user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I think all of America will look like a ghetto if cops stop busting people for drugs. So I say keep pumping money into the war on drugs.
Ahhhhh, one of my favorite topics. I could write a whole essay on the topic, but I'll try to keep it short.
The so-called 'war' on drugs, like the 'war' on terrorism is a total misnomer. Some propagandist in the government came up with that slogan to rally public support for it - even though the phrase is totally idiotic.
Part of the problem is that many people think of drug addiction as a moral problem, and not a medical problem. Sure, people have a choice to choose to try a particular drug or not, but they do not choose to become addicted. (And it has been proven that some people have a stronger genetic predisposition to addiction than others)
Another part of the problem is that we lump all 'drugs' (except alcohol) together. It is EXTREMELY important that people at least understand the difference between hard drugs, soft drugs, and drugs that just don't fall into those two categories. Any reasonable, educated person understands that there is no comparison between, say, mushrooms and crack cocaine. Marijuana is still Schedule I, like heroin. Schedule I means that the drug has no medical value. So I suppose all of this 'medicinal marijuana' nonsense is just a vast conspiracy to allow people to get stoned? Bullshit.
I believe that the soft drugs, at least marijuana, should be decriminalized in instances of simple possession of reasonable amounts. It would still be patently illegal to sell it, use it in public or where children are, and grow it - but the police would simply take a more common-sense fact-based approach towards the use of marijuana, which is certainly the least destructive illicit drug I can think of. (I.E. We're not going to arrest cancer patients for lighting up in their own homes because it provides them some relief)
The amount of money we would save from trying and incarcerating these people would pay for the treatment and rehabilitation of real addicts 10 times over. Treatment will never be 100% effective, but people who ARE ultimately successful don't have to steal things to support their habit.
Even if we devoted every last penny of our budget to eradicating drugs, and turned the U.S. into a police state - people will never stop WANTING to get high. It's just part of human nature - we seek things that are pleasurable to us: sweets, unnecessary sex, and drugs.
In the movie Traffic, Michael Douglas' character (a judge and new drug czar), has a good line: 'If we are going to have a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don't know how you declare war on your own family.'
Furthermore, the long-term solution to this problem is NOT to build more prisons.
In the same way that you cannot drill your way out of an oil crisis, you cannot incarcerate your way out of drug use and abuse.
You make some good point Applerod, I am for pumping the wasted money that is used to enforce the unenforcable (anyone remember Prohibition) and spending some of the saved cash on treatment.
Marijuana is a Class C drug here in the UK, and the policehave been told to only arrest those that are obviously carrying a sufficient amount to supply, and to confiscate it from those who possess it for personal use. This has freed up the police in London (where I live) to investigate REAL crime, like muggings, burglary etc...
I dont personally use drugs (I dont even drink anymore) as I like to be in possession of my faculties, but if people will experiment, then I am not one to say 'lock em up'.
Having reread my last sentence, I tell a lie, I do drink coffee, so I use at least one drug.
The 'war on drugs' is unwinnable because the CIA are making far too much damn money pumping it over our borders and into our inner cities.
Dont expect me to type out a huge essay about this!
I think this speaks to the whole "War on ..." mentality. Not every problem can be resolved through a declaration of war.
Bingo. The obviousness of the propaganda is almost painful.
Could someone please point out "drugs" and "terror" on a map for me? What province are they in?
by RobL on Tue Jul 27, 04 3:37pm
[+]
Somewhere near Witchcraft.
The war on drugs is pointless. Some drugs are legal - prescription drugs like anti-depressants that make you 'feel better', tobacco which is one of the most addictive drugs out there but is used for tax benefit, caffiene which gives you a high and can also be addictive... the list goes on. Other drugs are not legal. Itjust doesn't make sense. They should all be legalized but highly controlled. Some legal drugs (tobacco) have been proven to kill while some illegal drugs are no harmless than legal ones. There shouldn't be a war on drugs.
...and alcohol, don't forget alcohol. Anyone who thinks tobacco and alcohol aren't drugs is an idiot.
War on drugs is STUPID just like war on terrorism. What about a good war on dandruff then?
How about a war on 'war'?
I think the 'war on drugs' is a bad idea, and most of those drugs should be legalized.
However, saying it's a mistake because we'll never actually 'win' is a poor argument. Is it a mistake to round up murders? Because you know we'll never totally eradicate that crime, therefore we shouldn't try, right? Same with anything, war on terror included. There probably won't be a definate end point where you can say 'last year we had drug users/terrorist attacks/whatever but I can garuantee we won't have any ever again'. But you still have to keep fighting it or it or the problem get's worse. Any other philosophy is pessimism at best, defeatism at worst.
