American Drug War (SHOWTIME)

[thegodfather]

On Showtime right now called "American Drug War"....talking about how ineffective the drug war is, and how it is a scheme by the government to make money....excellent show...

[rockinred]

On Showtime right now called "American Drug War"....talking about how ineffective the drug war is, and how it is a scheme by the government to make money....excellent show...

I watched it the other day... interesting perspective to say the least.... was it 18 billion dollar budget to combat drugs? wow...

[thegodfather]

I watched it the other day... interesting perspective to say the least.... was it 18 billion dollar budget to combat drugs? wow...

Yea...ANYONE on this board who still thinks that OUR drug is any better morally than "other hard drugs" needs to watch that program.. NO DRUGS should be criminalized... ZERO....Do not try to impose your morality on the masses by legislating it. The idea that these other drugs have deleterious effects on society is absurd. All data to prove this is fudged and funded by people with hidden agendas.

[wilson9d]

i could have told you that. Everything about this country is designed to bleed every dime out of you, the rest of the world is closely following suit.

[goodcents]

Yea...ANYONE on this board who still thinks that OUR drug is any better morally than "other hard drugs" needs to watch that program.. NO DRUGS should be criminalized... ZERO....Do not try to impose your morality on the masses by legislating it. The idea that these other drugs have deleterious effects on society is absurd. All data to prove this is fudged and funded by people with hidden agendas.

Well said just didn't want to get into trouble for saying it It's time we ban together if we are to have any chance with this thing

[Dangercat00]

I think someone should compare a professional body builder who uses steroids to a heroine addict and tell me that both drugs are equal.

[goodcents]

Well, I'm leaving this thread now

[BITTAPART2]

I think someone should compare a professional body builder who uses steroids to a heroine addict and tell me that both drugs are equal.

redundant isnt it?

[Z-Ro]

I actually caught this program while visiting my mother and we watched it together. It is an excellent show and basically sums up what I have thought about the 'drug war' for quite some time now, once I started to think for myself. Even my mother commented on how the show was well put together and was pretty much spot on.

For you guys/gals who have yet to watch it, I suggest you do, its a great show. In a summary its about how the 'drug war' in America is in reality only lining the pockets of the elite who enforce the laws, i.e.-politicians. There were actually 2-3 former DEA agents who openly stated that after their years of service and first hand experience were actually for the decriminalization/legalization of drugs. One gentlemen in particular even stated after being 100% against ALL drugs he was now for the legalization for ALL drugs. Well, I could go on but I am glad I saw it on, great great show and the US does indeed need to rethink its arachaic policy towards drugs. Addiction is not a crime it is a social/cultural problem! You do not send guys who are addicted to tobacco/alcohol to jail, so why send crack/meth/cocaine/heroine/speed addicts to jail. Instead of wasting our tax money to house non-violent offenders in prision we need to use that money to rehabilitate and give them a boost to be a more productive member in society. Thats just the way I see it.

[goodcents]

Bit never get tired of that avatar, reminds me of cujo (my lab rot mix) Still miss that dog

[BITTAPART2]

she is 8 now and I am getting nervouse as her health is getting pretty bad, shes been the best phuking dog ever though, great with my son and everything

[goodcents]

^off topic but what is wrong with her? sad part is big dogs don't seem to last as long? my beagle was 17 and cujo only made it like 12 years

[thegodfather]

I didnt name any drugs in my posts for a reason. I simply referr to them as 'rec drugs'. Yes, there are obvious differences in the lifestyles of each type of drug user. However, that does not mean we should legislate those drugs based on the lifestyle those people CHOSE to lead as INDIVIDUALS. You may not like the type of lifestyle of certain rec drug users, and thats fine, you can chose to opt out of that lifestyle by engaging in different behavior. I personally dont like the lifestyle of an alcoholic, so guess what? I chose not to consume alcohol, which is legal by the way. Tobacco&Alcohol are responsible for almost 50X as many deaths as compared to rec drugs, without even including the statistics of the amount of people killed by drunk drivers each year. The numbers simply are not there to justify outlawing these substances. However, there is an 18.5 billion dollar budget for fighting this 'drug war.' Some people just have their heads in their ass and preferr to be oblivious to the truth. The other scenario, is that some people let their MORALS interfere with their judgement because of the social stigma surrounding drug use. You need to remember, this is America where people are supposed to be free, and just because YOUR morals tell you one thing, does not mean you have the RIGHT to impose those morals on an entire society. Morals are never to be legislated, they are a personal matter.

[rockinred]

Godfather...I have a question for you.... and don't take it wrong... what function or purpose do you think a government is for? Just curious on your thought process... I am in agreement with your post above, but the line that gets crossed can be drawn in many places so that is what makes these issues very controversial and debateable. You seem to be into political science so I was wondering what you think on that?

