AP IMPACT: US drug war has met none of its goals

[kx250rider]

People seem to tie drug abuse to criminal activity... But on the same token, how many criminals eat hamburgers? Most??? How many hamburger eaters are criminals? I have used substances in the past, which may or may not be legal in all jurisdictions. I own plenty of guns. I also am known to sneak a hamburger down the old pie hole now & then. Am I a criminal? No. Did Hitler use drugs, smoke, or drink? No. Was he a criminal? Well, obviously I don't have to offer any opinion on that one.

I don't believe in using drugs or any other easy-to-prove issue as a means to prosecute criminals for real crimes that the liberal laws make difficult to prosecute. Just call a crime what it is, charge the perpetrator with his crime, and jail him for the crime... Drugs beside the point. Furthermore, plenty of criminals illegally own guns, but many do not every use them in their crimes. I know a few people, who let's just say are well-known upstanding citizens, who happen to own or possess TOTALLY illegal firearms.

You can't tie these things together. The only exception being a case in which a drug addict resorts to stealing or robbing to support his habit. But in that case, he's now guilty of thievery or robbery. Why involve the drug use? Put him in jail for the real crime, and by default he'll be off drugs instantly. Then since he erred, a term of probation or parole would be no alcohol or drugs.

Charles

 

[mrplunkey]

People seem to tie drug abuse to criminal activity... But on the same token, how many criminals eat hamburgers? Most??? How many hamburger eaters are criminals? I have used substances in the past, which may or may not be legal in all jurisdictions. I own plenty of guns. I also am known to sneak a hamburger down the old pie hole now & then. Am I a criminal? No. Did Hitler use drugs, smoke, or drink? No. Was he a criminal? Well, obviously I don't have to offer any opinion on that one.

I don't believe in using drugs or any other easy-to-prove issue as a means to prosecute criminals for real crimes that the liberal laws make difficult to prosecute. Just call a crime what it is, charge the perpetrator with his crime, and jail him for the crime... Drugs beside the point. Furthermore, plenty of criminals illegally own guns, but many do not every use them in their crimes. I know a few people, who let's just say are well-known upstanding citizens, who happen to own or possess TOTALLY illegal firearms.

You can't tie these things together. The only exception being a case in which a drug addict resorts to stealing or robbing to support his habit. But in that case, he's now guilty of thievery or robbery. Why involve the drug use? Put him in jail for the real crime, and by default he'll be off drugs instantly. Then since he erred, a term of probation or parole would be no alcohol or drugs.

Charles

The link between drug use and criminal activity is weak, but the link between criminal activity and drug use is most likely high. Drugs and illegal firearms make it easy to tag criminals and prosecute them in situations where otherwise they may elude prosecution.

And if you want to keep parolees away from drugs, then you'd have to keep the existing CJ infrastructure in place. You'd also need to keep them out of the hands of children too. So legalizing drugs wouldn't save much money (if any).

So if there aren't big revenues in taxes nor big savings in LE, why bother legalizing them? There will be at least some social cost to expanding access -- why expose yourself to the downside if there's no upside?

 

[-SD-]

Once you assume legalizing drugs wont bring appreciable tax revenue or keep normally law abiding drug users out of jail then we are left with upholding the principle of freedom of choice, constitution, etc .
Then again our nations track record for that has been specious over the decades.

 

[mrplunkey]

Once you assume legalizing drugs wont bring appreciable tax revenue or keep normally law abiding drug users out of jail then we are left with upholding the principle of freedom of choice, constitution, etc .
Then again our nations track record for that has been specious over the decades.

That's an indefensible argument. We were founded on the principal of freedom and are giving these rights up at an alarming rate.

 

[-SD-]

That's an indefensible argument. We were founded on the principal of freedom and are giving these rights up at an alarming rate.

Thats my point. Once the primary reasons for allowing any activity to be legal are stripped down only then are we faced with freedom for freedoms sake. Freedom and personal choice are never the initial primary reasons for legalization of matters of these sorts. And of course thats part of the alarming pattern in this country.

 

[sharkmaster]

the black market is what makes drugs so expensive... drugs being so expensive is what makes crimes... If they were cheap people wouldnt get as desperate and rip people off. Not to mention that people involed wouldnt commit as many crimes on eachother if the cops could be called. if drugs werent illegal they would be cheap and there wouldnt be hardly any profit to be made by producing and or selling them. I think making things illegal is what makes the market for them that keeps the big dogs going. not illegal=low profit=no power= lower crime=less jail=less taxes. and the world lives happily ever after! just kidding but for reals its a money dump that does nothing for us. I bet it does close to nothing as far as consumption goes.

 

[mrplunkey]

Thats my point. Once the primary reasons for allowing any activity to be legal are stripped down only then are we faced with freedom for freedoms sake. Freedom and personal choice are never the initial primary reasons for legalization of matters of these sorts. And of course thats part of the alarming pattern in this country.

/agree

I'm totally down with giving people more liberty.

 

[kx250rider]

....And my argument is still unanswered: What is the difference between legalizing most recreational drugs, and legalizing alcohol again after prohibition? Every time there's a report on traffic accidents, alcohol is always at the top of the cause list. When was the last time anyone heard of a pot-caused traffic accident? As far as keeping alcohol out of the hands of kids, what a joke.

This is all just another case of freedom versus communism. Give me the chance to be responsible with my own life and body, and if I'm irresponsible, I'll get hurt or die. If that happens, it's my fault; not the government's.

Charles

 

[EnderJE]

....And my argument is still unanswered: What is the difference between legalizing most recreational drugs, and legalizing alcohol again after prohibition? Every time there's a report on traffic accidents, alcohol is always at the top of the cause list. When was the last time anyone heard of a pot-caused traffic accident? As far as keeping alcohol out of the hands of kids, what a joke.

This is all just another case of freedom versus communism. Give me the chance to be responsible with my own life and body, and if I'm irresponsible, I'll get hurt or die. If that happens, it's my fault; not the government's.

Charles

There is no difference.

I think we've all had this argument (ie When was the last time you heard of a violent stoner? How about a violent drunk?).

In for legalization!

 

[75th]

BTW there is this great "reality" show on Spike called DEA. Follows DEA agents/undercovers busting drug dealers.

Always up the line, up the line. Undercover goes in, busts low guy, then up and up and up. I mean that's pretty obvious stuff but it explains how they get in and whatnot (seems so easy).

Good stuff right there. Actually if I was a criminal I would have learned a lot about their techniques by watching that show.

Bliques only watch BET and the CW.

But youre right, that show is pretty legit.