War on Drugs: Officially a Failure.
 

Courtesy of the AP.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05...ed-meet-goals/



- Associated Press

- May 13, 2010
AP IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals

MEXICO CITY

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and wi...

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction."

His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.

Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

___

In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

— $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

— $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

— $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

— $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

— $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

___

From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement — no matter how well funded and well trained — could ever defeat the drug problem.

Then-Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who had his doubts, has since watched his worst fears come to pass.

"Look what happened. It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia," he said.

In 1970, proponents said beefed-up law enforcement could effectively seal the southern U.S. border and stop drugs from coming in. Since then, the U.S. used patrols, checkpoints, sniffer dogs, cameras, motion detectors, heat sensors, drone aircraft — and even put up more than 1,000 miles of steel beam, concrete walls and heavy mesh stretching from California to Texas.

None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year — almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The United States has in recent years rounded up thousands of suspected associates of Mexican drug gangs, then turned some of the cases over to local prosecutors who can't make the charges stick for lack of evidence. The suspects are then sometimes released, deported or acquitted. The U.S. Justice Department doesn't even keep track of what happens to all of them.

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence — and are sometimes assassinated when they do. Confessions are beaten out of suspects by frustrated, underpaid police. Judges who no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse release the suspects in exasperation.

In prison, in the U.S. or Mexico, traffickers continue to operate, ordering assassinations and arranging distribution of their product even from solitary confinement in Texas and California. In Mexico, prisoners can sometimes even buy their way out.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

And then there's the money.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds — $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

___

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

And yet both countries continue to spend the bulk of their drug budgets on law enforcement rather than treatment and prevention.

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale, who served three administrations and four drug czars. "Yet ... it appears that this historic policy stride has some problems with its supporting budget."

Carnevale said the administration continues to substantially over-allocate funds to areas that research shows are least effective — interdiction and source-country programs — while under-allocating funds for treatment and prevention.

Kerlikowske, who wishes people would stop calling it a "war" on drugs, frequently talks about one of the most valuable tools they've found, in which doctors screen for drug abuse during routine medical examinations. That program would get a mere $7.2 million under Obama's budget.

"People will say that's not enough. They'll say the drug budget hasn't shifted as much as it should have, and granted I don't disagree with that," Kerlikowske said. "We would like to do more in that direction."

Fifteen years ago, when the government began telling doctors to ask their patients about their drug use during routine medical exams, it described the program as one of the most proven ways to intervene early with would-be addicts.

"Nothing happens overnight," Kerlikowske said.

___

Until 100 years ago, drugs were simply a commodity. Then Western cultural shifts made them immoral and deviant, according to London School of Economics professor Fernanda Mena.

Religious movements led the crusades against drugs: In 1904, an Episcopal bishop returning from a mission in the Far East argued for banning opium after observing "the natives' moral degeneration." In 1914, The New York Times reported that cocaine caused blacks to commit "violent crimes," and that it made them resistant to police bullets. In the decades that followed, Mena said, drugs became synonymous with evil.

Nixon drew on those emotions when he pressed for his War on Drugs.

"Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America," he said in a special 1971 message to Congress. "It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Just a few years later, a young Barack Obama was one of those young users, a teenager smoking pot and trying "a little blow when you could afford it," as he wrote in "Dreams From My Father." When asked during his campaign if he had inhaled the pot, he replied: "That was the point."

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives — and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint — you realize the stakes are too high to let go."

Repression breeds perversion.

Prohibition breeds corruption.

Religion seems to fuel both, and it's sad when it affects everyone in society, and so horribly.

I said that the war on drugs was a failure 15 years ago while I was tokin up with my gym teacher under the bleachers during school hours.

The placement of the snort smiley had my lol'ing

OK cool.. now legalize weed, tax it, so we can solve all these budget issues, or at least alleviate them for the most part. Then they can focus on the shit that's actually a drug. I'm sure they'll spend a lot less money and they may actually make a difference.

Here's a firsthand story from a friend of mine, whose family lives in Del Rio TX, across the border from Ciudad Acuña in Mexico.

Geez.

I know this will sound horrible, but I wonder what would happen if we just left things alone. Like let all the drug cartels do their thing, unimpeded, and let the idiots who want to use go ahead and use, thus wiping themselves from the gene pool.

If we left them alone, innocents wouldnt be used as mules like that Mom, there wouldnt be any need to constantly hide from the government, and if it wasnt illegal, do you think people would eventually lose interest? Just pondering...

You mean like Tylenol, Asprin and Aderall?

It is so funny to me how many people assume everyone that uses a drug is an idiot who's going to take themselves out of the gene pool. You realize that is actually a very small percentage of illegal drug users right?

The problem is innocent people are still involved, from the families of the addicts to all the people they steal from to get money to support their habbit.

Then factor in the detox/rehab, I ma sure most of them dont have insurance so guess who pays for that?

There is a lot of gang/drug activity where I work and if they just kill each other its no big loss, its when the innocent people just trying to survive get caught in the crossfire.

We first need to protect our borders and control the flow of drugs into this country. Then, legalize all soft drugs and tax them. Then....we should help out the Mexican government to control its population IMO.

