What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
137 Comments
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/02/2007, -1/+59You know, guys... Dennis Kucinich would end the War on Drugs. He said that it "benefits only the prison-industrial complex."
(...Oh, and Ron Paul too. But I'm a Democrat, so, eh. Either way, it's the same message.)
Please vote correctly in the primaries, whether you're doing it for the Republicans or the Democrats.
And bonus points to the submitter for linking to the print version. - duggtodeath, on 12/02/2007, -1/+56We are addicted to war.
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -2/+56Hmmm...starting an unwinnable war in the first place? Why does our country have seem to have an obsession with this for the last, oh, 40 ***** YEARS OF LOSING WARS!!!
- Goodbyeworld, on 12/02/2007, -0/+40the drug war is a dangerous addiction
- nomadishere, on 12/02/2007, -0/+36'Why are we working for these guys? Why don't we just buy it from the Colombians directly and keep the profits ourselves?' :)
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -3/+31Cocaine planes with links to Washington and CIA
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84652
Theres an emerging story about the US govs illicit smuggling routes, used for drugs, weapons, and rendition flights. Long story short, we can't deal with the Colombians directly cause our Gov is already the point-man at this end of the shipping lines. :P
edit: this was a response to nomadishere, just jabbed the wrong button, sorry. - tunapez, on 12/02/2007, -3/+28Of thee I sing...
Land where my fathers spied.
Land of the Corporate Pride.
From every cash register's side, let War bombs ring. - spudnic, on 12/02/2007, -0/+22My list of people with access to drugs who haven't died is much longer.
- Lynxplus, on 12/02/2007, -0/+19Because it's a blackhole for our money.
- faxxy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+19intensely funny:
Fat Kid Educates on War on Drugs (and gets owned):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo - brentinkc, on 12/02/2007, -1/+19Sweet land of liberty...
- kinseyincanada, on 12/02/2007, -0/+17hahahah this guy is hilarious.
- Zap2, on 12/03/2007, -0/+17Personal I don't use them, but if your over 18, I cant see why the govern't has any right to say what you can put in your body!
If the people want them, why not let them use them? And we can tax the hell out of them! - immersofloctan, on 12/03/2007, -0/+17...not to mention the list of dead people who never used drugs at all.
- manicallday, on 12/02/2007, -3/+19This was a long ass article. I really didn't think that the problem was that complicated. To save everyone the time just read the last two paragraphs. It pretty much sums everything up nicely.
- Zenas, on 12/02/2007, -0/+15One more time - the war on drugs, just like the war on terrorism is/was a huge success - for those who profited from it - the government and those who control the government.
- Amnesia10, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13The same applies with Heroin, buy it at source from Afghanistan, and supply it via drug treatment centres and avoid all the drug related crimes. The benefits to society would be immense. Crime would plummet, insurance rates would fall, company profits would rise, the police would have far more time to sort out that mugging, so all crimes could fall.
- bachdog, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12I doubt the powers that be consider it a failure because even though hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars have been spent, the prison and police industries have flourished. You know that even though it is a waste of public funds, a select few are enriching themselves through the "war on drugs," a failure and a travesty of public policy in the name of 'saving the childrens'. Big pharma and OTC drugs = good, Pot and Ecstasy = devils
- CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -2/+14The "war on drugs" was as much a lie as the "war on terror" and the Pentagon's 1-day "war on waste" which was "fought" on September 10, 2001 (Google that one, it should be fun). The US was founded on lies and is now owned and operated by the most brazen liars the world has ever seen. They have studied the populace and learned how to gain instant and total credibility no matter what they say.
They knew that fighting the drug trade could never stop it; they learned that lesson when they were forced to reverse Prohibition in the 1930's. The whole "war on drugs" is and has always been a pretext; an excuse for the government to have warehouses full of drugs and databases full of information about drugs. The "war" also has the benefit of facilitating the persecution of *certain* segments of the population by incarcerating them in increasingly privatized prisons with the added benefit of restricting them from participation in the gene pool.
