Say there Ghostwriters, if this article convinces people to stay in the fight, and not "Cut and Run" in Afghanistan, so be it. People such as the Washington Post's George Will, the guy who knows nothing about war--or baseball, is self-proclaiming the war lost and wants out of Afghanistan.
The Washington Post consistently shills for the neocons, why would Will want out of Afghanistan? Simple, the $600 billion war in Iraq and the nearly $150-165 billion war in Afghanistan that we spend annually is severely impacting weapons programs, Gates' unwillingness to purchase more F-22s etc., has a lot of lobbyists frightened, such that they hire Will to shill.
PS Ghostwriters, when are you going to get your boss to explain the economics of trading weapons-for money-for guns- for drugs-for money-for guns...
The old 'war on drugs' routine...a massive failure of epic proportion since its inception. Now we are going to target the so called king pins of the opium trade in Afghanistan...sure has worked in South and Central America.
The easiest way to end the flow of drug money, legalize them and tax them...eventually the value of opium, weed, coke, etc. will fall to the level of money received for growing corn, soy beans, etc. It has to be cheaper to treat druggies than funding these wars on drug producers...who rarely get arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Our prisons are over crowded with the minnows of the trade, rarely do the so called king pins spend one day in jail.
Use the money saved by legalization on medical/treatment programs, the military, to help pay down the national debt...anything but fighting a losing war on drugs...'just say no' hasn't worked and it never will.
S/F Gordon _______________________________________________
Say there Ghostwriters, if this article convinces people to stay in the fight, and not "Cut and Run" in Afghanistan, so be it. People such as the Washington Post's George Will, the guy who knows nothing about war--or baseball, is self-proclaiming the war lost and wants out of Afghanistan.
The Washington Post consistently shills for the neocons, why would Will want out of Afghanistan? Simple, the $600 billion war in Iraq and the nearly $150-165 billion war in Afghanistan that we spend annually is severely impacting weapons programs, Gates' unwillingness to purchase more F-22s etc., has a lot of lobbyists frightened, such that they hire Will to shill.
PS Ghostwriters, when are you going to get your boss to explain the economics of trading weapons-for money-for guns- for drugs-for money-for guns...
I agree with you on this one uh34d. I think by legalizing drugs, this would be the only chance one may have on "winning the war on drugs." Like you stated below, "Just say no" doesn't work nor will it. Look at the billions and billions of dollars spent on the "war on drugs" and not even putting a dent on stopping it...
quote:
Originally posted by uh34d: The old 'war on drugs' routine...a massive failure of epic proportion since its inception. Now we are going to target the so called king pins of the opium trade in Afghanistan...sure has worked in South and Central America.
The easiest way to end the flow of drug money, legalize them and tax them...eventually the value of opium, weed, coke, etc. will fall to the level of money received for growing corn, soy beans, etc. It has to be cheaper to treat druggies than funding these wars on drug producers...who rarely get arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Our prisons are over crowded with the minnows of the trade, rarely do the so called king pins spend one day in jail.
Use the money saved by legalization on medical/treatment programs, the military, to help pay down the national debt...anything but fighting a losing war on drugs...'just say no' hasn't worked and it never will.
S/F Gordon _______________________________________________
Say there Ghostwriters, if this article convinces people to stay in the fight, and not "Cut and Run" in Afghanistan, so be it. People such as the Washington Post's George Will, the guy who knows nothing about war--or baseball, is self-proclaiming the war lost and wants out of Afghanistan.
The Washington Post consistently shills for the neocons, why would Will want out of Afghanistan? Simple, the $600 billion war in Iraq and the nearly $150-165 billion war in Afghanistan that we spend annually is severely impacting weapons programs, Gates' unwillingness to purchase more F-22s etc., has a lot of lobbyists frightened, such that they hire Will to shill.
PS Ghostwriters, when are you going to get your boss to explain the economics of trading weapons-for money-for guns- for drugs-for money-for guns...
How can a military genius like Ollie get all wet about "new opportunities for success" in Afghanistan, chasing down and eliminating drug dealers smugglers, when the old opportunities for success eliminating the poppy crop couldn't be realized?
It's supposed to be easy to eliminate an inanimate enemy, fixed in position for a fairly long period of time and easily observable by reconnaissance - like poppy fields are. It couldn't be any easier to tackle an sapient enemy, able to react to new 'opportunities' and who doesn't particularly want to get caught - like the Taliban.
Even given their 'immense' resources, the 3 000 of them have required the, as yet unsuccessful, application of almost 200 thousand westerners and billions in gold.
