The war on drugs is such a futile effort...

**ward065** · 08-31-2005, 12:14 PM

Yesterday evening i was watching COPS: WAR ON DRUGS on CourtTV, it was an hour long show.

I've never done recreational drugs, nor do i plan to because it clearly is not a good mix with bodybuilding. It in no way would be beneficial to my goals, it would only be harmful. But that doesn't change my opinion on the waste of government spending. After seeing the show, my opinion on how much money the government wastes on trying to "stop" it was even furthered. I'm not promoting rec drugs, i'm only explaining my opinion.

Basically, it showed the police stopping a bunch of cars- on mere suspicion. There was one case they claimed to stop the car because their tail lights were out, another because of a cracked windshield. But every single person, when asked by the officer if they could search their car, consented! Not one person ever told the officer he could not search without a warrant. And everyone got busted..... Then, the cops try to make it sound nice to these poor people, before they bring them down. It's just plain stupid.

For one thing, there was this poor guy who was buying $200 worth of heroin...he was caught, and then the police try to give him a distribution charge, even though it appears it was all for himself. The poor guy is crying, obviously an addict, then society tries to magically "cure" these people, by sending them to jail , rehab, etc, at the only cost of wasting taxpayer dollars. Most of these addicts just start right up again after they leave jail, then the not-too-smart ones end up right back in jail- What a waste of money and resources.

Many rec drug users obviously don't get caught, but it was very clear after watching just how much the police try to f**k these people up. This so-calle "war on drugs" is what, like $80 billion a year? that's about 1/3 of the cost of this latest disaster in the south. And that $80 billion never goes to real use- it's just wasted taxpayer money, because in the end, people will do what they want to do...police cannot stop it.

**inheritmylife** · 08-31-2005, 01:19 PM

There is no 'war on drugs," only a war on personal freedom and choice.

**Bigen12** · 08-31-2005, 01:30 PM

Some will argue that legalizing these drugs will lead to more addicts, however with drug testing common place with most employers; I believe that this is an issue that will solve itself in the private sector.

**ward065** · 08-31-2005, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Bigen12

Some will argue that legalizing these drugs will lead to more addicts, however with drug testing common place with most employers; I believe that this is an issue that will solve itself in the private sector.

the thing is that many rec drugs clearly do screw people up- that is not good.

it is just that the effort to stop it has never worked in the past. Taxpayers dollars are being wasted. Imagine what we could potentially do for the advancement of medicine, if just half of the wasted money was going towards cancer, or aids treatment. We'd probably be much farther ahead of the game than we are now.

There was a famous quote that Abe Lincoln said regarding prohibition-

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance...for it...attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

I could argue though that many things in the drug business do involve crimes, for example people obtaining drugs steal, rob, etc to get the money. Gangs that control territory have fights with rival gangs, shoot and kill, etc. There are some drug addicts who do put others at risk as well.

**inheritmylife** · 08-31-2005, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bigen12

Some will argue that legalizing these drugs will lead to more addicts, however with drug testing common place with most employers; I believe that this is an issue that will solve itself in the private sector.

Right you are, sir.

**freon** · 08-31-2005, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Bigen12

Some will argue that legalizing these drugs will lead to more addicts, however with drug testing common place with most employers; I believe that this is an issue that will solve itself in the private sector.

What's the point in doing drug testing if the "hardest" substances, taken on Friday night, might be undetectable on Monday morning? http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/...ng_info1.shtml

Better, what's the point in drug testing, say, a cashier at Lowe's, or anyone else who isn't a nuclear power plant operator?

If the argument is that job performance is adversely impacted by drugs, wouldn't pre-work performance/reaction testing prevent both people who are high and those who are sleepy, hung over, etc., from being a safety risk?

Just like the rest of the "War on Drugs", testing only serves to line the pockets and feed the personal feelings of those who are involved at the expense of the liberties and dollars of those who have done nothing wrong.