They well know that the action of legalizing drugs would take the profit motive out from under the cartels, which would then collapse, but how then would all the CIA's black projects be funded? I'm not talking about housing in Compton, either.
Taliban in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 but, since the Taliban had burned all the poppy fields, bombing them had the *secondary effect* of releasing the heroin floodgates. They allow foreign cartels to continue to exist because the cartels do the work of farming, producing and shipping drugs which the US has the option of seizing on arrival, saving production time and labor. The profit is easy money. Think the cartels are going to sue? I doubt it.
Arresting local drug dealers eliminates competition while arresting users who cannot support their habit supports the economy by keeping a steady stream of warm (mostly black) bodies flowing through the expensive US crime machine. Provided they avoid public attention, users who can support their habit provide needed cash flow to the economy so they do their part by staying out of prison and on the stuff. There are so many corrupt reasons for the "war on drugs" that we should expect it to continue indefinitely.
What people don't realize about this government is that everything it says and does is a double-entendre. There is always a *true* goal and a *stated* goal. *True* goals are achieved by engineering policies that achieve those goals *AS SECONDARY EFFECTS OF STATED GOALS* The secondary goals get sold to the public as a benefit or a protection while no mention of the true goal is ever made. Americans, by and large, are distracted by the stated goal and thus never pay attention to the secondary effect which ends up achieving the engineer's desired effect--but without opposition from people who were already convinced that it would do "good".
Anyone who attempts to draw attention to the secondary effect is handled in the most elegantly simple fashion possible: One "news" broadcast during which the phrase "conspiracy nut" or "conspiracy theory" is mentioned and anyone espousing a view contrary to official opinion is publicly discredited, instantly losing all "official" credibility. No one will ever listen to that person again. Don't take my word for it, though. Ask Rosie O'Donnell -- if you can find her.
Now compare this crazy theory to all the events of the last 60 years (and the next 60) and see how well it works. - bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12No it's not. The war on drugs will never be won, because it's immensely profitable for those "fighting" it. On BOTH sides of the "war".
- williamdyer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+10What a tool. Do you really not understand the difference between adults choosing to smoke pot or toot a line of coke and rape? And that a "war on drugs" is as ridiculous as a war on masturbation?
- mal1964, on 12/02/2007, -1/+11Supply and Demand.
- jkremer3, on 12/03/2007, -0/+10This is true, we have made no progress, and it's a waste of money. Ron Paul would move to end the war on drugs.
- Urusai, on 12/03/2007, -0/+10The war on drugs has never been about preventing the use of recreational drugs. It has always been about oppression. The war has been won; you are oppressed.
- skews13, on 12/02/2007, -0/+10sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.the scary thing in this case. it was by design
- qpn6ph9q, on 12/03/2007, -2/+11The phrase "War On..." anything implies a brute force, heedless confrontation. History has taught us that wars rarely if ever solve the underlying problems that they are invoked to solve. Killing the "enemy", and especially figureheads only ever slows, but never stops the real causes that underlie the problem; and in some cases may even accelerate the very thing the war is trying to prevent. War is an ideal environment for injustice and corruption, and for those bent on wealth or empire to leverage the ideological format for their own gain. We must put an end to warmongering at any level in society by refusing to accede to this language of war. We must not fight a "war on drugs" or a "war on terror" or anything else; what we must instead do is inspire change where it is necessary. As with both wars, government policy is at fault in both cases. In the case of drugs, treating drug takers as criminals, and not as people who need help to escape the clutches of the drug industry is the root cause of the crisis, and only serves to relegate an entire population of citizens to an underclass where they are doomed to be counter-productive addicts while strengthening the power of the drug cartels who profit from their illegitimacy. There is actually a very simple, very rational solution to these problems if viewed outside the mindset of "war". Decriminalize drugs. Regulate and tax them through the FDA. Allow drugs to be prescribed by specialist rehabilitation clinics, which provide counseling, treatment and withdrawal therapy to addicts as well as national media and education programs targeted at prevention. No dealer, no cartel will ever be able to undercut these clinics, and no drug addict will resist the opportunity to accept the terms and conditions of rehabilitation if it means they can get cheap access to the substances they have become addicted to. Instantly you will see the drug industry vanish globally. Crime will plummet and the people who need help will get it when and where needed. This is not a new idea at all. But it will take brave champions to fight the "law and order" focussed "warmongering" ultra-conservative elements that have escalated the plague of drug addiction and have held this nation hostage to the drug cartels for most of the last century.