If this gets the 'juices flowing' good for Ollie, he's been too dry, too long .
Make something like drugs illegal...people are like moths to a flame.
People should read a little American history. The Prohibition era in the US was a catastophe of epic proportion, and the drug wars make that era pale in comparison to what we now see. Legalize it, control it, tax it...we have millions of users despite the legal consequences. I'm not sure of the numbers and will have to look them up but, I have to believe legalization would be much cheaper than our current course of action.
Perhaps we will really go overboard and begin spraying the poppy fields just as we have done in South and Central America to pot and cocoa plants...another great way to win 'hearts and minds.'
S/F Gordon ____________________________________________
quote:
Originally posted by GillerR: I agree with you on this one uh34d. I think by legalizing drugs, this would be the only chance one may have on "winning the war on drugs." Like you stated below, "Just say no" doesn't work nor will it. Look at the billions and billions of dollars spent on the "war on drugs" and not even putting a dent on stopping it...
quote:
Originally posted by uh34d: The old 'war on drugs' routine...a massive failure of epic proportion since its inception. Now we are going to target the so called king pins of the opium trade in Afghanistan...sure has worked in South and Central America.
The easiest way to end the flow of drug money, legalize them and tax them...eventually the value of opium, weed, coke, etc. will fall to the level of money received for growing corn, soy beans, etc. It has to be cheaper to treat druggies than funding these wars on drug producers...who rarely get arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Our prisons are over crowded with the minnows of the trade, rarely do the so called king pins spend one day in jail.
Use the money saved by legalization on medical/treatment programs, the military, to help pay down the national debt...anything but fighting a losing war on drugs...'just say no' hasn't worked and it never will.
S/F Gordon _______________________________________________
Say there Ghostwriters, if this article convinces people to stay in the fight, and not "Cut and Run" in Afghanistan, so be it. People such as the Washington Post's George Will, the guy who knows nothing about war--or baseball, is self-proclaiming the war lost and wants out of Afghanistan.
The Washington Post consistently shills for the neocons, why would Will want out of Afghanistan? Simple, the $600 billion war in Iraq and the nearly $150-165 billion war in Afghanistan that we spend annually is severely impacting weapons programs, Gates' unwillingness to purchase more F-22s etc., has a lot of lobbyists frightened, such that they hire Will to shill.
PS Ghostwriters, when are you going to get your boss to explain the economics of trading weapons-for money-for guns- for drugs-for money-for guns...
I agree that its long past time to kill the war on drugs and admit complete defeat. And while we concede defeat we gain victory by gaining a new and major source of tax revenue, while putting many criminals out of work.
Like uh34D stated above as well. The amount of tax revenue our Government would receive sure would go a long way on paying down our national debt. Not only that, by legalizing drugs, this would help eliminate many of the drug gangs that have killed so many innocent people by drive by shootings, stray bullets, etc. This would be a win-win situation for everybody...
quote:
Originally posted by PolicyWonk: I agree that its long past time to kill the war on drugs and admit complete defeat. And while we concede defeat we gain victory by gaining a new and major source of tax revenue, while putting many criminals out of work.
It sounds simple to legalize drugs, but in reality you're trading one set of problems for another, increasing the amount of people who will be on drugs, to include increasing the health care costs associated with those new addicts. But hey, Obama is going to win on health care, right? ha!
Ultimately we would not legalize all drugs, maybe dope, but cocaine, and above all meth? Say even if we did legalize all drugs, there would be new ones designed and then we'd have to either make those legal or still pursue the drug war. In short, the drug war is here to stay. Plan Columbia? It's annihilated a lot of the jungle, all they do is keep clearing new areas to plant.
The biggest part of fighting the drug war is that both sides like in Columbia use cocaine to fund their right/left wing operations, and in Mexico, the elite have to play or pay, certainly the money is phenomenal, but the more important fact is that the cartels don't simply take you out, they take out your whole family, including little children to earn compliance---from the guy who ends up replacing you after you and your family have been whacked.
To fight this correctly, US law enforcement needs to realize that they are up against institutional support from the respective governments that sustain, support, and aid in facilitating the drug trade, to include the extensive corruption in our own law enforcement. Think about the volume of drugs. It's not solely onesies and twosies, that stuff is chiefly pixie dust to allow law enforcement to show they are catching some people, the bigger problem is how NAFTA has eased the shipment of goods, and in those goods is where the the real shipments are. Do you think our own border forces, to include Customs haven't been bought off? Think again.