Yeah, if someone goes home after a long day of work and smokes a joint, they are probably a worthless human being. Let's bump it up a notch and say someone does a few lines of blow over the weekend. No one should control what we do in our free time.

Thats exactly right... but in order to buy those drugs you have to go to the black market.. Why not legalize all drugs?

Everyone has the arguement that in order to buy drugs you are supporting terrorists or criminals, but the fact that it's not legal is what's causing it. So prohibition is the only source causing the crime. If drugs were more readily available, cheaper, and regulated like Alcohol & Tobacco.. We'd have a lot less kids doing drugs, there would be less crime because prices would be cheaper, and there wouldn't be any drug cartels, thus even less crime & corruption.

Seems like a win - win for the government and the people.

Yes, those are actual drugs, with worse side affects than Marijuana.. They are synthesized in a lab, not simply grown in your back yard like your tomatoes..

Edit - After doing some more research, i think it would make more sense to just legalize all drugs, let responsible adults choose for themselves.. You will always have people who abuse substances.. should we just ban everything? Including Wendy's, Beer, Sky Diving?

the war on drugs is just a profit center for this country's various "homeland security" entities.......and it's going to be hard convincing them to cut their budgets and give up their jobs.

Umm, yes I do think those who use illegal drugs are idiots, for a variety of reasons.

1) Its friggin illegal, is it okay to break the law because we dont like it? (Not saying I dont break the law, like speeding for example but putting it out there.)

2) Illegal drug users are idiots, who in their right mind wants to destroy their body for a temporary fix? Especially when those of us who dont use have to foot the bill, like Tommy said when they are in the hospital with no insurance because they have destroyed themselves. Want to use drugs, go ahead, but go ahead and do it and off yourself quick so my tax dollars arent paying for your idiot ass with no job and no insurance cuz you decided to snort coke and now you cant breath because you've destroyed your breathing passages, or gone crazy from too much meth, etc etc.

3) I am aware it is a small percentage compared to the rest of the pop., that still doesnt mean they arent idiots.

FTR, if you think Im harsh, consider my background. My father, 2 of my uncles and an aunt from both sides of the family (not including the extended family) were cracked out coke heads and alcoholics who were more interested in getting high and making a mess of their lives than taking care of themselves and their families and children. Then they had to live off the state with their food stamps (that they spent on smokes and beer) and try and guilt money out of the family members that werent destroying their lives with bad habits. I've seen both sides and will firmly stand by my statement that illegal drug users are idiots.

This was kinda where I was going with my thought. If its legal, wheres the excitement and interest factor?

Puff, puff, pass.

Not sure if you got my point.. I meant less kids would be doing it because it wouldn't be as easy to get. Weed, pills, coke, and any other illegal drug is sold on the black market, therefore very easy to get compared to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

Do you think people who have a drink are idiots as well?

Thats what I'm sayin!

I drink and I know I am an idiot :lol:

But look at it from the standpoint that if its easier to get and they dont have to skulk around and hide, wheres the "cool" factor in that?

Even if they legalized it, there would still be a black market for it, just like prescription drugs.

Where in the law books does it state that alcohol is illegal? It doesnt. My post clearly states several times "illegal drugs". I was clear on that.

However I do think people who take it to extremes, like alcoholics are idiots.

It will never happen this way because there is too much money available for collection by the government. If there is a national change in drug policy it will be full circle. I'm guessing licenses will be required for growers/manufacturers and sellers plus hefty fed, state, and local taxes on the sale of the product itself.

What would be funny (and I think at least as likely as not) would be our various governments putting so many taxes and fees on drugs that there remains a viable black market for them simply based on price. Even in the cheap states taxes account for around 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes. In more expensive areas taxes are over 90% of the price. At what rate do you think those same governments will tax a dime bag of weed? How about a gram of coke? I think prices will be insanely high.

No doubt, but perhaps that would bring down the demand? Onthe flip side tho, it would make the black market stuff that much more in demand.

What I really dont understand is why the govts keep throwing all this cash at a problem that isnt solvable.

I know you were talking about only illegal drugs.. I guess I'm just of the mentality that weed shouldn't even be considered a drug, therefore i put it on the same level as alcohol.

Your other points are true, you'd probably lose some ppl due to it not being a counter culture anymore.. but you'd lose a lot less kids just the fact that you would have to be 18 or 21 to purchase it.

Also another point is why would you buy weed from a dealer who would charge you a lot more when you can buy weed from any store in 20 pre rolled joints for roughly the same price as tobacco? Not saying that's exactly how its going to go, but something like that.

Presciption drugs are different seeing as you need to have something wrong with you to get them so the demand is far greater than the supply. Legalized weed would be readily available.

And I agree.. People do take it to extremes. Forgetting about all the other "drugs" weed is impossible to overdose on, and if you smoke too much, you won't black out or get violent with your family like you can with "legal" alcohol.

Not sure on the price being really high... The only reason it's very high right now is because of how risky it is to provide it to people.

I don't know about all drug users but the ones I know couldn't care less about any "cool" factor. They use them to get fucked up.

Ah, see we do understand each other. :wink:

Weed is a tough one. It's illegal, but from what I understand, its not that much different than tobacco. (I dont know, I've never touched a single illegal drug.)

