Article

2010-05-08 Home Front: Culture Wars

Pelosi: It's Cheaper to Treat Teens for Drug Use Than Interdict Drugs at Border

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 Bet it's cheaper to send teens to stop a bullet than to control the borders, eh.

Posted by badanov 2010-05-08 00:07|| 2010-05-08 00:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, and Obamacare is going to cost less than what we have now. Unless of course you consider all the "hidden" costs.

Two easy steps:

1) Build a fence.
2) Shoot anyone who sticks their head over it.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-08 00:19|| 2010-05-08 00:19|| Front Page Top

#3 It'dbe cheaper to give the pelosi congress electroshock treatments than to pay down the national debt they've vomited out...

Posted by M. Murcek 2010-05-08 00:37|| 2010-05-08 00:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Warning: Long rant

The great thinkers in the 70s said "Decriminalize drugs; go after the pushers." Of course, with no serious legal consequences, the market for drugs skyrocketed here, and the criminals went all-out to control this growing market.

Uribe in Colombia got it right; when his government cracked down on FARC and the paras, the farmers got relief from drug barons trying to force them to grow the stuff. I heard a great deal about this when my friend reported that the thugs had left, and were no longer threatening to butcher his uncle's children because his uncle wouldn't convert his coffee farm into a coca operation.

Pelosi's statement is tragically stupid. People are being raped, murdered, and forced into slavery for narcos all over the world because we won't take the necessary steps to eliminate the US's market for drugs.

And to those of you who still want to legalize drugs, spare me any bul*shit about "It's my choice to use drugs". I have fed neighbor children who go hungry because their parents are buying drugs and not food. Those kids didn't have any choice in the matter. My neighbor's family back in Mexico lives in terror of the drug gangs. There are no jobs in their area; the gangs control everything. These people have no choices, no safety, no protection from an inept and criminal legal system.

We helped create these horrors because we refused to believe the law of supply and demand and thought that drugs really weren't that bad. Put that in your goddam bong and smoke it.

Posted by mom 2010-05-08 00:49|| 2010-05-08 00:49|| Front Page Top

#5 Pelosi's statement is tragically stupid. People are being raped, murdered, and forced into slavery for narcos all over the world because we won't take the necessary steps to eliminate the US's market for drugs.

And to those of you who still want to legalize drugs, spare me any bul*shit about "It's my choice to use drugs". I have fed neighbor children who go hungry because their parents are buying drugs and not food. Those kids didn't have any choice in the matter. My neighbor's family back in Mexico lives in terror of the drug gangs. There are no jobs in their area; the gangs control everything. These people have no choices, no safety, no protection from an inept and criminal legal system.

We helped create these horrors because we refused to believe the law of supply and demand and thought that drugs really weren't that bad. Put that in your goddam bong and smoke it.

Odd that people aren't being raped, murdered and forced into slavery by alchohol brewers and distillers.

If you really cared about the violence the narco gangs were doing to the innocent Mexicans you would support legalisation, since overnight the obscene profits they get from illegally trafficking narcotics would disappear.

The idea that the utter failure of the War on Drugs by every measure could be reversed if we only 'tried harder' and took the 'necesary steps' boggles the mind. But feel free to discuss the necessity of criminalising mind-altering substances next time you and your friends get together and have some beers.

Posted by Gaz 2010-05-08 01:30|| 2010-05-08 01:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Nancy Botoxi simply wants more potheads. Easier to manipulate these happy mellow people than these godawfull puritanical rebarflicans that know no happiness. And the prize! When the State becomes the pusher ... more cashola to redistribute!

What can be better?

Posted by twobyfour 2010-05-08 02:06|| 2010-05-08 02:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Drugs are here to stay. It's been that way since the beginning, it is now, and will be until the end.

I'm on Gaz's side.

People who are stoned don't start fights like people who are drunk. If maryjane were cheap, it would take the place of a lot of other drugs and people wouldn't have to steal your stereo to pay for their next $20 fix of whatever their harder drug of choice is. People will not go any more crazy for this stuff than they do for alcohol. There will be societal and legal pressures to keep them in a resonable box enough of the time.

How long did it take to repeal prohibition?

The War on Drugs is Reagan's baby. I think this was one of his biggest miscalculations.

We should give it a try. Politicians could even tax it, instead of drugs taxing our system. Wars in the middle east and Latin America would just go away since there won't be enough profits in the drug trade to be able to afford bullets.

If someone knows this is about to happen please let me know so I can load up on stock in Doritos.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-08 02:12|| 2010-05-08 02:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Aw, f*ck it. Legalize all vices. Put a herpes tax on hooker transactions. Society will benefit...