Originally posted by rockriver04: It sounds simple to legalize drugs, but in reality you're trading one set of problems for another, increasing the amount of people who will be on drugs, to include increasing the health care costs associated with those new addicts. But hey, Obama is going to win on health care, right? ha!
In the few countries, mainly European, when drugs were legalized there was no dramatic increase in drug usage of any kind. In fact, drug usage declined in Holland. Regarless of any points someone can make, legalizing drugs would certainly go a long way to eliminate violence, the sadness and heart ache associted when people are gunned down and many innocent of any crime, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The associated cost of the violence would certainly decrease dramatically as it did when prohibition was finally eliminated here in America. The cost to our legal system would be reduced by millions of dollars. Our jails would not be overcrowded, again a substantial savings. Here in Connecticut, the per annum cost last year for a prisoner was just shy of $40,000 with annual cost for incarceration increasing faster than inflation. In total, the savings to America would be dramatic. And as a byproduct of legalization, perhaps the anti-gun community would get off of gun owners backs as drug violence due to drug deals, drug rip offs, police shoot outs decline as the profit motive with illegal drugs is eliminated. I would rather see the billions of dollars saved go toward treatment, re-education and helping those who have a drug problem. Prison violence would dramatically decline. Really, the list in savings is quite lengthy. A person who wants to use drugs will do so whether they are legal or illegal.
Ultimately we would not legalize all drugs, maybe dope, but cocaine, and above all meth? Say even if we did legalize all drugs, there would be new ones designed and then we'd have to either make those legal or still pursue the drug war. In short, the drug war is here to stay. Plan Columbia? It's annihilated a lot of the jungle, all they do is keep clearing new areas to plant.
The biggest part of fighting the drug war is that both sides like in Columbia use cocaine to fund their right/left wing operations, and in Mexico, the elite have to play or pay, certainly the money is phenomenal, but the more important fact is that the cartels don't simply take you out, they take out your whole family, including little children to earn compliance---from the guy who ends up replacing you after you and your family have been whacked.
Now would it not be more beneficial if drugs were legal...no drug cartels, at the least very few. You just provided a very good reason above for legalization.
To fight this correctly, US law enforcement needs to realize that they are up against institutional support from the respective governments that sustain, support, and aid in facilitating the drug trade, to include the extensive corruption in our own law enforcement. Think about the volume of drugs. It's not solely onesies and twosies, that stuff is chiefly pixie dust to allow law enforcement to show they are catching some people, the bigger problem is how NAFTA has eased the shipment of goods, and in those goods is where the the real shipments are. Do you think our own border forces, to include Customs haven't been bought off? Think again.
Again, you have provided another synopsis as to why drugs should be legalized.
The war on drugs is a lost cause. It has been waged for years and years, not to mention the billions and billions of dollars spent to combat this losing battle. The prohibition against alcohol didn't work. People were still drinking and boot legging alcohol. Again, by legalizing drugs, the incentive is taken away by gang members on getting rich, not to mention, innocent people being shot and killed.....
I agree my synopsis does make a good case for legalization, and since I fought in the drug war I've followed the challenges since I retired, and yes things are worse, but it doesn't mean we need to surrender. Do we also eliminate pharmacists and let people simply go pull the prescription medicines they want? Why wouldn't we do that? For a lot of reasons, the harm the person will accidently cause themselves, the harm that person will cause others, and the need to protect the individual from intentional harm to himself. I flew missions in the drug war and I can tell you that I never met one single law enforcement officer that was for legalization. Still, fighting the tax free $25 billion dollar illegal drug industry will require a more monumental response, and perhaps given our $600 billion effort in Iraq and our $145 billion effort in Afghanistan certainly has tempered our desire to do anything more substantive in South America, or Mexico.
I am more interested to hear your point of view about how legalization would adversely impact our society. As we would be giving up one set of problems for another, there is no free lunch. For you need to consider the other side of the equation--undoubtedly addicts will increase exponentially by the millions and burden our health care and social services. For example, increasing the number of children who will have to be placed into foster care because their parents are incapable of parenting? Increasing the availability of drugs doesn't mean that only the current drug users will step out of the shadows to buy drugs, a lot of new people will start taking drugs. Can you imagine what those drug ads will look like? ha!
Finally, there will always be a drug war, as there are a variety of natural and chemical combinations that haven't even been invented, and some of those drugs may be too dangerous to ever be legalized.
quote:
Originally posted by uh34d:
quote:
Originally posted by rockriver04: It sounds simple to legalize drugs, but in reality you're trading one set of problems for another, increasing the amount of people who will be on drugs, to include increasing the health care costs associated with those new addicts. But hey, Obama is going to win on health care, right? ha!