[thegodfather]

Godfather...I have a question for you.... and don't take it wrong... what function or purpose do you think a government is for? Just curious on your thought process... I am in agreement with your post above, but the line that gets crossed can be drawn in many places so that is what makes these issues very controversial and debateable. You seem to be into political science so I was wondering what you think on that?

The governments role in our lives should be absolutely limited in every aspect. The purpose of government is to protect our liberties and our property. The government is also supposed to provide sound money for the people to conduct trade/business with. The government is supposed to provide defense from outside actors that might seek to invade or opress the people living under that government. Aside from that, nothing. Everything else can be taken care of on the State level, and even then the State is limtied to the aforementioned criteria. Decentralized power, how the Federalist model was originally intended, provided the best assurance against centralized abuses of power. The abuses of power that occur when power becomes strongly centralized is evidenced throughout THOUSANDS of years of human history, and that is why the Federalist model came into existence. The problem with such a model, is that for the people to remain free, they have to be active participants in politics, which is why the model is presently failing with all of the disenfranchised Americans who only care about plasma TVs and new imported Chinese goods.

I could go into the problem with all of the evangelical politicians polluting the political process, but thats an entirely different issue.

[rockinred]

The governments role in our lives should be absolutely limited in every aspect. The purpose of government is to protect our liberties and our property. The government is also supposed to provide sound money for the people to conduct trade/business with. The government is supposed to provide defense from outside actors that might seek to invade or opress the people living under that government. Aside from that, nothing. Everything else can be taken care of on the State level, and even then the State is limtied to the aforementioned criteria. Decentralized power, how the Federalist model was originally intended, provided the best assurance against centralized abuses of power. The abuses of power that occur when power becomes strongly centralized is evidenced throughout THOUSANDS of years of human history, and that is why the Federalist model came into existence. The problem with such a model, is that for the people to remain free, they have to be active participants in politics, which is why the model is presently failing with all of the disenfranchised Americans who only care about plasma TVs and new imported Chinese goods.

I could go into the problem with all of the evangelical politicians polluting the political process, but thats an entirely different issue.

ok a lot of what you said is an understandable perspective which we can talk forever on too.... but let's just try and take this threads topic for example now and the government's role... so let's go to the alleged part of the reason government got involved with rec drugs...

let's say that we live in a community that was free from laws against any rec drugs... in this community we started having many drug infestation that was plaguing the children and all over the streets and your child died from it... let's say many people started experiencing this all around and they said, screw this I don't want this stuff in my community, but then they realize they are not empowered or in a position to do anything about it because they are overpowered..... they then look to government and say help us with this problem plaguing our streets and society??? what does or should the government of that land do?

[Dangercat00]

ok a lot of what you said is an understandable perspective which we can talk forever on too.... but let's just try and take this threads topic for example now and the government's role... so let's go to the alleged part of the reason government got involved with rec drugs...

let's say that we live in a community that was free from laws against any rec drugs... in this community we started having many drug infestation that was plaguing the children and all over the streets and your child died from it... let's say many people started experiencing this all around and they said, screw this I don't want this stuff in my community, but then they realize they are not empowered or in a position to do anything about it because they are overpowered..... they then look to government and say help us with this problem plaguing our streets and society??? what does or should the government of that land do?

Exactly. The fact of the matter is that even if some people think its their right to purchase and use whatever drug they want, the will of the vast majority of Americans doesn't want such things legalized. Majority elects representatives, representatives honor the wishes of their constituents, and law is passed. Saying the legalization is my "right" is ridiculous. You have the right to try and get it legalized if you wish, but it isn't an inherent right, at least to Americans.

[SMCengineer]

Majority elects representatives, representatives honor the wishes of their constituents, and law is passed.

Apparently, you don't know how politics work.

but it isn't an inherent right, at least to Americans.

Um...yes it is, actually. Maybe you want to live in a socialized country where government dictates what's best for you, but it's not supposed to be here in America (at least that was the original intent of the founders).

[Dangercat00]

Apparently, you don't know how politics work.

How do politics work, then? Because I'm pretty sure thats exactly the way it goes.



Um...yes it is, actually. Maybe you want to live in a socialized country where government dictates what's best for you, but it's not supposed to be here in America (at least that was the original intent of the founders).

The original intent of the founders was the create a country where the people have the right to choose freely how they live their lives, as long as it doesn't infringe on the lives of others in a negative way. That is the problem with many of the proposed drugs to be legalized, they are shown to increase crime and decrease the user's ability to function in a safe manner.

[Voice of Reason]

The movie pretty much said move to Amsterdam, I'm planning a visit after watching this documentary to expand my mind and think more out of the Nike shoe box.

