The so called Drug War: evil and harmful, solves nothing, increases crime/violence!

[40plusnewbie]

I was asked by someone via pm to make a thread dedicated to www.leap.cc which is the site for Law Enforcement Against Prohibtion. I have discussed them in at least one thread where I was posting negative stuff about cops.

I want to be clear. I'm not against cops. Cops are trained to do stuff and do what they are trained to do. Some are good at their job and some bad. Some are dicks, some are reasonable. But because of the so called war on drugs we now have about 10% of the population who are 'suspects' in the eyes of cops.

The drug war has been going on for about 40 years and drugs are still readily available on the streets (not to mention you can get them in maximum security prisons...why anyone would think we could get drugs off the street when we can't keep them out of maximum security prisons after a 40 year war and a trillion dollars spent is beyond me).

Not only that but the purity of drugs has increased and the price has dropped over that time frame (for hard drugs) while every other commodoty on the face of the planet has quadroupled in price over the same time frame and there is no 'war' on any of those commodoties.

There is an organization of current and former police officers, police chiefs, dea agents, judges, etc who have come to the conclusion that the war on drugs is not only a complete failure but acutally harmful and serves to INCREASE CRIME. Cops are murdered, not because 'drug dealers are bad and don't care' but because drugs are illegal. Millions of non violent citizens are imprisoned which costs us tons of money, rips families apart, and leaves little kids without fathers so they are much more prone to grow up leading a bad and dangerous life.

The government LIES TO US. The war on drugs is not a war on drugs, it is a war on young people and people of color.

www.leap.cc advocates the legalizaiton of drugs to solve our CRIME and VIOLENCE problem. It is not an advocation of the use of drugs and not a solution to our 'drug problem'.

I found it very interesting and very convincing listening to what former DEA agents and former police chiefs have to say about the harm that the war on drugs does to us, our communities, and our country. I think that the use of drugs is bad but the reality is that the war on drugs has NOT changed the percentage of the population that is addicted to drugs. What is does is keep prices higher than they would be if drugs were legal, which in turn makes it much more likely for people who become addicted to eventually turn to stealing (and the use of violence to do so) to support their habbits. This in turn provokes cops into responding with violence and putting their lives at risk. As we all know many have been shot and killed fighting this 'war on drugs'. But drugs are still readily available even after 40 years of so called war on them.

When a commodoty is pushed underground in the black market (as drugs are since they are illegal) the suppliers must rely on violence to keep their businesses safe. Since they can't call the cops and report some dude stole drugs from them, and can't just let people get away with it because then everyone will steal from them and they will go broke they must use violence as a deterrent if they are in the drug supply business.

After all, it's not like they are going to build their own private jails and house everyone who tries to/steals from them because that just increases their business expenses plus opens them up to charges of kidnapping... so they use violence, frequently killing (since if they just beat someone down they must fear retaliation where the person comes back and kills them).

This is the same way it was when there was prohibtion against alcohol. Now alcohol distributors just call the cops when they have a problem because they do not have to fear the cops and they do not have to bear the costs of catching the person and punnishing them. Jail is the deterrent.

So some LE have realized what a complete failure the so called war on drugs is and they have formed an organization to inform the populace about this.

They have a 12 minute free video about 1/2 way down their main web page on the right side titled something like 'promotional video', very interestings and powerful stuff coming from ex DEA agents and ex police chiefs. They also speak across the country and around the world to education others.

This so called war has made cops paraniod for their safety (and rightly so since now about 10% of the population are criminals-addicts and casual usuers) they never know who has some large quantiy of drugs in their car when they pull them over and would rather shoot them than go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Plus, it solves nothing. Addicts don't get cured by cops interventions (sure some do, but not on any wide scale).

Alcohol contributes to MUCH MORE violence that other drugs do (if you take out the factor of people protecting their supply and using violence to avoid a lifetime in jail or doing what is essentially necessary to say in business....namely using violence to resolve disputes because they can't go to the cops).

This post has NOTHING to do with advocating or condoning drug use. It is about reducting violence and crime. Cigarette addicts and vodka addicts don't rob people at gunpoint to get their daily fix. Why? Because it is not illegal and therefore the cost is much lower. They can borrow, share, or beg to get their daily fix. Even the hardcore addicts. Hardcore hard drug addicts turn to prostitution and robbery to support their habbits because their daily habbit costs $100/day instead of $10/day.

It's that simple. Hard drug distributors are only violent because of the Drug War. Because they CAN NOT go to the cops to protect their business. They are also at a significant increased risk of being robbed because everyone knows this. No force of detectives investigating who did the theft.

Also they use violence to resolve turf disputes. Legal commoditites use legal means and accepted business practices to compete, alcohol distributors don't shoot each other to get a greater market share.

If drugs were legal all the ppl who currently sell them would be out of business in a heart beat. No way they could compete with CVS, Walgreens, etc. No way.