Well I hardly think you can compare murder and terrorism to someone who wants to eat a mushroom.
herzog. First off you need to learn how to spell definite. Secondly your argument is pure baseless, speculation. In Holland there is much more relaxed approach to drug taking and there are much much less heroin addicts per capita than in almost any other western country. And your comparisons to The War on Terror are most unwelcome. I will go and find some figures on heroin addiction to prove you wrong but I doubt it will shut you up.
Drugs: Statistics Back Dutch Model
Date: 03/01/2002
Source: Langley Advance (CN BC)
Author: Chris Donald
Details: http://www .mapinc. org/media/1248
Dear Editor,
Twice as many British teens (40%) have tried cannabis as their Dutch peers (20%), and a stunning 200 times as many British teens have tried heroin as their Dutch peers.
The following statistics, published in The Observer (Feb 24, 2002), just about sum up why Britain is about to change its drug laws, which are currently very similar to ours in Canada.
Keep in mind that, according to the Partnership for a Drug Free America, for the last five years the U.S. has consistently seen a rate of 50% of their high-school seniors having tried cannabis, and Canadian teens are also in the 40% to 50% range every year (CCSA).
There is no comparison between the Dutch crime rates and ours in North America: they have less crime of all types, especially of the types associated with addiction, as the following statistical comparison with Britain shows.
The Dutch drug-policy model has been proving for years that it is only one in the world that doesn't allow teens easy access to drugs, unlike outright prohibition, so please actually read the following statistics this year.
This information must be kept in mind for any intelligent analysis drug-policy options.
How Britain now outstrips Holland
The Observer
Population
UK: 60m - Holland: 16m
Teenagers who have tried cannabis
UK: 40% - Holland: 20%
Teenagers who have tried heroin
UK: 2% - Holland: under 0.01%
'Problem' hard drug addicts
UK: 250,000 - Holland: 25,000
Percentage of population robbed in past year
UK: 1.4% - Holland:0.6%
Percentage of population whose car was stolen in past year
UK: 2.6% - Holland: under 0.5%
Recent (in last month) use of cannabis by 15-year olds
UK: 24% - Holland: 15%
Chris Donald
Referenced: http://www. mapinc.org/ drugnews /v02/n322/a07.html
I never said the war on drugs was winnable, quite the opposite. Nor did I say it was a good idea, in fact I said very clearly that it wasn't. I merely pointed out the fact that arguing against some line of action because it's difficult and has no clear end is a terrible way to look at life. So take your stats and shove 'em cretin.
So you'd rather carry on with a scheme that doesn't work? Of course you would. Seeing as you brought it up, the War on Terror is having the opposite of the its desired effect and you support that all the way. You're being very consistent. I just hope the Americans don't declare a War on Hate because the whole universe will probably be destroyed. You're an idiot, herzog. I really hope you are under no illusion about just how spiteful and foolish I think you are. Just carry on defending Fox News. That's about all you're good for.
'So you'd rather carry on with a scheme that doesn't work?'
Where did I say that? There's a difference between 'not working' and 'requiring constant effort'. I'll try to simplify this for you; you have a garden, one day you realize it's infested with weeds so you spend alot of time and effort cleaning it up, then next week you look again and damned if there aren't more weeds. Now, according to your logic you should see that your massive undertaking did not totally wipeout the problem in one fell swoop, and that you can never really anhilate all the weeds, so you should give up and let it be overrun. My logic would state that yes, the weeds will always come back, no there is no end in site and you will just have to get used to putting forth a constant effort to keep things under control or else things will get really bad, so get to work. Clearly you aren't a gardner.
I personally think an overgrown garden is a haven for wildlife, so dont do much gardening.
But hey thats just me lol.
So, back to the point. Do you feel that our current drug policy makes sense, and there should be no changes to it?
To tell you the truth, Im not an advocate of drugs or against them.
If people want to take them, fine. I would find it difficult to wax lyrical on the dangers of drugs, while taking a swig of my beer.
I would be willing to bet, 50 times as many people die of alcohol related deaths than heroin, coke etc put togther... dont quote me, its just an observation.
Steelhamster - don't even get me started on alcohol, you'll never finish reading my post.
Sorry herzog, but i'd rather take notice of proven facts like I posted than your pathetic allegories.
OK Applerod, I have waited long enough, tell me about alcohol lol.
Drinky drinky!
Hic!
Yes - obviously.
Rush Limbaugh deserves a brutal bitch slap for being a most supreme hypocrite and a phony conservative (he's a republican party/big business bitch). And it looks like that synthetic heroin addiction was a smart move, he sure lost alot of lard. And lets not forget the moralizing hypocrite druggie has been married and divorced 3 times and according to common insider knowledge is a closet homosexual who likes teenage boys.
On a social leval one obvious analogy here would be to look at how successful prohibition was ... the rise in illegal bars .. crime streetcrime.. it is an obvious correlation to the prohibition of drugs.Prohibition was a'war on alcohol' that couldn't win either.
|
|