In the few countries, mainly European, when drugs were legalized there was no dramatic increase in drug usage of any kind. In fact, drug usage declined in Holland. Regarless of any points someone can make, legalizing drugs would certainly go a long way to eliminate violence, the sadness and heart ache associted when people are gunned down and many innocent of any crime, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The associated cost of the violence would certainly decrease dramatically as it did when prohibition was finally eliminated here in America. The cost to our legal system would be reduced by millions of dollars. Our jails would not be overcrowded, again a substantial savings. Here in Connecticut, the per annum cost last year for a prisoner was just shy of $40,000 with annual cost for incarceration increasing faster than inflation. In total, the savings to America would be dramatic. And as a byproduct of legalization, perhaps the anti-gun community would get off of gun owners backs as drug violence due to drug deals, drug rip offs, police shoot outs decline as the profit motive with illegal drugs is eliminated. I would rather see the billions of dollars saved go toward treatment, re-education and helping those who have a drug problem. Prison violence would dramatically decline. Really, the list in savings is quite lengthy. A person who wants to use drugs will do so whether they are legal or illegal.
Ultimately we would not legalize all drugs, maybe dope, but cocaine, and above all meth? Say even if we did legalize all drugs, there would be new ones designed and then we'd have to either make those legal or still pursue the drug war. In short, the drug war is here to stay. Plan Columbia? It's annihilated a lot of the jungle, all they do is keep clearing new areas to plant.
The biggest part of fighting the drug war is that both sides like in Columbia use cocaine to fund their right/left wing operations, and in Mexico, the elite have to play or pay, certainly the money is phenomenal, but the more important fact is that the cartels don't simply take you out, they take out your whole family, including little children to earn compliance---from the guy who ends up replacing you after you and your family have been whacked.
Now would it not be more beneficial if drugs were legal...no drug cartels, at the least very few. You just provided a very good reason above for legalization.
To fight this correctly, US law enforcement needs to realize that they are up against institutional support from the respective governments that sustain, support, and aid in facilitating the drug trade, to include the extensive corruption in our own law enforcement. Think about the volume of drugs. It's not solely onesies and twosies, that stuff is chiefly pixie dust to allow law enforcement to show they are catching some people, the bigger problem is how NAFTA has eased the shipment of goods, and in those goods is where the the real shipments are. Do you think our own border forces, to include Customs haven't been bought off? Think again.
Again, you have provided another synopsis as to why drugs should be legalized.
I agree my synopsis does make a good case for legalization, and since I fought in the drug war I've followed the challenges since I retired, and yes things are worse, but it doesn't mean we need to surrender. Do we also eliminate pharmacists and let people simply go pull the prescription medicines they want? Why wouldn't we do that? For a lot of reasons, the harm the person will accidently cause themselves, the harm that person will cause others, and the need to protect the individual from intentional harm to himself. I flew missions in the drug war and I can tell you that I never met one single law enforcement officer that was for legalization. Still, fighting the tax free $25 billion dollar illegal drug industry will require a more monumental response, and perhaps given our $600 billion effort in Iraq and our $145 billion effort in Afghanistan certainly has tempered our desire to do anything more substantive in South America, or Mexico.
Your example using pharmacists is akin to comparing a sling shot to a .45...not relevant as there is no comparison. A person who is determined to use drugs doesn't care about the consequences. The question is, do we continue to add to not only the misery of the drug user but do we continue to add additional dangers above and beyond the use of the drug by fighting a war that can nenver be won? Minimize the violence associated with illegal drugs can only be an improvement in the situation as it mostly eliminates the innocents from the equation. Look at the countries that have legalized drugs and the decrease in violence is phenominal...to innocent citizens, police, military, government officials. And I would expect most any person involved in law enforcement would not want to see drugs legalized...lets face it, most are of a certain political persuation, have an economic log in the fire and may have to consider a different form of employment if drugs were legalized. By your own admission, the cost to end drugs use by government sanctioned violence is too large a burden to bear for any economic system. If criminalizing is the answer to aberant behavior, then we should reinstitute and criminalize alcohol, criminalize tobacco usage...it cannot and will not happen.
I am more interested to hear your point of view about how legalization would adversely impact our society. As we would be giving up one set of problems for another, there is no free lunch. For you need to consider the other side of the equation--undoubtedly addicts will increase exponentially by the millions and burden our health care and social services. For example, increasing the number of children who will have to be placed into foster care because their parents are incapable of parenting? Increasing the availability of drugs doesn't mean that only the current drug users will step out of the shadows to buy drugs, a lot of new people will start taking drugs. Can you imagine what those drug ads will look like? ha!