If steroid testing were cheap enough that employers did it regularly, would it still be in the private sector's rights to test for steroids ? After all, they have the right to control what people do on their non-work time, right?

BG · 08-31-2005, 03:17 PM

Its a $$$$$ maker, State and Fed revenue, give cops jobs.

**inheritmylife** · 08-31-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by freon

If steroid testing were cheap enough that employers did it regularly, would it still be in the private sector's rights to test for steroids? After all, they have the right to control what people do on their non-work time, right?

You're right that drug testing arguably hurts a company more than it helps. But, if you owned a company, wouldn't you want to be able to hire and fire a person for whatever reason that you want, or for no reason at all? Personal freedom isn't just for the guy at the botom of the totem pole.

**symatech** · 08-31-2005, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Bigen12

Some will argue that legalizing these drugs will lead to more addicts, however with drug testing common place with most employers; I believe that this is an issue that will solve itself in the private sector.

I agree. If the government legalized and taxed drugs, they would generate tremendous revenue, as well as relieve the overcrowding in the prisions. Employers could still maintain the standards they hold today, I.e. if you fail a drug test you are fired, and police could maintain that dui for any drug is still an arrestable offence. You would eliminate most drug dealers in the cities, crime would drop, so many good things. But I guess it's all speculation, it'l never happen. Instead of making 80 billion a year we loose it. Obviously it's a war you can't win.

**freon** · 08-31-2005, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

You're right that drug testing arguably hurts a company more than it helps. But, if you owned a company, wouldn't you want to be able to hire and fire a person for whatever reason that you want, or for no reason at all? Personal freedom isn't just for the guy at the botom of the totem pole.

Occasionally, there are things that would probably benefit individual employers, DNA testing for predisposition to cancer, for example, that we can probably all agree are not the best thing for society.

Also, it'd probably be an employer's best interest to require that I not fly a plane, not ride a motorcycle, and not go hiking in the woods because these are all things that are likely cause me to die, as compared to staying at home and watching TV. After all, they'd stand to lose their investment in hiring and training me, so they have a right to regulate ALL of my life, right?

How about preventing employees from attending a political rally? How about firing a gun owner?

There is a line somewhere, and my opinion is that compelling people to piss in a cup on demand is beyond the line which we should consider acceptable. Sadly, because some people have the flawed mentality that, because they "have nothing to hide", they should comply, or maybe just because they're wage slaves, we're all denied protection against forking over our bodily fluids.

It's just a situation where a completely free market is not a benefit, and it illustrates the difference between de facto and de juris slavery.

**OSTIE** · 09-01-2005, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by symatech

I agree. If the government legalized and taxed drugs, they would generate tremendous revenue, as well as relieve the overcrowding in the prisions. Employers could still maintain the standards they hold today, I.e. if you fail a drug test you are fired, and police could maintain that dui for any drug is still an arrestable offence. You would eliminate most drug dealers in the cities, crime would drop, so many good things. But I guess it's all speculation, it'l never happen. Instead of making 80 billion a year we loose it. Obviously it's a war you can't win.

I think you based this opinion only on weed, maybe. And I would have to agree with u about legalizing weed, because even though I only smoke weed very occassionally/socially, i think its alot better than alcohol....

I dont think u intended to put all other drugs, such as coke, meth, H in that category though.... Legalizing those harsh drugs will do so much damage....

So your still stuck, because even if you legalize just weed... U may have just a little more room in jails, and the government would have more money.... but I highly doubt drug-related crimes involve potheads... so the crime will stay around the same....

**Bigen12** · 09-01-2005, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

You're right that drug testing arguably hurts a company more than it helps. But, if you owned a company, wouldn't you want to be able to hire and fire a person for whatever reason that you want, or for no reason at all? Personal freedom isn't just for the guy at the botom of the totem pole.

It's not the companies themselves, it’s their insurers. People do enough stupid things sober, but allowing a person under the influence of drugs to operate say heavy equipment, isn’t a good idea. The problem is there is not drug test that I’m aware of that can calculate how “stoned” you are.