I'm anti smoking, but as long as you keep it away from me I dont care what you do with it. (Except I still dont want to pay for some lung cancer ridden person who doesnt have health insurance.) Would weed cause cancer I wonder?

So, if we were to legalize weed, Im all for it as it would definitely bring some much needed revenue to this piss poor govt and since (from what I understand) its not that different than smoking marlboros, what would it hurt? Doesnt research show that alcohol has more effects on the body than weed in regards to functioning?

The government will have a monopoly on the only legal distribution channel. They will also say that the tax/fee money will be required to pay for all the rehabilitation, medical expenses, and oversight of the product that will be required. The government won't actually spend that money on those things, but those things will be used for justification. You think drugs are expensive now? Wait until the government gets involved.

I agree 100%, but would that be a bad thing?

Well the difference between weed and tobacco is weed is pure and tobacco has 3000+ chemicals added to it to make it smoother to pull. I don't really smoke cigarettes anymore and there are ways to "smoke" weed by vaporizing it that minimizes most of the harm..

Burning any plant matter, no matter what it is, could cause cancer. Vaporizing just cooks the THC and other cannabinoids and doesn't burn the plant.

And I agree, I think it would solve a lot of budgetary issues..

Tobacco isn't that expensive (in most areas) and neither is alcohol.. Why would weed be so much different?

:lol: Ironically enough...headline back in FL...

87 Year Old Woman Busted Selling Crack

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/arr...ack-woman.html

Didn't you hear? We are all going to have health insurance!:lol:

Seriously though, the amount of cigarette taxes collected from smokers should more than pay for treatment of uninsured smokers. You can also add in the hundreds of billions of dollars being collected by the states from the tobacco settlement in the late 90s. If the government actually spent these funds in the manner they said they would general taxpayers wouldn't be paying for anyone's treatments for anything.

Puhlease. Im not looking for anything good to come out of the healthcare thing. From what I understand, I may get penalized for opting out of my work insurance because I use my husbands, but thats a whole other can of worms.

You make a very good point. Not being a smoker, Im not up to date on the taxation on them, but I do remember my mom saying something about it in the last few years. I hadnt thought about it like that but you're right. If they used those taxes like that, it would be a moot issue.

Personally I say yes for two reasons. First I don't like the government unnecessarily taxing the shit out of something for no other reason than they can. That concept just doesn't sit well with me.:shrug: Secondly, if the government makes it too expensive the door remains open for the current black market to remain in place along with the problems it has created.

If the mexican monster is coke does that mean you guys are supportive of the Government legalizing crack and sniff?
Heroin? Acid?

As for just setting up lasers and fucking At-At's at the Mexican border (maybe atomic powered whack-o-mole robots for the tunnel digger traffic) does that mean we are tearing up NAFTA?

Yes, I'd say legalize everything.. Cartel's would be a thing of the past..

People do it anyway and pay Criminals.. not much different than paying our government.. lol.. Maybe it will keep them from hiking up taxes in the future..

Realistically I think it's going to start off slowly with weed, then work its way down the line.. I doubt heroin will ever be legal, but at least clean needles should be readily available to stop the spread of diseases.

I suppose expensive is a relative term and each person's definition will be different. Just don't be surprised when a dime bag costs $30 for no other reason than it has a tax stamp on it.

No just legalize the natural occurring drugs, weed and shrooms...

The other chemically altered substances can stay illegal.

The thing is these prices are a result of the DEA taking HUGE amounts of the supply and it being illegal. Once there are huge fields of this shit, it will probably cost 2.50 for a pack of 20 joints.. then like a 4-5$ tax. Seems reasonable to me..

Just out of curiousity, what does one cost now?

Thats not a bad way to look at it...if we look at history, are there any reports of Native Americans or settlers abusing Peyote or shrooms?

Depends on what you get.. just like Marlboros or Pall Malls.. Cheap shit.. 10$.. Mid grade - 15$.. Good Shit - 20$

To put it in perspective.. i think you may be able to squeeze 3 joints out of it.. depending on how you roll em..

What does that really change though? The article in the first post of this thread is all about how the war on drugs is a failure. Selectively legalizing drugs keeps the majority of those same fundamental problems outlined in the article in place. Don't get me wrong, looking at it in general what you propose is the form of legalization I support, but specific to the article it does little to fix any of those problems.

It seems that Chi has completely bought into the D.A.R.E. mentality that is expected of this country's citizens. Illegal drugs are bad and dangerous and you'd have to be crazy to put them in your body. Never tried anything and only relying on outside information from a Government with a serious anti-drug/profit agenda who has been lying from the start.

Legally prescribed narcotics kill more people in America than Heroin, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Crack all combined. All narcotics can be lethal if used incorrectly, I personally have worked a Tylenol overdose death as a Vol. FF here in my home town. It was a very, very ugly and degrading death at that.

Aside from that, there has never been, in all of recorded history, a death solely attributed to Marijuana use. It is physically impossible to smoke, vaporize or eat enough Marijuana to cause death. That actually makes Cannabis the SAFEST therapeutically active substance known to man.