Posted by M. Murcek 2010-05-08 02:21|| 2010-05-08 02:21|| Front Page Top

#9 I find it amusing, all the people who want to legalize drugs. Do you also support euthanasia for the elderly and infirm? Abortion? Oh, sorry, you're too crippled for us to worry about, we'll just give you a nice shot and it's all over.

Cause when you are legalizing drugs, that's what you are doing, you are willfully writing those people off. You claim it's their choice, and on one level it is. And it only takes them a few missteps to completely destroy their life and others.

But to me, what you're saying is that you're happy to consign them to a lingering death, overwhelmed by addiction cause it's 'easier.'

The problem isn't the war on drugs, the problem is we lack the balls to kill these people outright and in such a way that would end the desire for drugs and essentially make -saving- these people far easier. I say we kill the drug growers, the smugglers, the sellers and the users. You touch drugs and you DIE. I'm open about it, because if you actually do that, then the cost of drugs becomes too high for everyone and the desire for them will go away.

Yes, it would be extremely bloody, for about 2 generations. After that I think the rate would drop far lower and the problem because something far different.

Legalize and you're condemning far more people, for countless generations to death. People will die both ways. At least my way is clean and it's over quick, the legalization crowd is the ones wanting to freaking torture them to death over a period of years or decades. Sure my way makes me a bastard, but your way, that makes you flaming evil.

Posted by Silentbrick 2010-05-08 02:32|| 2010-05-08 02:32|| Front Page Top

#10 Word, Silentbrick. Word...

Posted by M. Murcek 2010-05-08 02:41|| 2010-05-08 02:41|| Front Page Top

#11 Thought experiment: "Legalise cancer..."

Posted by M. Murcek 2010-05-08 02:43|| 2010-05-08 02:43|| Front Page Top

#12 Word gorb.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-05-08 02:48|| 2010-05-08 02:48|| Front Page Top

#13 I favor legalization. Nothing will put the criminals out of business faster.

Mom, if someone's not feeding their kids, that in itself is the real issue. I know a LOT of drug users who are responsible, successful, and otherwise very law-abiding. I bet you do too, but just don't know it.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2010-05-08 03:11|| 2010-05-08 03:11|| Front Page Top

#14 Word, Scooter.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2010-05-08 05:33|| 2010-05-08 05:33|| Front Page Top

#15 Silentbrick; Does your 'kill em all approach include the estimated one hundred million Americans that have tried marijuana at some point in their life? Because that kind of mass extermination is something that would make the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge look like boy scouts.

Posted by Gaz 2010-05-08 05:44|| 2010-05-08 05:44|| Front Page Top

#16 Thought experiment: "Legalise cancer..."

Cancer isn't a substance you ingest, a better though experiment: "Legalise alcohol.."

Posted by Gaz 2010-05-08 05:46|| 2010-05-08 05:46|| Front Page Top

#17 It's better to control the delivery of drugs than to create mass profits for criminals.

Make it a criminal offence to be high in public, but de-criminalise drug use.

All the other alternatives will create massive profits for drug barons.

It IS peoples choice what they ingest, and saying that it's not good isn't going to change the reality.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-05-08 06:06|| 2010-05-08 06:06|| Front Page Top

#18 Brick: You bring up a lot of ideas on why we should get rid of drugs altogether and how to do it. Here are my unvarnished thoughts on them.

Oh, sorry, you're too crippled for us to worry about, we'll just give you a nice shot and it's all over.

The concept of euthanasia is a conscious, educated choice. And some very wise, intelligent people choose it. People with way more experience in aspects of pain and disability than you and I put together. Someday you may run into it yourself. Leave yourself a place to jump if you find yourself to be wrong.

Cause when you are legalizing drugs, that's what you are doing, you are willfully writing those people off.

Not all of them. Just some of them. Fewer than are being screwed up or dying today if you count growers, pushers, runners, and users left completely to their own devices (along with their kids) because they don't get the help that would come with a more accepting society. For example, lots of meth users have ADHD and are "self-medicating". They could get past this and back into society if they only knew. Other drug users have problems at home or are depressed. They need to be identified and pulled into counseling or have their situations rectified. It would be easier to identify these people if they just went down to the corner drug store to get their fix. There wouldn't be pushers selling them unlimited amounts. They would get turned in if they started showing problems.

But to me, what you're saying is that you're happy to consign them to a lingering death, overwhelmed by addiction cause it's 'easier.'

To me: Not at all. I choose what I think is the lesser of two evils when I do the math. Your zero tolerance is not a viable option. The vast majority of drug users are casual. You only manage to identify the obvious ones, which are not as common.