- hiphoc, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9Two words, IRAN CONTRA
- Mononuclear, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9Hypocritical and Hippocratic are 2 very different things.
- absurdist, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8yet another monkey with a keyboard...
- kindrobot, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8The media needs to get on board in regard to the failed drug war. They've ignored it far too long. And the funny thing is, there is so much "make america cry" material in there, with families split apart, sick people sent to jail, etc. Doesn't anyone else find it odd they haven't jumped all over these stories yet? And where are the so-called Hollywood elite? Don't they hate this crap as much as we do?
- Mononuclear, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8when you do drugs, pirate movies and music, and disagree with Bush you support terrorism!!!! /sarcasm
- Look4Truth, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9The CIA runs drugs and have no intention of "winning" any war on drugs. It's a complete scam.
- Langford, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8Is it a loss, or was it simply that the real goal was never to stop drugs? Whenever we "go to war" on anything, it gives politicians a blank check to do whatever they want. All the money being spent on the drug war isn't disappearing, it's going into someone's pockets.
- personaehiro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7are you really that dumb? when rereading your comment can you really not see how stupid that is?
- mal1964, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7The model Ive used for over 40 years.
- VaporBro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7I logged in just to say this:
Dr hunter S Thompson
Rolling stone not being a good source for War On Drug Info? Look him up.
Wake up. - mrjit, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6He's clearly a Hippocratic oaf.
- ndonohue, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6I can give that to you now: $500 billion to ultimately stop zero people from using drugs.
- capiCrimm, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6how about he just automatically pardons anyone caught for drug usage? That'd force a stop, and maybe get congress to compromise.
- personaehiro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6People have been taught there is only one way to deal with drugs, the tough way. Anything else and you're supposedly some sort of deluded "hippie" who just wants to be able to buy pot easier. They're afraid of the unfair and totally ridiculous stigma that comes with supporting drug reform.
- mlfoley, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6So some fundie kooks make a list of rock stars who have died from drug use, and somehow this proves that the war on drugs is a success? What fascinating logic. Plenty of people, from rock stars to regular joes, who have done drugs are still alive. McCartney? Alive. Jagger? Alive. Tyler? Alive. All the guys from Motley Crue? Alive. And on and on and on.
- ndonohue, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5McDonalds has killed more people than pot ever has. Make fast food illegal!
- hendrixlives64, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5This article was extremely well written and compiled; I am delighted to see the subject breaching such a high profile publication.
- bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5That was golden.
- Azurensis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5It is time to stop fighting it when all of the money that's been spent has had exactly zero effect on the price or availability of drugs. It has put millions of people in prison for no good reason and makes the drugs themselves even less safe.
- Notasheeple, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Once again Ron to the logical rescue................(sigh) my American Idol
- Zellus, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Well crafted article and worth the read. To bad it doesn't interest the masses. But, then again most issues of importance don't.
- brianbb98, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5golden shower! that ***** got pissed on by the constitu.... oh forget it.
- petewiz, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4"Look at how dead all that long list of rock stars actors, athletes and pop idols are that could get drugs freely"
If I was some type of magical grammar-doctor, I would recommend that this sentence be aborted. Please try to have some grasp of the language that you are trying to spout off your illogical ***** in. And what was that list supposed to prove? Even if this was an accurate source (not even close), heart attack still rated higher than drug overdose. By your (lack of) logic, shouldn't you be more worried about people eating McDonald's and all of that fast-food junk?
PLEASE DO SOME GODDAMN RESEARCH! -
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is