By contrast, millions of American parents put their kids on medication to control their behavior. Usually at a school's recommendation or legal insistance. One of those commonly prescribed medications, used for ADD/ADHD is Adderall, which is the same as methamphetamine, only cleaner since its made by Scientists and not white supremacists.

So we have this culture in which the vast majority of Americans use a chemical of some sort to improve their quality of life. You may take a Tylenol for a headache, whereas I might injest a good indica. Your drug of choice has adverse effects on the liver and has been attributed solely to thousands of death, mine doesn't...yet I wouldn't call you an idiot or look down on you for it.

Yet everyone wants to judge or look down on someone and pretend they are better or "up above it." And this attitude contributes the the hundreds of thousands of lives that are destroyed by the War on Drugs every year.

To Chi specifically, your history with people who abused substances does not mean everyone does. I know many people that use Cocaine, but only ONE out of the dozen or so I know ever became an addict. Most people do it just a handful of times a year. I personally have never tried it, but I'm not going to judge them for it.

You can keep the soap box babe, and accuse me of buying into whatever mentality you want. I dont care. I have the proof I need to beleive what I want. Just because you are lucky enough to not have folks that suffer so severely from their abuse of illegal substances doesnt mean it isnt there.

Now back to the more entertaining discussion everyone else was having before you hopped on that box...

Since the people who use the heavy shit (crack, heroin, meth) are losers, I don't care about their deaths or dehabilitations. Also I really doubt legalizing those hard drugs would increase the number of users that much.

Not sure how NAFTA is going to be affected by border security, unless increased delay time is really going to convince Mexico to throw out the treaty. Doubt it since they depend on our economy for nearly everything.

This is another good example of a typical mentality that goes with the more pro-war on drugs crowd. Attack me personally by accusing me of being on a soapbox without actually addressing any of the facts that are part of the conversation and then pretending to be, once again, "up above" it. While I'm not personally offended, I find it sad that people will flat out refuse to open their eyes or even attempt to educate themselves. You are part of the majority in this regard, which of course is the worst part.

Not once did I ever say that there aren't folks who become addicted to narcotics.

Awww, how cute, your still on it! Im not attacking you, I havent called you names or told you you are brain washed or blind as you have told/called me.

Who cares about the minority or majority? I have my thoughts on the matter. They are mine, not yours. Agree to disagree dude.

Not to mention, have I stated I am for the war on drugs? Nope, I said legalize the shit. Get your facts right babe. Comprehension FTW.

I bought into the DARE mentality when I was younger as well. Even now I catch myself thinking about it in that way and then I realize that no, those were just lies fed to me when I was a kid. I can't believe people still think Marijuana is dangerous or addictive or that it's a gateway drug.. Funny stuff.

Check out this documentary for some real facts - http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/High_...?trkid=1211017

I think the gateway drug debate is an interesting one tho. I honestly think it depends on the personality involved. I have an acquaintance who was very seriously hooked on cocaine at one point and she very much swears that it was weed that led her to it and got her into the life. She has a very addictive personality and will admit to it.

Im the same way. Part of my decision to never use drugs and rarely drink is because I have such an addictive personality I know if I were to try it or use it constantly I might become hooked. Kinda like the track. I start itching anytime Im near one. :lol:

No you didn't, but you share the same mentality as those that do.

And yes, you called me an idiot, pointed out the hypocrisy of that, and then reaffirmed your opinion that I'm an idiot. I view that as more of an insult than being a victim of one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in modern history.

I guarantee you she had ingested at least 5 other narcotics before ever trying marijuana.

Are you hooked on illegal drugs and becoming a drain on society? If so, then yes, you are an idiot and a pain in the ass. If not, try not to take things so personally tinkerbell.

You cant guarantee that dude, you dont even know her. Talk about judging someone.

Whose to say that weed was what did it? Could it have been alcohol or nicotine?

Out of people that i know, the ones that do the hard drugs don't smoke weed. Sure, they did it when they were younger.. but they also smoked cigs (still do) and all of them drink (heavily). But they don't smoke weed at all. The people that I know that smoke weed.. only do that.. Some smoke cigs, some don't.. Not all drink either. So I don't really think there is a direct relation.

I think it just has to do with their personality. If weed wasn't there it would go - Cigs -> Beer -> then coke -> pills -> or whatever.

I can't guarantee it no, but there's a very high chance she'd had a Pepsi, a Tylenol, an Aspirin...and so on, before she ever even heard of Marijuana.

You didn't say "people who are addicted to and abuse illegal drugs are idiots." No, you said anyone who uses illegal drugs is an idiot. Pretty big difference.

I am in no way offended by anything you've said....um...Captain Hook?

Big question is.. If the ban doesn't work (See alcohol prohibition)

Why ban it if people are going to continue doing it? All that results is overcrowded jails & wasted tax dollars, that's whats a drain on our society.

Ah, but then you start getting into the economics of it.. Jails are big business now.. They are privately owned and make a shit load on all of those drug offenders!

I'm sure it does seem reasonable, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. For perspective the tax rate you propose is right about in line with cigarette taxes. I envision significantly higher taxes for "drugs" justified by having to pay for additional rehab facilities and higher healthcare costs (ultimately good things) that the government will then spend on other things (not so good).