So check out what the former DEA and police chiefs who have been in the trenches for decades have to say.

www.leap.cc

free vid 1/2 way down the page on the right 'promotoinal video'. It might take a minute or 3 to load. There is a lot of other info on their site too.

Lets stop the violence and be sensible.

[40plusnewbie]

I'm going to post some posts that I have written previously on another forum related to this topic. Here is one:


Here's a little commentary that speaks to the title of the thread, at least in part:

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/drugissue_1.html

For the sake of this hypothetical commentary, let's assume that somehow, the problem with illegal drugs is made to go away.

POOF - It's Gone! - Here are the Results

Over a very short period of time, the illicit Heroin and Cocaine markets dry up.
People no longer need to steal to support their habits, therefore 'crimes to support habits' go away.
Heroin and Cocaine dealers go out of business.
Without the easy availability of these drugs to potential new users, the addiction rates drop.
With lower addiction rates, demand for the drugs goes away.
Street gangs terrorists and organized crime lose a major source of funding.
Columbian Cocaine farmers start planting Tobacco, Coffee or other legal drugs.
Worldwide supply dries up.
Problem goes away!
OOPS - Here is where we run into the problem!

Scenario: No More Drug Problem.

Results: Prisons reduce occupancy by more than 60%

Prison and correctional budgets ( and their associated Pork, such as facilities design, construction, staffing, maintenance and management contracts ) are cut by 60%

Over 60% of guards, wardens and other prison staff lose their jobs. Also 60% of the, court staff, prosecutors, judges, and LAWYERS have to go find productive work.

I don't think I have to say any more.

ANYTHING that puts lawyers (the bulk of Congress is lawyers) and their partners in the rip-off (judges, so-called corrections officers, police, etc.) out of work is never going to happen, regardless of what we, the American People demand.

The bureaucracy NEEDS illegal drugs to survive! Too much of the legal economy is dependent on them!

[40plusnewbie]

Some differences between mild drugs and hard drugs:

The mild drug that very, very many young people (and some older people use) is either mildly psychologically addictive or not addictive

One hard drug is highly psychologically addictive

The other hard drug is highly physicallly addictive

Also,

a days dose of the common mild drug for a heavy user costs what? 10 bucks? 20 tops??

a days dose of hard drugs costs $100 and up for a heavy user, $200 or more per day many times

of course it is irrrational to leave cigarettes and alcohol out of the picture because both are addictive, one of the two has very low positive benefit and huge negative effects (cigarettes) while the other, alcohol, is known to be used widely and connected to significant problems.

Of course with alcohol we use a sensible approach. We limit its access to adults and do not use police to interfere with possession and use, we reserve intervention from police to times when people are clearly violating the rights of others. Situations such as physical agression, driving under the influence, out of control domestic arguments/fights. People are not 'criminals' for having a case of beer or bottle of vodka in their trunk. They are not 'criminals' for having a supply of booze in their house. They are not subject to arrest for having a sixpack in a bag walking home to use it in the comfort and privacy of their own home.

When their use leads to behavior that is over the line we seek police intervention as a first line response, but we DO NOT consider police intervention until their behavior reaches that point. And even when a user is clearly known to be out of control with their use, someone who gets into fights regularly when using alcohol, or someone who screams and yells and threatens his wife, or someone who is drinking daily and physically dependent on it and their life is becoming increasingly centered around the consumptoin of the drug... we do not use the police to proactively strike and intervene. We do not say: Yeah Joe is coming home with a bottle of vodka again, we know what's gonna happen so lets call the police to arrest him because he's gonna be screaming in the streets in 2 hours. We do not consider his transporting the bottle of vodka to his home a crime.

When he screams in the street and tears off his own shirt yelling for someone to come out of their house to fight him (or whatever) we call the cops and they arrest him and take him to the police station. He is charged with disorderly conduct or whatever and goes in front of the judge. Depending on the severity of the crime, or when a pattern of arrests under the influence becomes clear, the courts negotiate with Joe to get treatment. Joe is threatened with a punnishment and offered a less severe punnishment with the conditions of being monitored and to get treatment.

But we ALWAYS wait until Joe does some agressing against society before we label him 'a criminal' and have the police intervene. We do not have police doing traffic stops and pressuring people into consenting to searches of their vehicles to find the drug alcohol "because it leads to bad behavior". We leave the police out of it until the bad behavior that harms others overtly emerges. (we do frequently seek other interventions such s forms of treatment for problematic use as families and friends of alcoholics but we do not turn them into criminals until their behavior crosses that line of becoming violent).

And even when there is a Joe in society whose life is clearly spiraling out of control, he starts to routinely miss work due to staying up all night getting drunk and sometimes gets drunk the next day after calling in sick... we do not consider having the police intervene. We recognize it 'as a problem' but do not see it as a situation for the police to handle. AA, family counseling, detox, interventions, counseling interventions at the job to direct the person toward treatment, etc. Even if Joe looses his job and his apartment, we do not seek police intervention. This is because their job is not one of social workers (albeit they are frequently put in such situtations and many try very hard to fill this role in efforts to help society).