I will accept and trade one problem for another if the trade means reducing violence and crime associated with illegal drug usage. The canard that legalization would exponentially increase drug usage is not born out when you look at the countries who have legalized drugs. There was no dramatic increase in drug usage in these countries...in some, it decreased. In all instances, violence was reduced dramatically. And the cost of treatment when compared to the expense of fighting a so called drug war was much less by a large percentage. Like smoking ads that no longer exist, the same would be true for drugs...limited ads.
Finally, there will always be a drug war, as there are a variety of natural and chemical combinations that haven't even been invented, and some of those drugs may be too dangerous to ever be legalized.
Granted, but most people are not so stupid where they will use drugs with a high risk of death. Most drug users die from other complications due to their economic situation and having to spend most of their money on drugs due to their cost which cost is due to their being illegal...cost would drop dramatically if they were legal and hopefully, that would leave money to take better care of themselves. Of course, with a single-payer medical system in America, it would go a long way to reducing the medical costs due to drug useage...as I said, most drug users do not die or become ill because of the drug itself, it is their lifestyle that creates most of their medical problems. Instead we now pay the price of emergency room treatment and chronic illness treatment.
Originally posted by rockriver04: It sounds simple to legalize drugs, but in reality you're trading one set of problems for another, increasing the amount of people who will be on drugs, to include increasing the health care costs associated with those new addicts. But hey, Obama is going to win on health care, right? ha!
In the few countries, mainly European, when drugs were legalized there was no dramatic increase in drug usage of any kind. In fact, drug usage declined in Holland. Regarless of any points someone can make, legalizing drugs would certainly go a long way to eliminate violence, the sadness and heart ache associted when people are gunned down and many innocent of any crime, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The associated cost of the violence would certainly decrease dramatically as it did when prohibition was finally eliminated here in America. The cost to our legal system would be reduced by millions of dollars. Our jails would not be overcrowded, again a substantial savings. Here in Connecticut, the per annum cost last year for a prisoner was just shy of $40,000 with annual cost for incarceration increasing faster than inflation. In total, the savings to America would be dramatic. And as a byproduct of legalization, perhaps the anti-gun community would get off of gun owners backs as drug violence due to drug deals, drug rip offs, police shoot outs decline as the profit motive with illegal drugs is eliminated. I would rather see the billions of dollars saved go toward treatment, re-education and helping those who have a drug problem. Prison violence would dramatically decline. Really, the list in savings is quite lengthy. A person who wants to use drugs will do so whether they are legal or illegal.
Ultimately we would not legalize all drugs, maybe dope, but cocaine, and above all meth? Say even if we did legalize all drugs, there would be new ones designed and then we'd have to either make those legal or still pursue the drug war. In short, the drug war is here to stay. Plan Columbia? It's annihilated a lot of the jungle, all they do is keep clearing new areas to plant.
The biggest part of fighting the drug war is that both sides like in Columbia use cocaine to fund their right/left wing operations, and in Mexico, the elite have to play or pay, certainly the money is phenomenal, but the more important fact is that the cartels don't simply take you out, they take out your whole family, including little children to earn compliance---from the guy who ends up replacing you after you and your family have been whacked.
Now would it not be more beneficial if drugs were legal...no drug cartels, at the least very few. You just provided a very good reason above for legalization.
To fight this correctly, US law enforcement needs to realize that they are up against institutional support from the respective governments that sustain, support, and aid in facilitating the drug trade, to include the extensive corruption in our own law enforcement. Think about the volume of drugs. It's not solely onesies and twosies, that stuff is chiefly pixie dust to allow law enforcement to show they are catching some people, the bigger problem is how NAFTA has eased the shipment of goods, and in those goods is where the the real shipments are. Do you think our own border forces, to include Customs haven't been bought off? Think again.
Again, you have provided another synopsis as to why drugs should be legalized.
If history has taught us anything about the war on drugs; it hasn't worked, nor will it. Period. Look at the situation in Mexico and how severe the drug problem has gotten. The drug gangs have bribed most of the local police officials and many of the higher government officials in Mexico. The drug gangs are crossing over into our borders and creating the MS-13 gangs and also gaining control in many of our larger cities across our great country. Our local police officers are having a hell of a difficult time trying to apprehend these gang members due to the fact they have more fire power than many of the local police officers. If there is a better way of getting a handle on the "war on drugs" other than trying to legalize it, I don't know of one.......
