The goofiest argument for the drug war is that not having drug laws implies somehow that the government condones their use. If there isn’t a ‘War On Umbrella Eating’ does that mean they condone eating umbrellas? Does the fact that millions of other things for which there isn’t a ‘War on ___’ — much less laws against — imply the government is in favor them? I think not. And why is providing treatment (which works) seen as supporting drugs when supporting law enforcement handling it (which doesn’t work) is seen as being the way to go?
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom: War On Drugs Is A Failure
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the nation’s war on drugs a total failure and insisted the crime rate would go down if the government spent money on treatment as opposed to jailing people with drug problems.
“If you want to get serious, if you want to reduce crime by 70% in this country overnight, end this war on drugs,” he told reporters at City Hall on Thursday. “You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs.”
The mayor maintained local jails are overcrowded with people incarcerated for drug offenses, taking up room that could be used to hold more violent criminal offenders. He said violent criminals with lengthy felony records are being turned loose, too often.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who has run the county jail for 28 years, told CBS 5 that 60 to 75 percent of the 2,000 inmates currently held are there for drug crimes or have underlying substance abuse problems.
He also agreed with Newsom.
“No, the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment,” Hennessey said.
Mayor Newsom
A politician talking sense! He won’t last long…
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
These guys are all former cops, lawyers, and federal agents who are against the so called war. I used to work in law enforcement and I can tell you that the war on drugs is a waste of time, resources and human lives.
My argument against the war is simple:
Is there any day, anywhere in the USA where you can’t buy any drug you want? No. Therefore, the war is the worst public policy failure in the history of the United States.
If we can’t stop drugs from getting into our maximum security prisons, how can we stop it on the street? We can’t.
Finally, what business is it of our government to control what we decide to put in our bodies? If you want to kill yourself with cocaine, go ahead. If you commit other crimes to finance your habit or while you are under the influence then you should be prosecuted for those crimes, not for the victimless crime of drug use.
#22 said: “Finally, what business is it of our government to control what we decide to put in our bodies?”
Since what you get into your body may harm others, that’s what.
Even for alcohol, there are legal limits, remember?
#22
I generally agree with your analysis. However I’d say that crimes commited while under the influence of drugs should have more severe consequences. People are more harmless when they are under the influence of almost all the popular drugs than when they are sober, especially marijuana. There are a few exceptions alcohol being the big one. There are more alcohol related accidents and crimes than all other substances combined.
People have been lead to believe that drug users are dangerous, which is absurd.
Having a war on drugs is like swatting misquitos with your hand to get rid of malaria.
The war on drugs costs the american people several billion dollars a year, and it doesn’t work, it only makes the problem worse.
There is no such thing as victimless crime. Get rid of the drug lords, genuine criminals, with the stroke of a pen by legalizing drugs.
Greg Allen, prohibition passed because alcohol does harm. Prohibition increased the amount of harm done.
Repealing prohibition decreased the harm, but harm is still done.
Repealing the drug prohibition should follow the same pattern.
#16 Frank IBC,
During prohibition.
#23 – pedro
“#22 said: “Finally, what business is it of our government to control what we decide to put in our bodies?”
Since whatyou get into your body may harm others, that’s what.
Even for alcohol, there are legal limits, remember?”
Ah, pedro? Bullshit.
What you put in your body hasn’t one fucking thing to do with why there are limits to BALs.
You are free to drink as much as you like, and get as drunk as suits you – it’s when you GET IN A CAR that a limit applies. Your ACTIONS while under the influence are the concern. It is presumed under law that a BAL over a given percentage will cause you to be unable to drive competently.
Your argument is worthless.
• • • • • • • • • •
#18 – Greg Allen
“But legalization will surely lead to increased drug use.”
Nonsense. Utter rot. And it has been proven so throughout history.
It makes no difference whether a given substance is illegal, for the vast majority of humanity. Those who want to ingest psychoactive substances DO SO – regardless of the law. And conversely, those who don’t want to ingest these substances DON’T DO THEM – and making them legal does not change their reasons for not doing them. It isn’t the law – as I just noted, if someone wants to do them, they go ahead and do it – no one ever says “Gee, I’d snort cocaine if it wasn’t illegal,” because a person who willing is not going to be stopped by the law.
By your Logic-Free Reasoning®™, any legal drug would be immediately universally used upon legalization. What crap.
When Prohibition was in force, just about everyone who wanted to drink drank. And when Repeal took effect, America’s nondrinkers continued to NOT DRINK.
When drugs are legalized, people who don’t believe in taking drugs, and therefore don’t take them, are going to continue to NOT TAKE THEM. So your argument is as worthless as pedro’s.
Frank, I don’t understand your liquor store analogy. Liquor ‘trafficking’ is legal.
As to the argument that legalizing drugs wouldn’t increase drug use, I think that goes against the experience we’ve already had. Prohibition DID lower alcohol use, and it didn’t go back to pre-Prohibition levels until many years after repeal. I think it’s possible drug use would go down, as the image would then be that only losers use drugs, and the rebellion factor goes away.
#25 – M Scott
“Get rid of the drug lords, genuine criminals, with the stroke of a pen by legalizing drugs.”
Good sentiment, correct and supported by logic and facts.
“There is no such thing as victimless crime.”
Huh? Wha??? Where’d THAT come from? Of course there are victimless crimes.
Activities that are completely benign and harmless have had laws passed against them countless times since we’ve had laws. These harmless acts – which are, by definition victimless, since no party is victimized in any way – are defined, by legislative action, as being ‘crimes,’ violations of law.