The problem isn't the war on drugs, the problem is we lack the balls to kill these people outright and in such a way that would end the desire for drugs and essentially make -saving- these people far easier.

It'll never happen. Not permanently. Not ever. It will only be repressed. Until people grow weary of the effort.

A lot of folks who were for prohibition had ideas similar to yours. They lost. Alcohol is now a part of society. Most drink casually. A few do not. Alcohol is sold at bars and you are cut off if you drink enough. You can go home and get as sloshed as you want. If you almost kill yourself, you go to the hospital. If you decide your life is messed up, you dry out. If you decide not to give up drinking, you probably have other problems. There are a few left over for whom alcohol is just too much of a problem of and in itself. But those few are far fewer than those who would be a problem if alcohol were illegal, and the associated problems are far less when taken as a whole, too.

I say we kill the drug growers, the smugglers, the sellers and the users. You touch drugs and you DIE.

Way too easy. Are you including anyone who uses them casually for a while and then a few years later decides to quit altogether? Your kids, parents, friends or siblings? Oxycodone? Alcohol? Nicotine? Marijuana? Ecstasy? Meth? Cancer patients who take marijuana to increase their appetites so that they may live long enough to see their youngest child turn four? Casual coke users who grow up to become the President? [OK, forget the last one.]

At least my way is clean and it's over quick, the legalization crowd is the ones wanting to freaking torture them to death over a period of years or decades.

Your way is not clean and it will never be over any more than mine. And I don't want people to be tortured, I'm just bowing to human nature and allowing for a steady-state nature of problems, much like say crime or accidents for example. Show me a society that doesn't do drugs. It can't be done. If it can be done, I probably don't want to live there. Maybe later if technology improves, but not anytime soon.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-08 06:22|| 2010-05-08 06:22|| Front Page Top

#19 Of course, legalize drugs but ban trans fat, go after those using too much salt, and for godsake criminalize those dispensing corn syrup laced drinks to little children. Food kills. People steal to feed their habit. What dimension is this? /sarc off

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-05-08 08:20|| 2010-05-08 08:20|| Front Page Top

#20 It's quite probably a moot issue.

A healthy society doesn't depend heavily on any kind of drug, and most especially not ones that cause longterm, irreversible brain damage (as marij* has been shown to do when used regularly).

But this is not a healthy society. It's a society that is decadent, hollow and near collapse.

What will destroy the drugs market here, given the lack of will of this society to survive overall (and in ways that go well beyond drug using) is the coming serious financial collapse. If we enter a real dark age, as we are on the cusp of doing, there will be little enough food, education and other basics to go around. It will take a few centuries until the drugs issue re-emerges, in such a case.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-08 08:23|| 2010-05-08 08:23|| Front Page Top

#21 I agree with Silentbrick and gorb.

If we want to get rid of drugs we are going to have to execute users, starting with the Kennedy spawn. I disagree in that once we start the executions it will take less than 5 years to end the trade and the executions. That is the only way to end the drug trade.

But we won't do that. So we really aren't serious about ending the drug trade. But we're willing to let the drug lords extract billions through terror here and abroad. Legalization is preferable to that. Take the profit out.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-08 08:28|| 2010-05-08 08:28|| Front Page Top

#22 Thanks for that comment, lotp. It's good to know I'm not the least optimistic person on earth.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-08 08:31|| 2010-05-08 08:31|| Front Page Top

#23 To those who think that decriminalisation would result in more drugs problems, I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on.

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

"...The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

'Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success,' says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. 'It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.'

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana."

The argument that prohibition is in any way desirable or effective is simply not supported by evidence. It costs money, lives, energy, and is one of the main undermining factors in eroding people's sense of individual responsibility.

Time to treat people like adults. Time to remove the criminals' biggest industry, and give the benighted taxpayer a break from wasting money trying to stop stupid people abusing themselves. The police and military have better things to risk their lives doing.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-05-08 08:32|| 2010-05-08 08:32|| Front Page Top

#24 There are several countries that already have the death penalty for certain drugs (ie. Thailand, Malaysia). It hasn't eliminated the drug trade, nor has it turned their societies drug free.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I'm saying it anyway: the human being is wired to crave mind-altering substances because we find them pleasurable. No amount of legislation is going to change that.

Probably the best we can do with the less harmful ones is to legalize them as long as you are a certain age and tax the hell out of them, similar to what we already do with two other drugs called alcohol and nicotine. (Look at it this way...finally there will be a product/industry the Obama administration is more than qualified to regulate.)