[thegodfather]

ok a lot of what you said is an understandable perspective which we can talk forever on too.... but let's just try and take this threads topic for example now and the government's role... so let's go to the alleged part of the reason government got involved with rec drugs...

let's say that we live in a community that was free from laws against any rec drugs... in this community we started having many drug infestation that was plaguing the children and all over the streets and your child died from it... let's say many people started experiencing this all around and they said, screw this I don't want this stuff in my community, but then they realize they are not empowered or in a position to do anything about it because they are overpowered..... they then look to government and say help us with this problem plaguing our streets and society??? what does or should the government of that land do?

You have actually described the situation as it presents itself today. That is the problem, drugs are easier to obtain than alcohol or cigarettes. The reason is that although these drugs are illegal, they are completely unregulated and drug dealers unfortunately dont have a minimum age requirement to purchase their drugs. Many teenagers will tell you they can goto the street corner or make a phone call and obtain a recreational drug much easier than they can alcohol or tobacco. The reason is very simple, in order for them to circumvent the age requirement they need to convince a person to purchase it for them, and its about a 50/50 gamble on whether they'll be able to obtain it. On the other hand, with drugs being completely illegal, and therefore the sale completely unregulated, anyone of any age is able to purchase drugs from dealers with impunity.

The drugs are here to stay, they have been on the Earth for thousands if not millions of years. Actually, the synthetic drugs that companys like Purdue produce are actually much more addictive than the natural form of a certain drug. These companys (special interests) lobby millions of dollars to keep THEIR drugs legal and the OTHER drugs (unpatentable because they are naturally occuring) ILLEGAL. The other issue is the amount of violent crime that prohibiting a substance creates. Wherever there is a strangehold on supply and demand rises, there emerges an extremely lucrative market which organized crime and gangsters become involved in. The majority of violent behavior related to drugs has to do with their distribution and sale more so than their purchase.

Finally, prohibiting substances goes against the basic tennants of our society, which is a free society where the individual is valued much higher than the state, and the individual is highly autonomous from the state in the latitude of decision making they are able to engage in. 1 MILLION NON-VIOLENT drug offenders in jail is a serious issue if you ask me. These people have hurt no one except themselves. That is another basic tennant of our free society, "do as you wish, so long as you do not harm anyone else." You are able to pursue "Life, Liberty,&Happiness" so long as you do not infringe on anothers "Life, Liberty,&Happiness." Many use the counter argument that people using drugs puts other peoples lives in danger. This is true, but ONLY in certain circumstances where the person under the influence of a drug(including alcohol) makes the CHOICE to operate a motor vehicle, or engage in some other activity that can put other people at risk. People using drugs in the comfort of their own homes poses no risk to anyone except for themselves. That is not a criminal matter, it only becomes a criminal matter if that person then goes on to operate a motor vehicle or somehow put other people in danger with reckless behavior under the influence of such substances. Those 1,000,000 are wrongfully imprisoned. It is also paramount that we understand what BIG BUSINESS incarceration is. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband owns a private company who transports prisoners, and profits are directly related to the amount of people (volume) that are incarcerated. So you tell me what you think of her possible motives and what a profound conflict of interest that is.

Exactly. The fact of the matter is that even if some people think its their right to purchase and use whatever drug they want, the will of the vast majority of Americans doesn't want such things legalized. Majority elects representatives, representatives honor the wishes of their constituents, and law is passed. Saying the legalization is my "right" is ridiculous. You have the right to try and get it legalized if you wish, but it isn't an inherent right, at least to Americans.

I have touched on a lot of what you have said and refuted it in my aforementioned paragraphs. In regards to your bold statements, I will reiterate that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband owns a company that transports prisoners, and that her husband’s profits depend on the volume of people incarcerated and subsequently being transported on a day to day basis.

Anyway, if what you say is true. The majority of Americans are in favor of acquiescing their 4th Amendment right and allowing the United States government to monitor every phone call, text message, facsimile, e-mail, internet activity, bank records, library records, and private health information that passes over something electronic, RIGHT? According to your PERFECT theory of Republican government, 51% of the American people also support torturing prisoners in violation of international human rights laws, that the United States has no problem calling out those violations in regards to other countries, or persecuting Japanese soldiers for torture (waterboarding American prisoners of war). According to your perfect model of Republican government, 51% of the American people also support the suspension of Habeas Corpus, where according to laws like the Patriot Act, and extensive signing statements, any American citizen suspected of terrorism can be held indefinately, without being charged, without the right to a phone call, and without the right to legal representation. This is not fantasy, a Boston resident and AMERICAN CITIZEN was held in Gitmo for 5 years and released earlier in 2007 without being charged with ANY crime what so ever, and was never given legal representation.


I think that kind of puts to rest your idea that EVERY elected official votes in the interests of the majority of constituents. 80% of Americans want out of Iraq immediately, yet that MAJORITY opinion falls on deaf ears by President Bush and elected officials on BOTH sides of the aisle, doesnt it? As they both approve massive spending bills for the Iraq war.

