man is now clean but not because of the threat of jail. As I do not have an addiction personality type I would have thought that the first time would have stopped anyone but as I’ve found out nothing will stop a druggie except themselves. Sure they may say they’ll quit but until something inside themselves makes them change; they will say 'I'm cleaning up my act" till the next hit comes along. An addict be it an alcoholic or a druggie can lose everything family, health, respect and it will not stop them. They are so good at lying to themselves they will find ways to blame others for their lost or try to forget that they allowed those bad things in their life to happen because of choices they made.
    With all that said I still don't feel making something illegal solves anything in fact it adds fuel to the fire. A person who will stop at nothing to get a fix will do just that no laws stop them. The cops don't stop them it just helps with population control. How many people are killed daily over some drugs either a deal gone bad or the battles on the war on crime? How many innocent people die each year?
    Then there is the whole prison thing. The only thing prison does is make a person a cold and America has enough heartless people running around that we don't need to go and make more. Putting non-violent people with violent people is wonderful ideal then people in prisons need to affiliate with gangs so they don't get raped or extorted. Drugs are still in prisons it doesn't help them get off drugs at all.
    Well now you say it's bad for you. So are a lot of things in life, like eating at MCD'S everyday but we don't see a war on Ronald McDonald look at all the fat people in the world. That clown has helped kill more people via heart attacks and other obesity related problems. But we know that like everything in life we need to have cheeseburgers in moderation and it's not the cheeseburgers fault that some people are cannot control their urges to eat too much.
  • hime77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Do'h part of my comments have vanished...

    I have the pleasure of knowing man who has been to prison for drug charges multiple times. This man is now clean but not because of the threat of jail. As I do not have an addiction personality type I would have thought that the first time would have stopped anyone but as I’ve found out nothing will stop a druggie except themselves. Sure they may say they’ll quit but until something inside themselves makes them change, they will say 'I'm cleaning up my act" till the next hit comes along. An addict be it an alcoholic or a druggie can lose everything family, health, respect and it will not stop them. They are so good at lying to themselves they will find ways to blame others for their lost or try to forget that they allowed those bad things in their life to happen because of choices they made.
    With all that said I still don't feel making something illegal solves anything in fact it adds fuel to the fire. A person who will stop at nothing to get a fix will do just that no laws stop them. The cops don't stop them it just helps with population control. How many people are killed daily over some drugs either a deal gone bad or the battles on the war on crime? How many innocent people die each year?
    Then there is the whole prison thing. The only thing prison does is make a person a cold and America has enough heartless people running around that we don't need to go and make more. Putting non-violent people with violent people is wonderful ideal then people in prisons need to affiliate with gangs so they don't get raped or extorted. Drugs are still in prisons it doesn't help them get off drugs at all.
    Well now you say it's bad for you. So are a lot of things in life, like eating at MCD'S everyday but we don't see a war on Ronald McDonald look at all the fat people in the world. That clown has helped kill more people via heart attacks and other obesity related problems. But we know that like everything in life we need to have cheeseburgers in moderation and it's not the cheeseburgers fault that some people are cannot control their urges to eat too much.
  • jonstafari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow, on fox news... crazy
  • swin101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've never smoked a single joint, drank an ounce of alcohol, or used an illegal drug and I AGREE with the idea of decriminalizing "soft" drug use for many of the reasons stated in the article and links provided above. I realize it is somewhat hypocritical to decriminalize only some drugs, but the damage caused by a single use of some drugs is so bad that it doesn't make sense for a logical, health-minded government to permit the sale of these drugs for recreational use. Medical use is a different story.
  • outsidethinkbox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@swin101

    While I commend you for never having used harmful substances, and the fact that you still agree with the majority decision, I'll have to disagree with a few of your stances. One of the first things that came to my mind when I read your comment was your 'health-minded government' viewpoint. I for one do not want MY government telling me what is right and wrong for me to do. That is, more or less, the very foundation of this argument, the government thinks it has the right to put rules and regulations on a substance that I choose to put into my body. That should be my own personal choice. Not anyone else's. This is where education comes into play. The more information you have about a given subject, the better judgment you are able to make. My solution? Educate the people, and let them make their own choices. (Which is what is supposed to be happening now) Another point was your suggestion to decriminalize some drugs and not others. However, based on your limited experience with drugs, I would say that I would definitely not leave that decision up to you (please do not be offended). Obviously people with more experience with drugs could better make the decisions on which drugs are more harmful, while people with less experience are left up to a wild guess, or rumor, or what they had heard on the grapevine. I see this as a major problem with our law-making system today. We entrust powers to a few to make laws on certain subjects, and they haven't the slightest clue of what pertains to that subject. Like all things, drugs should be taken in moderation, took much of anything isn't good for you (except maybe sex :-), oh, and there are numerous articles stating the benefits of sex, so I'm not just being a perv). Anywho, I'm not advocating that we get a board of junkies and let them decide the laws for the country, however, their input would be valuable in determining what course of action we are to take with the heavier drugs. My bottom line is you simply cannot stop someone from ultimately doing what they want to do. (short of firing buckshot at their knee-caps) If they really really want something, they are going to get it at any cost. This concludes my long-winded paragraph. Any additions and/or revisions and comments are more than welcome. No substitutions, extensions, or refunds. Supplies are limited, call now to RSVP. (/joke)
  • Ferre1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Politicians should read this: http://www.thc-ministry.net/biology-of-democracy.h ...
  •  

    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.