If you get high and get behind the wheel or do something to endanger others....then we toss your happy ass in the slammer. If you finally grow up and decide you don't want to poison yourself into a suicide, there's treatment available for you. Free the cops to chase after crime instead of dealing with the neighbor kid and his joint. Take away the obscene drug profits that fund corruption in many countries, including our own.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2010-05-08 09:23|| 2010-05-08 09:23|| Front Page Top

#25 Why is it that Pelossini insists on re-confirming her status as the "village idiot?" Remind me again, how it is that California inflicted her on the rest of us?

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-08 09:28|| 2010-05-08 09:28|| Front Page Top

#26 Joe the Plumber got elected to public office. His answer to the border problem (drugs and illegals): "Build the fence and then start shooting."

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-08 09:30|| 2010-05-08 09:30|| Front Page Top

#27 I have always been a big fan of statistics.

A good drug to look at is heroin, because unlike cocaine or alcohol, you don't see too many high functioning heroin addicts. So heroin users tend to comprise a pretty well-defined group with well-defined "edges." (There are always exceptions and I am sure someone here knows one.)

What seems to be a good study is here and gives a annual mortality rate of 9.76/1000.

This National Institute of Drug Abuse study gives a total heroin addict population of 213,000. So I get about 2,100 addicts deaths per year in the U.S.

If you look at the overall CDC data, drug-related deaths doesn't even make it into the top ten in the 15-35 year old demographic. The biggest killers there are accidents, assaults, and suicide.

Every death is a tragedy, but... does 214,000 addicts (0.7% of the population) and 2,100 deaths a year justify the investment we've made in poppy eradication alone? Purely a rhetorical question as you will see.

This chart guides my thinking about fighting drugs these days. As you can see, drugs fall into three clusters. The bottom left cluster is all stuff that is illegal but clearly causes less social harm than alcohol and tobacco. We should probably legalize it. The middle cluster includes alcohol and tobacco, both of which cause us a lot of social turmoil, but which we seem to tolerate pretty well. The drugs in the upper right corner in red causes most of your real problems and is the stuff you should worry about.

That is strategy. The rest is tactics and I will leave those to you all since you seem to have a pretty lively tactical discussion going already.

Feliz dia de madres!

Posted by 11A5S 2010-05-08 09:35|| 2010-05-08 09:35|| Front Page Top

#28 Thanks for that comment, lotp. It's good to know I'm not the least optimistic person on earth.

I'm actually pretty optimistic by nature. It takes a lot to get me to this point.

A few examples of the sort of thing that has me in near despair:

I look around and see a majority of 30- and 40-somethings stuck in teenaged mentality. The world owes me. You're not the boss of me. If I get wasted it's my business - butt out. And BTW - so what if I bring my latest sexual partner into the home where I'm raising my kid(s) after the divorce. It's great that my 17 yr old kid is sleeping with her boyfriend who is living with us. Until they can get their own apartment soon. That way I can say I'm being 'broadminded' - and excuse my own behavior.

That, by the way, describes my brother. The one who blew off his ROTC status in March of his senior year in college because 'he just didn't see himself living with all the restrictions of being military'. So my husband and I spent thousands of dollars to bail out - not him - but my financially strapped father who couldn't afford to repay the tuition the kid now owed the state. 20 years later the 'kid' is employed in a high tech job, owns a home he's fixing up, is doing okay on the surface, but is hollow, shallow and self-centered within. Men and women of his age are the center of mass of any society. Our center is weak indeed.

Another example: lunch conversation with a colleague recently. She's a smart, dedicated and hardworking professional. Told me all about the ways in which her kid was being raised right vs. indulgent parents. Talked about how worried she is that our society is collapsing. And then raved about a movie whose entire theme is drunkeness and stupidity. When I gently pointed out the contradiction she replied, "I work hard - I deserve to relax with this sort of thing."

And - perhaps I'll be flamed on this, so be it - a third example. Young women who embrace self-discipline and legal accountability to high standards, who've willingly gone through a rigorous military academy regimen and who've chosen to serve the country in uniform want to serve on subs. Maybe a good idea, maybe the difficulties will outweigh the benefits. But in any case, women willing to take on a rigorous job in tough circumstances to serve.

And the response of regulars at the Burg? Denigrate them with phrases like 'on the rag', allude to them renting out ... something ... for $100/hr, and gleefully demand they be injected with birth control by corpsmen. Because after all, we're not like those stupid muslims who devalue and control women.

Sigh.

As a practical matter drug criminalization only works if the major part of society believes that social stability and an investment in the future are threatened by widespread drug use, just as social stability and an investment in the future in the form of kids etc. is threatened by 'do it in the streets' coarse and unfettered sexual behavior.