Ah, but theres the crux of the debate, who's to say for sure? Advocates against drugs of any kind say its weed, and are totally for banning it. Users say it isnt the gateway. Are there real figures on the stats for it, or just made up ones that either side uses to their own advantage?

:lol: Awesome, see you get it.

(But those you named arent illegal, and thats what we were discussing. As much as I hate to take anything, I will take tylenol from time to time myself.)

I don't see the taxation happening because I don't think its going to be legalized in our lifetime. I'll bet that even if California votes to legalize pot in November that the Federal Government won't allow it.

No, I don't get it, what are you referring to? They may not be illegal, but they are lethal, synthetically composed narcotics, making them much more closely related to Heroin, Coke, etc. than Marijuana.

I'm able to see around the legal issues, because I understand fully how and why it became illegal in the first place therefore it's legal status becomes completely irrelevant. Especially in this conversation when you admit you break the law yourself.

Some form of legalization or decriminalization has to happen in the next few years.. Too many politicians are starting to realize how much money it could bring in to the state & fed. Also, the utter hypocrisy of the whole thing and the lying and what not..

I wasnt talking about you getting that part of it goober, I was talking about the Capt. Hook part.

Im not going to argue with you dude, Im trying to have a civil and interesting conversation, not get into a debate on whys or why someone else is wrong.

You are still however talking about LEGAL items, regardless of their content, they are still legal.

Yet the Federal Government is increasing it's financial support for the War on Drugs and specifically Marijuana. It was just announced yesterday that Marc Emery is to be extradited to the US to serve his 5 year prison sentence for selling seeds, which the US govt called a "major blow to the marijuana legalization movement." On top of that the DEA has resumed selective raids on state certified Marijuana dispensaries in CA and CO, despite Obama's pledge otherwise.

We've been here before. I've seen footage of Jimmy Carter, as President of the U.S., saying that pot should be legal...that was over two decades ago and its only gotten worse. Now even local police are using military tactics to fight the war against Marijuana.

So why is the govt so against marijuana? It seems as if they put too much emphasis on it, while things like Meth, Heroine and Coke are so much worse...

The people I know well who occasionally use hard drugs (4) all smoke weed multiple times a day. They also drink and take prescription drugs when they can get them. What is funny is one of them doesn't smoke and he criticizes smokers for their disgusting habit.:lol I don't hang out with them too much because they are collectively a train wreck.

Civil? How have I been anything other than civil with you? I'm having a conversation, same as any. In fact, you have called numerous names, which doesn't bother me at all, but there it is. You jumped into this thread and posted opposing viewpoints, which is awesome because that's what a forum is for. But please don't feel negative feelings because someone chose to engage you on those opinions.

I will never understand what people think "legal" has to do with anything, as if the laws are always correct and absolute. It would be similiar to saying that Harriet Tubman should've served her time in prison because what she did was illegal. Or that Britain should've executed Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. The laws are irrelevant for the purpose of this conversation when used as an absolute illustration, because that is in fact what we're debating.

Remember, my post is regarding the War on Drugs being a failure with a focus on how the laws themselves have failed us.

Read up on it, or watch "Grass" with Woody Harrellson. There is an amazing and disgusting back story to all this.

Your guess is as good as mine..

There's no need to guess, it is all very well documented.

I am not that interested. I was hoping you'd give us the short version since you are apparently so well versed on the matter.

You want to argue about vewipoints but not the actaul discussion material...

True.. I meant as far as how dangerous it is to people..

not the economic and political reasons..

I didn't know about Marc Emery.. that's so fucked up.. How the hell will that hold up in court? Isn't Canada supposed to be the one charging him?

I havent read the case file, but it will probably hold up the same way the case against those Seals was(cuz the murdering terrorist got a fat lip). Ridiculously and erroneously.

I think one could make a pretty compelling argument that the (il)legal status of marijuana is the real gateway. If you have to interface with the illegal drug world just to get pot, you're likely to get exposed to other, harder drugs.

I'd like to see numbers that show that medicinal marijuana users are also subject to the same gateway effect. I doubt that's the case.

Those are excellent things to consider. Thank you for the brain food.

Does a weed seller often sell things other than weed?

Is the second sentence really necessary. Why do you feel the need for the finger pointing in all this, lets just have a conversation.

The reason it is kept illegal is because the most powerful, Government lobbying, industries in the United States are threatened by Marijuana legalization because it will cost them billions of dollars. Examples:

Big Pharma: It will become laughable that we ever took anti-depressants and other prescription medications when we realize how many of our "problems" could've been fixed/helped by a simple and free plant. Big Pharma will lose Billions and their status as a powerhouse.

Alcohol: Big Beer contributes more money to the Government through lobbying than Firearms and Tobacco combined, by far. This is serious business. Once people realize there is a free, mind-altering substance out there that won't kill you, and won't make you piss yourself they're going to stop buying so much alcohol. Same effect as Big Pharma.

Textile industries: Paper, plastic etc all stand to lose by the legalization of Cannabis and Hemp.

The Government: There is a certain "enlightenment" that comes from Marijuana use. This is not because smoking pot is a magical experience, but because you realize that every authority figure you've ever known has lied to you. Your parents, your teachers, the police, the government...everyone. Legalization of marijuana means more people will realize just how full of shit their Government is, and always has been.