Knowing that there are many drugs that are out of your system in a relatively short amount of time, you might find it surprising to know that employers constantly refuse to hire or fire employees that test positive for these same drugs.

Also, I’m not sure about where you live, but Georgia is an at will state, meaning that an employer can fire at will, with no reason.

**MoneyAddyct** · 09-01-2005, 04:32 PM

It's silly trying to fight a war on drugs anyway. One can barely get off the couch when stoned let alone pick up a gun and run around covertly...oh wait, that's not what we're talkin about

**jmt** · 09-01-2005, 04:37 PM

Think abnout how much, in tax payers dollars, it's going to cost to combat rising health care costs due to drug use.

With government healthcare (state and federal) in shambles as it is, there is no way they're going to make it easier for people to become addicted.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-01-2005, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by jmt

Think abnout how much, in tax payers dollars, it's going to cost to combat rising health care costs due to drug use.

With government healthcare (state and federal) in shambles as it is, there is no way they're going to make it easier for people to become addicted.

so freedom has a pricetag.

Maby we should outlaw all possibly dangerous sports like football, martial arts ect since those involved in those sports is likely to visit a hospital sometime in there life.

smoking+alcohole is a way bigger burden on healt care than rec drugs would ever be.

**jmt** · 09-01-2005, 05:43 PM

Yes, and tobacco and alcohol are both legal drugs. We're talking about legalizing other addicting drugs as well.

What would make you think that a drug that is more addictive than tobacco or alcohol would not grow to reach or exceed the number of people that use tobacco and alcohol?

And who's to say that all 3 wouldn't be combined since those who consume alcohol and use tobacco are at a significantly higher risk for health problems than those that do one or the other.

If you took every sport played in this country and totaled up the number of athletes, the number wouldn't come close to the number of tobacco or alcohol users, let alone combined, since most people who use tobacco are also likely to consume alcohol. Although, not so much visa-versa. I consider that comment void.

You know, I hate looking at my paystub every two weeks. I hate knowing that the taxes removed are going to people who don't (for the most part) deserve it.

These are the people that sit around, don't take care of themsevles, and expect others to pay for it. That's bullsh!t.

I'm not necessarily anti-drug and I'm not oblvious to the fact that a lot of drugs hold a benefit for a lot of people. Hell, it's been crammed down my throat; since going to school that has the only legal marijuana field in the U.S.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-01-2005, 05:55 PM

the number of people realy getting addicted is very low. Some studied done on returning vietnam soliders showed that only like 3% get addicted anyway.

I would also hate paying for others stupidity more then anything else. But not doing so would mean remove public healtcare or ban everything including fast food(I bet obesity cost more or will soon cost more then alcohole and tobacco combined). Neither is a good option so Il rather legalise everything, that way atleast I wont get chased for doing something I feel is my right to do.

Base health insurance pricce on your healt statuse and remove healtcare for uninsured and you have solved the economy dilema. Those ****ing themself up with drugs wont get healthcare since they choose poor health and cant afford healthcare. Simple as that.

Every victimless crime should be legal but should also have consequenses in other ways so not to put a burden on society.

People need to learn how to handle the consequenses of there own actions.

**wagner78** · 09-02-2005, 01:00 AM

Well this month in the Popular Science magazine they have a whole section dedicated to futuristic medicine. In there they have an article about drug vaccines for Cocaine, Nicotene, and Meth Amphetimines. It is kind of cool how it makes you have antibody's for the drug. They said they were being mad by a British Pharmaceutical company, and they should be released in a two to five years. That will help I hope, untill then they we need to stop wasting tax dollars on the war on drugs.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-02-2005, 01:15 AM

what does the antibodies do exactly?

**Bigen12** · 09-02-2005, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by johan

Every victimless crime should be legal but should also have consequenses in other ways so not to put a burden on society.

People need to learn how to handle the consequenses of there own actions.

Amen!