OTOH once the society has no such inner discipline and self-worth, neither criminialization nor decriminalization really addresses the core issue IMO.

It wouldn't be the first time that a society and civilization collapsed into dark ages. I just hate to be living through the possibility of it happening here/now. Can things be turned around? I don't know. But I do think the central issue is self-control, personal responsibility and an investment in something greater than our immediate personal gratification at the basest levels.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-08 09:55|| 2010-05-08 09:55|| Front Page Top

#29 I've worked on a drug rehab unit while in training. Interesting place; I was able to meet and evaluate a number of hard-core drug addicts -- mostly heroin, some cocaine or amphetamine. I was able to talk with them, sit in on the group sessions and so on. The patients were from all walks of life, a few were pregnant women, a few were homeless. All had one, common problem: despite their best efforts, none of them could beat their addiction, though all desperately wanted to do so.

You'll never convince me that legalizing those drugs is a good idea. Not when I've seen the end result.

It may be that certain classes of drugs should be legalized, or at least ignored. One might make that argument with marijuana, for example, though I've also seen a few chronic pot-heads and none of them seem like they're having a good time in the end.

But heroin? Cocaine? Not a chance. Not one chance.

Posted by Steve White 2010-05-08 10:30|| 2010-05-08 10:30|| Front Page Top

#30 11A5S - nice chart but the position of kat bothers me. The effects of it upon the non-existing society in Somalia and Yemen are pretty undeniable.
It needs a chart with bad behavior effects too!

As to Pelosi...
I suspect her husband just took a huge position in the treatment industry.... (her positions tend to follow his investments..)

Posted by 3dc 2010-05-08 10:32|| 2010-05-08 10:32|| Front Page Top

#31 Lotp commented above about yesterday's discussion of women on submarines. Let me join in.

Not one of our proudest moments here at the Burg, folks.

I respect every person who wears the uniform. I respect every person who volunteers to put himself or herself in harms way to defend me and my family.

Spending months under several hundred feet of water doesn't sound like the safest thing one could do. I'm just guessing here, since I myself have never served, but these young women no doubt could find easier things to do in the military.

Instead, they're choosing to do something that is both difficult and dangerous.

I thank them.

Posted by Steve White 2010-05-08 10:36|| 2010-05-08 10:36|| Front Page Top

#32 Another comment - being high in Portugal has got to be more complicated then being high in suburbia...
Esp.. in regards to the longer lasting substances.

Put it in perspective... the "business-mans" high DMT lasted 1/2 to 1 hour.. That's easier to hide in suburbia or rural... LSD can last 8 hours or more... pot depending on the strength quite a while... now... any person high talking to a non-high person is in a very stressed state and if the non-high person knows him/her they should be able to tell ....

so... consider a dense Portuguese neighborhood with low home mobility numbers... This means everybody knows everybody to some extent. So... if a person is high... it will get noticed and relatives will find out (unlike high-mobility suburban USA where we tend not to know our neighbors and not having "communities" is the norm. We just have places where people live. Once upon a time many were "communities" but that day is pretty much gone...)

Add into the mix.... that .. Portugal might not have the same percentage of both parents working... and we end up comparing apples to oranges...

Posted by 3dc 2010-05-08 10:43|| 2010-05-08 10:43|| Front Page Top

#33 As to "CHEAPER" Pelosi is totally wrong.

The cheapest response is to invent plant viruses that kill coca plants, poppies, kat, and pot...

BANG!

Of course the criminals will fiddle with the plant DNA of the above plants to resist the viruses but that is a cheaper battle for society to fight.

If the plant battle is won then criminals will move on the synthetics (copies or analogs) of the active elements - but then it becomes a matter of identifying the factories.... much easier and if they are outside the US... why a predator with a really small smart bomb could sure make it look like an industrial accident...

Posted by 3dc 2010-05-08 10:51|| 2010-05-08 10:51|| Front Page Top

#34 My previous post was a tongue in cheek. I hope that was clear. If not, it is clear now.

Legalization means that one drug baron is replaced by another (gummint as a pusher). Giving gummint another stream of cash? Brilliant!

I dunno what would be the best solution. Contrary to Nancy Botoxi "solution", interdicting the flow across the border is definitely one of the ways to fight the problem.

Pot may be considered an exception. Here in GWN, gummint is trying a controlled distribution of "medical" pot, but the users are complaining that it is an excrement that makes them ill, with a very little kick. It does not bother me, but it bothers the users. Whether that is on purpose or a result of the standard gummint inability to provide quality goods (I tend to think the second)... who knows.