Now, as to how Marijuana became illegal in the first place, well that's a complicated story involving power, control, racism, corrupt media and evil men. You can read the Wiki version here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_h..._United_States

No, Canada has buckled under IMMENSE U.S. pressure to send him here to serve a 5 year sentence in an American prison for what amounts to a one MONTH sentence under Canadian law.

Now he gets to look forward to being repeatedly raped and tortured for 5 years....for selling seeds.

Not in my experience. In fact, over the course of 10 years of Marijuana use I have NEVER even seen Cocaine, Methamphetamine or Heroin. I know people who have used and use them (just Coke actually), but I have never once seen any of those substances.

I have never researched the basis for it, but working from memory the "legalize it" crowd states it was over the economics of making newspapers. William Hurst owned a lot of timber land and wanted to sell the wood to make paper. Paper could be made much cheaper using hemp making Hurst's timber worth less. He had his newspaper empire run propaganda all over the place about how terrible and evil marijuana was to get the public support for banning it and with some help from his buddies in the government he was able to make it illegal. This had the intended side effect of making the hemp plant illegal thus getting rid of the more competitive raw material for making paper.

That's all part of it, but there are many other factors involved. But the Hearst/Paper Mil VS. Hemp paper is what got Hearst involved in spreading the propaganda.

The story is so crazy that it really is hard to believe, yet it is all documented in history.

And Chi, while I completely understand and respect why you or anyone would not want to use substances that chemically alter their mind, this still affects everyone who is an American citizen because of what the prohibition does to us as a country and how it contributes to a Police State mentality with trampled civil liberties that is all funded by tax dollars.

I can't agree with that because it still has the government telling us we can't do something. There are also plenty of "earth" or "God" made things that are extremely deadly and harmful.

I personally think anyone who does drugs such as weed or heroine are idiots. Not because it is bad for you and it'll tear your family apart, but because you are seriously jepardizing your job or potential employment (or schooling) because many companies have drug policies (that don't have to change with legalization). If you have a job that allows you to answer to no one (such as a business owner or a politician) then go for it.

Now those who do think that legalizing drugs (especially weed) will the the answer to all of our problems are living in a pipe dream.

I couldnt resist.

That was fascinating, thank you! (No sarcasm intended.)

You very much have a good argument for your "side" and honestly, after reading all that I see very much where you are coming from, and agree.

I dont have blinders on when it comes to the crap our govt pulls, but reading about the efforts they made to make it illegal to save their profits and "big money"'s profits really hits home, especially on the nature loving side of me.

Especially this:

Absolutely fascinating. Now if only the other proponents of legalization were as avid and educated on the matter as you are, perhaps there would be a substantial and rewarding effort for legalization attempts.

Many users have chosen self employment over corporate employment for that reason. Furthermore, many many more Corporations as no longer drug screening applicants because of the costs and because they are having to turn away or fire good workers. In fact, my previous company did not do any drug screening....and they were a serious corp/bank.

Eventually, if it is ever legalized, drug screening will all but disappear from the employment scene.

It won't solve all of our problems, but it will solve all of the problems prohibition is causing.

:lol: It also explains why nature loving pot smoking hippies are so for it too. :wink:

Wouldn't it have been simpler just to say "natural"?

just sayin

Thank you for that, it will make my day. I am a supporting member of NORML and I do my part to spread the word. Unfortunately, and for good reason, many like minded individuals are just too scared to help spread the word due to fear of imprisonment, rape, torture...or just plain ol' losing their jobs and livelihood.

This is a fascinating subject and is about so much more than Marijuana. It is a classic story of corruption, control, power and money...all used in the evil sense. I highly recommend Woody's movie "Grass" as a very well put together and educational documentary on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvUgJEhQ5cY

Is that sarcasm?

I am just in awe of the whole thing right now, definitely fires me up to look into it more...

Tell me how spreading the word and educating folks could get people imprisoned and what not. Im genuinely curious. So long as they follow the laws on protesting and whatnot they should be safe right? (And yes, on this I am that naive.)

As I have posted before, not only do I disagree that it will be reduced, I think it will be increased. My belief is that workers comp insurance will require increased screening, especially in "hazardous" work environments.

No, its not sarcasm at all. If I have in anyway altered your view on Marijuana for the better today then that makes me very happy and means I have met my social goal for the day. To me the millions of Americans who's lives have been ruined by this prohibition is every bit the tragedy of any other. There are sometimes worse things even than death.

I'll use a local guy as an example on how activism can result in imprisonment. An ex Highway Patrol Drug Interdiction Officer named Barry Cooper, who was once one of the best drug cops in the state, realized that he had been needlessly ruining good people's lives by imprisoning them for Marijuana and turned to the other side.

He became a pro-pot activist and put out a series of DVDs called "Never Get Busted Again" where he used his knowledge to help pot users, dealers and growers stay out of jail. He also set up stings to bust corrupt cops. In the end his home was raided SWAT style for a misdemeanor charge of "filing a false report" in direct retaliation for video taping one of their cops stealing cash.

Then, his 4 year old son was taken away, solely due to his activism in the Marijuana community, as evidenced by the court documents.