.: There are ‘victimless crimes.’
Smoking marijuana, by yourself, at home and in private, does no person any harm in any way, shape or form. Nonetheless, it is a violation of law in most places in America and elsewhere. A “crime” + no victim = guess what?
I suggest you may want to reconsider that first statement there…
More nonsense, from MikeN;
The – alleged – decrease in alcohol consumption during Prohibition can be attributed in it’s virtual entirety to, not any drinkers’ conscious decision that “Gee, this is illegal, so I’m not going to do it,” which is obvious nonsense, but rather the necessarily limited availability of alcohol.
Most continued to drink; those who did not, did so because they couldn’t get any – and some quit because all that was available to them was tainted, inferior, adulterated and sometimes poisonous. And that account for the entire decrease in consumption during Prohibition.
#28, Lauren,
“But legalization will surely lead to increased drug use.”
Nonsense. Utter rot. And it has been proven so throughout history.
Hhmmm, Would you care to cite some evidence of that claim?
In Thursday’s news, several Kentucky counties are suing the makers of OxyCotin because of the availability of the drug. Yup, availability has increased usage.
http://tinyurl.com/2esjmc
… no one ever says “Gee, I’d snort cocaine if it wasn’t illegal,” because a person who willing is not going to be stopped by the law.
I beg to differ. Anti drug propaganda in schools has stopped many kids from using tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs. Not all and I don’t know if an accurate assessment could ever be made, but, I have no doubt that many kids don’t touch drugs for that reason. For others it is mostly peer pressure that gets them started.
*
Just to clarify. I have no problem and in fact encourage, legalization of medical marijuana. There is a huge difference between pot and chemical drugs however. They should not be allowed to proliferate. A few years ago I saw the danger and harm meth addiction was causing in our little corner of the world. Maybe that biases me but so be it.
All I can say is, the more I hear about eating an umbrella, the more I want to try it. I wonder if it opens and gets stuck in my throat, if I can sue Dvorak?
Consider the source – both are from San Francisco – land of the fruit and nuts. The city should just secede. California and the nation would gladly help pay for the transition..
Examples?
http://www.zombietime.com
Fusion -
Kids in the Netherlands are not propagandized with lies like American kids are – and reefer and hash are de facto legal and socially acceptable.
Yet American kids smoke more dope, and start smoking it at a younger age than kids in the Netherlands.
There goes your argument, down the toilet…
And how come EVERYBODY in the Netherlands doesn’t smoke? Hmmm? I mean, it’s legal, so everybody wants to do it, right?
Greg Allen – Tomorrow, crack will be legal. Are you going to smoke some? Your mom and dad? Your boss? Your friends, are they gonna make tracks to the nearest head shop and get crack pipes?
Didn’t think so.
Frank, I don’t understand your liquor store analogy. Liquor ‘trafficking’ is legal.
It’s the illegality that causes the crime. As others point out, you DID have shootouts between bootleggers during Prohibition, and once Prohibition was repealed, all the crime associated with the distribution of liquor disappeared overnight. The same would happen if you re-legalized drugs.
I say “re-legalize” because drugs used to be legal.
In the 25 years since Ecstasy was outlawed, has the situation WRT to Ecstasy improved?
In the 40 years since LSD was banned, has the situation WRT LSD improved?
In the 42 years since Amphetamines were banned, has the situation WRT Amphetamines improved?
In the 70 years since Marijuana was banned, has the situation WRT Marijuana improved?
In the 93 years since Opiates were banned/very heavily regulated, has the situation WRT to Opiates improved, even one iota?
Correction – 20 years for Ecstasy.
#30 – Lauren,
Certainly there are laws against victimless acts. My statement was intended to be interpreted as “I do not believe in victimless crimes and would support legislation to make all victimless acts legal.” There is no such thing as victimless crime. It is our laws that are incorrect on the subject. Creating silly laws that prohibit acts that do not hurt anyone weakens people’s respect for the law.
We keep runniing into your disregard for semantic precision, Scott.
Your statement can only be read as either “no such thing as a victimless crime exists” or alternatively, “there is no crime which does not have a victim.”
Although I understand – and agree – with your underlying point, there IS such a thing as victimless crime.
What constitutes a crime is not contingent upon whether or not someone is harmed – it’s what our legislatures declare to be a crime.
Sure the law is flawed. That’s a given. And as long as legislators are drawn from a pool of persons schooled in law but not in logic – and who create legislation with the intention of currying favor with voters and not to improve society, look forward for more bad law, for the foreseeable future and beyond.
Few of the stupid bastards in our state and Federal legislatures actually believe that marijuana harms anyone other than (possibly) the person using it, but they are uniformly scared shitless of a certain bloc of voters – some of the stupidest and least qualified to vote, indeed – but they are so corrupt, cynical and jaded that they will see their fellow citizens lives ruined for doing no one any harm, rather than stand up and do what’s right, and risk losing their positions by doing so…
The way that people in the developed world are steadily becoming less intelligent and more egocentric, this problem of self-serving scum creating bad laws is only going to get worse. Face it.
#35, Lauren,
Again, I ask you for some evidence. You didn’t give any about availability v. usage and now you throw out another piece of crap suggesting Americans smoke more pot than the Dutch.
Your contentions both defy logic and reason. Please, cite something to back up your point. Otherwise, it becomes just another piece of bullshit.