Posted by twobyfour 2010-05-08 10:57|| 2010-05-08 10:57|| Front Page Top

#35 "Well if your question is about drugs, Im for reducing demand in the United States. That is what our responsibility is on this subject.

Pelosi represents the quintessential practitioner of Progressive logic. The primary responsibility of the Federal government is to protect and defend the liberties of its citizenry from all threats both foreign and domestic. Rather then answer a question about the governments responsibility to protect the borders with a simple and emphatic YES, Pelosi almost instinctively launches into a classic social engineering diatribe. Her failure to answer a direct question is also a result of her simply being a slimey politician.

Posted by DepotGuy 2010-05-08 11:05|| 2010-05-08 11:05|| Front Page Top

#36 As far as legalization is concerned please remember where the Kennedy family had its start. A whole lot of baddies made a whole lot of money. They aren't going anywhere now drug legalization or not.

Posted by whitecolllar redneck 2010-05-08 11:31|| 2010-05-08 11:31|| Front Page Top

#37 I am all for decriminalization and legalization as long as they couple it with one other thing:

Drug testing for receipt of ANY government benefits. No food stamps, no welfare, no student aid, no EIC, no WIC, no unemployment, no Medicaid, no Medicare, NOTHING from the government if you burn a drug screening.

Note that multiple screenings would need to be done, and failure would have to be multiple times to eliminate lab errors and false positives. Maybe even a "3 strikes" law before the government locks a person out.

You want to do drugs? Live with the consequences. The rest of us are NOT going to pay for your mistakes ad infinitum.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-05-08 12:51|| 2010-05-08 12:51|| Front Page Top

#38 You forget that this isn't purely about statistics. There's a moral choice involved in this, just as with Abortion, the death penalty and lots of other things.

Following your same reasoning, I can make an case for the Left's treatment of terrorists. They don't kill that many people, why not just ignore them and hope they go away? Looking at a percentage basis, we don't lose that many people to terrorists, so why care so much?

Terrorists attack our nation and our way of life. When you think about it, so do drug dealers. They are attempting to peddle a product that addicts people and destroys the vast majority of them over time. It also destroys their families and others. To me, a drug dealer IS a terrorist. His methods are simply slower.

Perhaps I was just unduly influenced by Pournelle's vision of a future where a few taxpapers ruled the country, controlling vast numbers of 'citizens' kept passive by government distributed drugs. That is pretty much what you are asking for with legalization.

More importantly, is that the sort of nation you desire to live in? Where instead of encouraging people to better themselves through hard work and effort, we simply say, "Here, have some pot and you'll be happy to live like a peon all your life?"

That's not the America I grew up in and it's not the America I want to see. I would rather pay the price for making a moral choice and fighting the things that I think destroy people, than simply give in and take the thirty pieces of silver. To me, it's the same reason prostitution shouldn't be legal either. It can destroy people just as much as drugs can.

Posted by Silentbrick 2010-05-08 12:52|| 2010-05-08 12:52|| Front Page Top

#39 just be discreet and grow your own for personal use and to give as gifts to friends. Phuque those Mexican pushers. Buy American!

Posted by 746 2010-05-08 13:10|| 2010-05-08 13:10|| Front Page Top

#40 As Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, only trade offs.

Legalize.

Perfect? No? Devoid of problems? No. Better than the current situation. By far.

Posted by Iblis 2010-05-08 13:31|| 2010-05-08 13:31|| Front Page Top

#41 Can things be turned around?

I have no doubt they will be. What happens between now and then may be pretty harrowing, but there will be a return to normalcy. It usually requires a cleansing process that not all survive. And it may not be a normalcy we remember exactly, but personal responsibility will return after the crisis has been overcome.

We always have. I am confident we can still.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-08 13:33|| 2010-05-08 13:33|| Front Page Top

#42 Most people don't want drugs; most people don't like drugs. The point is that some people will want to, and manage to, in spite of all acceptable effort and expense made to stop them doing so. There's also plenty of evidence that criminalising drugs makes matter worse. And who here actually believes that people who want to take illegal drugs have a problem getting rid of them?

Young people are drawn to soft drugs like marijuana partly because they're illegal, and they also 'know', from their own experience and their peers', that they're no more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. This makes them sceptical about the dangers of much more dangerous drugs.

When might the war on drugs be won?