Long live Barry Cooper! www.barrybomb.com www.nevergetbusted.com

Goof has a point, while it may not be as bad as alcohol, using marijuana in a job situation that requires full function, reason and reflexes would pose a hazard. How would you get around that?

Yeah, but I always hear the stoners say "God made weed and Man made beer. Who do you trust?" and crap like that. "nature" also made Cobras and I'm not drinking their shit.

Kaneman:
I do believe that many employers are now turning a blind eye. At my company they give "random" drug tests to people they know don't do drugs which basically leaves it up to me and one other guy but most guys I work with are ex-cons.

However, many companies are wanting to turn people away because they smoke cigarettes (which is their right) due to the cost of employing smokers. I couldn't imagine a company wanting to deal with the potential costs of drug users.

It would simply not be possible for companies to staff themselves eventually as more people turned from Alcohol to Marijuana. There would also be tremendous public pressure to end a practice who's sole purpose is to detect Marijuana in a society where it is legal and accepted.

Good to know on the Barry Cooper thing, thank you again. More food for thought.

Actually Marijuana simply does not have the same effect on the central nervous system as alcohol. I'm not saying that there is no effect, but Marijuana has been shown repeatedly to have little if any negative effect on muscle memory driven functions, such as driving a car, riding a motorcycle, etc.

Now, there are variables of course. Furthermore, I strongly believe that private business owners should have the right to not hire Marijuana users for whatever reason they want, as private employers. However, I believe once the truth comes out about Cannabis use that few employers will have any incentive to do as such.

But you have a choice to drink cobra venom right?

If you get caught with cobra venom during a traffic stop you won't go to jail, will you?

And if you drink it doesn't it make you less likely to die from a Cobra bite? I know there are people immune to Rattlesnake bites... :lol:

Actually I think you would/could. One of those things you have to have a license for or something.

:lol:

I looked it up quick and didn't see it being illegal, bad example to work with.. many more natural things to pick from.. lol

Useless factoid: Did you know that originally they made anti venom out of chicken blood but it tooks weeks to become viable? Then they tried horse blood since horses are so immune, but that took at least a week and many people are allergic to horse blood so they died anyway, but now theyve found that lambs are immune, and that the anti venom is viable immediately instead of having to wait, AND no one is allergic to lambs blood so once all the medical institutions start using that version (if they havent already) they should be able to save almost everyone (barring those who wait too long, etc.)

I saw a show on Discovery, I think it was "I Shouldn't Be Alive" where this kid got bit by a black widow putting his sock on. He had a bad reaction to it and the normally used medicine wasn't working. His step-father heard about this new anti-venom being used by the U.S. Military that came from Mexico, but not approved by the FDA so he couldn't get it.

So, his son was going to die. He got in touch with some folks that knew some folks and flew down to Mexico. He paid $500 for the anti-venom and risked his freedom getting it back to the States. He convinced the Dr. to administer it...and his son went from near death to fine and dandy almost immediately.

Crazy story. What a great father though...he literally went the extra mile.

Thats awesome. Alot of folks do that, leave here for the chance to live. There are proven treatments in places like Mexico that will cure cancer and other ailments, but our govt just wont give them to us (Big Pharm I believe you called it?). I actually knew a guy that went down there for some really bad case of cancer and within a very short time was in complete remission and healthy as a horse.

Big Pharm is a genuine and viable threat to our liberty and health for reasons like these. They use their power and greed to slow the advancement of society. I'm not anti-pharmaceutical, I realize that well made narcotics can save lives and improve quality of life. But what they do with that power and money is very scary. They peddle very dangerous mind-altering drugs and are able to successfully convince a large percentage of the population that they should be medicated. They specifically target children and use their influence and power to ensure that millions of American kids go through childhood doped up to a greater extent than the biggest pothead could ever achieve. Adderall is a great example....because its fucking Meth.

So it all sounds crazy, but its not a tin-foil conspiracy. Just turn on the TV and count the number of family oriented commercials promoting the use of potentially lethal narcotics...and then look at all the people in prison and the Trillions of dollars spent for it. Meanwhile, Big Pharm reps, usually with perfect faces and big tits, are wooing local Doctors with expensive dinners, rounds of Golf and free shwag so he'll write more prescriptions, that are again, potentially lethal.

Here's the whole story on that Black Widow thing BTW...

Steamboat Springs — People will go to great lengths to save their kids. Everyone has heard the urban legend about a mother who somehow summons the strength to lift a car off her child trapped beneath.

While Benji Amsden of Steamboat Springs didn’t display any feats of superhuman strength after his 15-year-old son, Mike Makens, was bitten by a black widow spider, Amsden did engage in a weeklong chase straight out of Hollywood — and just as improbable. The film-like saga climaxed with the exchange of money for antivenin in the Mexico City airport.

A black widow spider bit Mike, a Steamboat Springs High School student, on a Monday before school last month. Susie Makens, Mike’s mother, said her son was writhing on the floor in pain within five minutes. A black widow’s venom is a neurotoxin, which destroys nerves or nerve tissue and causes a tremendous amount of pain. The bites are rarely fatal.

While Mike was being treated for pain at Yampa Valley Medical Center, his family was weighing the options for further treatment. The family decided to forgo the use of an antivenin commercially available in the U.S., because of potential side effects and allergic reactions that can be particularly threatening — and potentially fatal — in children.