The Republican model is a great model. However its legitimacy when put into practice is less than ideal. As we have seen from about 1913 on, special interests have taken control and now hold the "majority" of the vote, only their majority is not in people, it is in US Dollars. Most all drugs were legal up until the early 1900s, when for a number of reasons, but most of them being the association of recreational drugs to dissenters, rebellious youth, "immoral" lifestyles, and "ungodly" people...led to their illegalization. We have seen countless times that the decision to make a drug/substance illegal has almost NEVER been done on substantiated credible scientific documentation, and almost always for reasons of "morality," or percieved rebellious tendancys of drugs. A perfect example of this, that the majority of members on this board can relate to, is the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1993. The Drug Enforcement Agency, American Medical Association, and the Food&Drug Administration(FDA) all testified before Congressional hearings that they were completely against Anabolic Steroids becoming a scheduled substance. These were powerful agencies whos opinion you would think, would normally hold a lot of weight and credability, but what did Congress do? They scheduled the hormones in direct contraindictation to the medical and scientific evidence presented before them. The facts were not there to support the legitimacy of scheduling the drugs, but they did it anyway. So what is your rebuttal?

[thegodfather]

The original intent of the founders was the create a country where the people have the right to choose freely how they live their lives, as long as it doesn't infringe on the lives of others in a negative way. That is the problem with many of the proposed drugs to be legalized, they are shown to increase crime and decrease the user's ability to function in a safe manner.

Its funny, I've addressed that point in the post I wrote to you, while you were writing this one. The majority of the crime caused by those drugs is because of the prohibited condition that the government created. Those drugs are only dangerous when people make the decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, no different than when a highly intoxicated person gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, they become dangerous. So long as they are drinking in their own home or in a bar, they are not a danger to anyone. However, one can argue that alcohol causes much more significant behavior changes than does many illicit drugs, and is responsible for a lot of violent offenses, if you want to look at it that way. However I have addressed that in the aforementioned post and will let you read it before responding further. Please though, take the time to refute my points if you feel the logic is flawed.

[rockinred]

godfather, when I was describing the conditions... i didn't mean todays condition... the condition can be an area of drug users that are hooked on heroin and influencing the whole neigborhood and community without some of the added harms of illegalization... the neighborhood then becomes a slum because of the addiction and those addicted have no desire to work, etc... similar circumstances that can be achieved with similar results... I do think the drug lord killings and atmospher of money will disappear, but some other conditions won't... when i said killed I meant a child killed due to use of it.... a child can drink alcohol if they desire and if the parent doesn't raise them closely and teach them and watch them history proves that even if they did they can still fail due to peer pressure... I grew up in a rough area where it was socially accepted to drink and do drugs at an early age... everyone around me was, so I fell vicitim to it regardless.... what I am saying is an atmosphere can be created where a whole community is plagued and people say "I need help"... I am not sure whether I agree with the government stepping in or not...but this is what I am trying to figure out???... because I did agree with the documentary and so forth.. another thing to consider is there are countries where it is legal to grow drugs, make them and or do drugs.....A lot those countries are in bad shape economically.. can this be a contributing factor? I don't know for sure... i haven't given this much thought..

Let say the situation is happening above... what do you as a representative of the government do? what do you say?

[Dangercat00]

Its funny, I've addressed that point in the post I wrote to you, while you were writing this one. The majority of the crime caused by those drugs is because of the prohibited condition that the government created. Those drugs are only dangerous when people make the decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, no different than when a highly intoxicated person gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, they become dangerous. So long as they are drinking in their own home or in a bar, they are not a danger to anyone. However, one can argue that alcohol causes much more significant behavior changes than does many illicit drugs, and is responsible for a lot of violent offenses, if you want to look at it that way. However I have addressed that in the aforementioned post and will let you read it before responding further. Please though, take the time to refute my points if you feel the logic is flawed.

I agree with you that the dangers of these drugs come from the initial choice of the individual to use them. Honestly if the were legal and people died from overdosing...I really wouldn't have a problem with it because, like you said, it was their own free choosing. The problem I have with most illicit drugs is that they spark such hard addictions that the users quickly run out of money and are so desperate they were resort to just about anything to get their fix. This is where I see the problem because now it moves from being a free choice to damage your own body to a possible motivation to steal or kill.

A lot of what I say comes from the fact that I have lost several friends to heroine, crack, and cocaine. They were great, smart, productive people before they started and now they have already tried to steal from me just to get another gram.

I understand where you are coming from that people should have the right to choose what they put into their bodies. But, I feel that the consequences that fall on innocent people aren't worth letting users have their way.

I should also make it clear that I don't feel all drugs should be looked at this way and obviously there are man improvement that should be made to the system at hand. But I think just saying "Lets legalize everything" would produce less than desirable results on society.