Why do I, as a taxpayer who isn't interested in drugs, have to pay through my nose for a ceaseless and futile campaign to stop stupid people abusing themselves, when it's clear that people will do it whether we try to stop them or not? The idea that prohibition of intoxicating substances 'fixes' human weaknesses is so discredited by history that it's amazing we're still having this debate today.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-05-08 13:43|| 2010-05-08 13:43|| Front Page Top

#43 rid of?! Sorry, typo.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-05-08 13:44|| 2010-05-08 13:44|| Front Page Top

#44 It wouldn't be the first time that a society and civilization collapsed into dark ages.

That very same thought has been occurring to me more and more often lately as I watch the decline of our society. I find it interesting watching the History Channel about all these ancient civilizations that carved out huge chunks of rock and then moved them into improbable positions to create amazing structures. Even with all of our modern tools and technology we still can't figure out how they did it. And yet, where are those people today?

The problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she is busy spending trillions of dollars doing things that she shouldn't be doing while ignoring the primary responsibilities of any government like securing the border. She's bailing out banks and car companies. She's grabbing control of our country's health care industry. She rewards the bad behavior of her Wall Street buddies because they reward her with campaign contributions. She is the very definition of corruption. This is how you lose faith in your government. This is how civilizations turn to dust.

We as a nation have a right to defend ourselves. We as a society have a duty to defend our children. We are failing.

Your drug dealing buddies, legal or otherwise, won't stop with selling it to you. They will go after your children who lack the maturity or wisdom to avoid that temptation. This causes all kinds of problems that are extremely expensive to our society in more ways than just money. They don't just sell a little pot either. It's cocaine, heroin and meth. I've read articles here on Rantburg about huge amounts of ephedrine being found in Mexico with implications of Chinese connections. If our kids are making meth in their bath tubs their getting their supplies from China via the Mexican border.

You wanna get high? Be my guest. But if I catch you selling that shit to my kids I'll kill you.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2010-05-08 14:41|| 2010-05-08 14:41|| Front Page Top

#45 Your drug dealing buddies, legal or otherwise, won't stop with selling it to you. They will go after your children who lack the maturity or wisdom to avoid that temptation. This causes all kinds of problems that are extremely expensive to our society in more ways than just money. They don't just sell a little pot either. It's cocaine, heroin and meth. I've read articles here on Rantburg about huge amounts of ephedrine being found in Mexico with implications of Chinese connections. If our kids are making meth in their bath tubs their getting their supplies from China via the Mexican border.

Indeed. 1st thing you know kids will be buying damn good weed and looking at qualituy pr(n on the internet. After drugs are handled we can deal with the FUCKING AWESOME AMOUNT OF CUSSING on the interwebs. I propose that each child between the ages of 9 and 19 should be gifted a drug-sniffing dawg (I have a breed in mind) of good temperatment and snuglenisity. Later on the dawg can be used to carry bombs or be eaten (depending on global circumstance) or simply be loved.

Posted by Shipman 2010-05-08 15:20|| 2010-05-08 15:20|| Front Page Top

#46 Remind me again how many children you've raised, Shipman?

Posted by lotp 2010-05-08 16:17|| 2010-05-08 16:17|| Front Page Top

#47 Imagine that everything short of meth and heroin is legal to use as of tomorrow.

Drugs won't be legal to sell to minors, of course, and the governments won't waste a moment taxing the bejabbers out of it.

Tomorrow afternoon there will still exist a smuggling infrastructure hungry for $. Think they'll take a profit hit and pay taxes like honest citizens? And refrain from selling to
minors? And not expand into oxycontin and other controlled substances? Fake pharmaceuticals would be nice and lucrative too.

"Always in motion the future is," but I don't foresee a huge reduction in criminal activity with legalization. Genies are kind of hard to stuff back in that little bottle.

Posted by James 2010-05-08 16:50|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com 2010-05-08 16:50|| Front Page Top

#48 Drug use is a national problem. We should feel fortunate if our kids do not go the route of drug use and abuse. There is a ready supply and apparently a demand for drugs. There is a lot of money being made from selling illegal drugs. As has been said we can be draconian in our drug penalties such as Malaysia, and other and there will still be drug sellers, users and problems. We can legalize drugs and we will still have drug problems. Despite that our children may not use drugs and we assume that the drug problem does not affect us, it does. There is a tremendous social cost to all of us. Now that we have national health care, we will all be paying for drug addicts who fall into some federalized treatment program. We cannot have the crime and violence that surrounds this activity and continues to spread. There is no city in the U.S. that does not have significant drug business going on. I heard recently that a small town where I grew up (~ 3000 people) had heroin problems. Meth and crack cocaine problems are everywhere. Marijuana is everywhere. The middle school down the street has marijuana problems. The security officer said the kids are smoking it on the way to school. It seems that drying up supply has to be gone after much harder. That involves figuring out where it is coming from and attacking those sources. The harder problem is drying up demand. That involves all kinds of psychological and home problems. I don't think legalization is the answer. I don't think ignoring the problem is the answer. Part of the problem the fact that many people think we should have open borders. Part of the problem is NAFTA where goods move readily into the U.S. Drugs often accompany such commerce. Part of the problem is our government's lack of will to control our borders because of a perceived political cost. We have to do something about the problem on a lot of different fronts. We need some leadership in Washington that isn't just self-serving and trying to get re-elected. We have more concern for steroids in baseball than we do about the significant larger problems.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-08 17:32|| 2010-05-08 17:32|| Front Page Top