The family had heard about an alternative antivenin produced in Mexico and used by the U.S. military. Amsden said the side effects are minimal, but the federal Food and Drug Administration has not yet approved a U.S. version of the drug.

A day after the bite, Susie Makens’ brother Jim put the family in touch with Terry Fredeking, an acquaintance and president and CEO of Antibody Systems in Hurst, Texas. Fredeking is self-proclaimed “expeditionary biologist” and has himself been compared to movie characters such as Indiana Jones. Fredeking specializes in obtaining exotic or dangerous substances for pharmaceutical companies. His work has taken him from Mexico, where he collected vampire-bat saliva, to Australia, where he collected parasites from a Tasmanian devil.

In one of many articles written about him, Fredeking proclaims, “If you can pay for it, we can find it.” But when Fredeking learned about Mike’s painful situation, he dropped everything and offered his services for free.

“All of us have a humanitarian backbone; at least I’d like to think we do,” Fredeking said from his Texas lab Thursday. “In this case, it isn’t the type of thing that should be considered monetarily. … I wouldn’t want to take advantage of a situation like that.”

Within hours, Amsden said he and Fredeking had mobilized a whole network trying to locate the Mexican antivenin in the U.S., while also exploring ways to locate the drug in Mexico and legally transport it to the U.S. Amsden contacted people he knew in the military, but that route fizzled out.

“The problem there was being able to explain why two to three vials would be missing,” Amsden said. “Trying to legally get it from military to civilian is impossible.”

From Tucson, Ariz., to Miami, the team contacted organizations researching the drug.

Each lead eventually fizzled out, Amsden said, until Fredeking called him late in the week and told him he had located some vials in Mexico.

“I was almost in tears when he told me that,” Amsden said.

Fredeking and his legal team had also come across a 1980s FDA ruling that they believed would allow the drug to be transported and administered to Mike legally. Fredeking said the law allows for a foreign drug to be transported and administered if it is prescribed by a U.S. doctor, is not a narcotic and is not available in an identical form in the U.S.

Meanwhile, Amsden and Susie Makens had been told by YVMC administrators that they would not allow the Mexican drug to be administered at the hospital due to legal concerns. While upset at the time, Amsden said he understands the hospital’s decision.

“They were obviously in it for the big picture,” Amsden said. “I’m in it to save my kid.”

Amsden said it was up to Mark McCaully, Mike’s doctor, to decide if he wanted to prescribe the drug and administer it to Mike somewhere outside the hospital. A message left at McCaully’s office Thursday was not returned.

Should McCaully refuse, Amsden said he and his wife were prepared to fly Mike to Mexico City in an air ambulance to receive the drug there.

“We both agreed that was our next step if Dr. McCaully wouldn’t do it,” Amsden said.

But after McCaully consulted with malpractice attorneys, Amsden said, he decided to take the risk.

“He took a huge step,” Amsden said. “He was a pioneer for us.”

The antivenin’s manufacturers, Instituto Bioclon, agreed to have a representative meet Amsden in the Mexico City airport with the drug — for only $500. On Saturday, Amsden flew to Mexico City from Denver, through Dallas, to retrieve the drug. The Bioclon representatives, with a sign reading “Mr. Benji,” greeted him in the airport.

Amsden paid for the drug and headed for home. Despite all the necessary paperwork and the FDA’s ruling, Amsden said he was worried about making it back home with the recently purchased antivenin.

“Because I’m down and back in a day, that can be a fishy thing,” Amsden said.

Amsden returned to Steamboat Springs on a Sunday, and that day, Mike received his last doses of morphine and was released from the hospital. In his offsite offices, McCaully injected Mike with two vials of the antivenin.

Amsden said it was amazing to see Mike’s reaction to the drug. The pain that had been torturing him for nearly a week began to leave in 20 minutes, Amsden said, and after less than two hours, Mike walked out of McCaully’s office on his own and went home.

Looking back on the whole ordeal, Amsden said it was “just this side of a miracle” and “kind of like this episode that should be on ‘House.’”

Even Fredeking, the expeditionary biologist, said it was one of his more intense pursuits.

“I wouldn’t want to see anyone in pain like that,” Fredeking said. “This was an immediate threat.”

Fredeking said he normally spends months consulting with attorneys and preparing for his expeditions, while trying to help Mike was “a constant adrenaline strain for five days.”

The experience has inspired Amsden to create a network that will streamline the adventure he went through and help black-widow bite victims, especially children, and their doctors get their hands on the alternative antivenin from Mexico.

“I’m going to set up a network so other kids don’t have to go through this,” Amsden said. “Basically we’re going to set this up so it becomes the nucleus of information for black widow spider bites because they’re so dangerous to kids.”

Fredeking has agreed to help and Amsden said McCaully has agreed to be the network’s point doctor. Bioclon has agreed to make the drug, Aracmyn Plus, available seven days a week. The network will be nonprofit, Amsden said.

Fredeking said he doesn’t expect any trouble from the FDA for one simple reason: “They don’t like bad media.”

Phenominal. And horrific that our own govt wouldnt come off it to save a kids life.