#49 I am fascinated by the attention this is getting, particularly as I think the problem of drugs, for the nation, pales in comparison to the rate of illegitimacy in terms of the harm to the nation.

How many people die from drug use direct, not gang activity? 20,000 people are killed each year by drunk drivers. Deaths from drug use pale in comparison to that. Why all this condemnation of people whose lives are so bereft of purpose that they choose drugs to amuse themselves when they do so little relative harm?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-08 17:46|| 2010-05-08 17:46|| Front Page Top

#50 I have worked in the legal system for the last thirty years, mostly with criminal law and representing abused and neglected children. There is no doubt that drugs and alcohol are a scourge to many people and their kids, but what we are doing is not working. I know personally what horrors that life brings but this "war on drugs", and it didn't began with Regan, wastes money better spent on treatment. We have a giant bureaucracy in law- enforcement that feeds on the drug war and doesn't produce the expected results. People will always want to use substances and some of that population will abuse them. It is, as stated above, a trade-off. We could serve ourselves and those innocents hurt by substance abusers better by concentrating more on treatment and prevention and by enforcing severe penalties for driving under the influence and unlawful trafficking. I think it's a great idea to severely punish people who drive under the influence. It's an even better idea to send people who supply children with drugs or alcohol to the joint indefinitely. But over the years, I think AA and other programs have saved more lives than any jail sentence.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2010-05-08 20:28|| 2010-05-08 20:28|| Front Page Top

#51 "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

Supposedly Socrates said that. :-)

Society has been going to hell in a handbasket since Adam and Eve had kids. We'll be OK, we just don't know how.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-08 21:41|| 2010-05-08 21:41|| Front Page Top

#52 Tomorrow afternoon there will still exist a smuggling infrastructure hungry for $.

Yes, but with only a fraction of their former market left to sell to, they won't walk away with enough profits to make it worth it. They won't have enough volume to make money, and the price per dose will be dictated by a combination of how much it is sold for after it would be legalized, and how much the hardcore addicts could afford to pay. The kingpins will kill each other off leaving only one standing, who won't survive long when there aren't enough drug-related militants left to be a threat to society.

As for a society collapsing, I believe human nature depends on adversity to thrive. No adversity, people get complacent. It's a testament to how successful a society is on vanquishing adversity. The bad thing is that very same lack of adversity that makes a society lose focus, and in turn they collapse because their attention is not where it should be. I believe that the signs to look out for would be the delay of the onset of a mature way of thinking, which is what I see today. The adversity we see may be a blessing in disguise, but I don't know if we are able to deal with it as previous generations could have easily. My grandmother told me that during the Great Depression and WW II that people "just knew what to do" snd did it. She also said that during times of stress that there were not a lot of problems with mental illness. Hmm.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-08 22:28|| 2010-05-08 22:28|| Front Page Top

#53

Posted by gorb 2010-05-08 22:32|| 2010-05-08 22:32|| Front Page Top

#54 Legalization, really, is focused on weed. Most weed, I think, is already grown north of the border. It is not what the smugglers are focused upon. Legalization would eliminate some of the revenue the criminal element in this country gets. I don't think it would change usage rates much as pot is so easy to come by already.

Posted by remoteman 2010-05-08 23:34|| 2010-05-08 23:34|| Front Page Top

23:47 Clyde Unusonter1178
23:44 Clyde Unusonter1178
23:38 lex
23:36 lex
23:34 remoteman
23:18 Rambler in Virginia
23:13 lord garth
23:05 gorb
23:00 Bright Pebbles
22:43 Frank G
22:32 gorb
22:28 gorb
21:57 trailing wife
21:56 trailing wife
21:43 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:41 gorb
21:33 phil_b
21:30 abu do you love
21:04 Secret Master
20:44 tu3031
20:37 tu3031
20:31 tu3031
20:28 Sgt. D.T.
20:23 tu3031