Police have known domestic locations where alcohol use is problematic and leads to all sorts of family problems, life promblems, etc. They are called out there when there are fights and threats and violence. They are the first line of defense. They intervenE to remove the immediate threat once there is violence. They can not solve this families problems, drunk Joe's problems. He MAY get a reality check when police show up and decide to stop drinking, but this usually does not happen. When he goes to court the Judge and the prosecutor and Joe's own lawyer know he has drug abuse issues (which in Joe's case happens to be alcohol), and if they spend a few minutes thinking about it can probably surmise that he has some other emotional/psychological/relational/social/adjustment problems (just like anyone else who has spent a few minutes thinking about Joe). They are not even going to consider sending Joe back to the police station to address his issues because it is clearly not the role of the police. They are off intervening in the next situation that has escalated into a crisis. And the police do not want Joe back. They know they are not equiped to solve Joes problems.


Their specialty is CRISIS RESPONSE in DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. The more they are asked to, or expected to intervene in non crisis situations with an expectation that they will somehow solve the problems that MAY LEAD to crisis situations the more frustrated they become and the more frustrated society becomes with them. It's a friggin sad situation.

Lets talk about drug users for a little while. What is your perception of a mild user? An Alcohol user? A hard drug user? What is the police's perception of those? Do police consider hard drug users to be dirt bags? Scumbags? Lowlifes? Pieces of [censored]? Is there something inherent in their soles that makes them pieces of [censored] or scumbags? Do you consider them these things? Does your neighbor?

Lets take a look at hard drug users. There are lots of them. Why are 100% of these people considered 'criminals' for having a baggie of the substance in their car or their home or their pocket? Who have they harmed? Are there not cocaine users who do not go to the streets sreaming like maniacs like Joe did? Are there not cocaine users who are peaceful and do not agress violently against others? What about heroin users, are they all violent and dangerous? We label 100% of them felons the first time they put a baggie in their pockets because a higher percentage of them as compared to alcoholics will someday shoplift?

Hard drug (that originates in afganistan/the golden triangle) user wakes up and wants to get high. He tried it once and liked it. What does he do? Does he start to plot which store he is going to shoplift from? Which house he is going to burglerize? No, he doesn't. If he does not maintain controlled use, since the cost is so high (which is 100% the direct result of the criminalization of it, the 'war' on it... if it was legal and Mr. Poppy farmer could simply cultivate this and convert it into its common hard drug form and call UPS and ship it over it would cost like a million percent less lol) ... our hard drug user once he spends more than he can afford from his discretionary funds in that weeks earnings starts to drain his own bank account. He does not cause violence towards anyone. He is less violent than the alcohol user. He is not yelling and creating domestic issues. But he is a criminal 24/7, a FELON for having a pince of powder in his pocket. Police want to find that stuff in his pocket and put cuffs on him and take him to jail. They can't solve Joe alcoholics problems and they know it and everyone knows it but somehow its right for them to be chasing down everyone with a pinch of hard drugs in a baggie in their pocket?

We all accept as common knowledge that the cops job is not to catch Joe with alcohol in his trunk. Its not to put Joe in handcuffs for having alcohol in his car and take him to jail and slap some criminal charges on him. Parade him into court for alcohol possession. Give him a permanent police record which interferes with his future, for possession of alcohol. And even for the Joe's that start using problematically we know it's not the cops job to intervene for possession. It's their job to intervene when violence happens. They are crisis responders for dangerous situations. And we pretty much all love them for that.

Anyway our hard drug (that originates in afganistan/golden triangle) user. His savings are gone. No violence against society. NA, counseling, family therapy, pressure/guidance from his job to get treatment, etc we all pretty much proably agree would be a good idea for him. He's not harming me, and he's not harming you, but it's pretty clear from our perspective he's harming himself. If mr heroin user is my neighbor and friend what would you reccommend I do? Should I call the cops on him? Are the cops going to come over and give him a ride to an NA meeting? Are they going to invite him down to the station and provide him with a mentor to set him on a better life path? Are the cops going to invite him into their circle of friends so he has social connections?

Saving gone. Now he starts to max out his credit cards, he is still not acting violently towards others or robbing others. But he has been a felon the whole time since that first bag he bought months ago. Once his cards are maxed he starts to sell his stuff and borrow from family and friends. Then he stops paying his bills. Then he is evicted. Then he lives on random peoples couches. Then he moves into a homeless shelter. Now he's a shoplifter and very well known to the police. They know they cant do anything to stop him from using. They all want him to disappear from their sight and never see him again. They realize it is fruitless to arrest him and put him in the clink because he is not going to stop.

That is what happens to one slice of the hard drug (which originates in afgan/golden triangle) user population. The rich ones just use it and never do violence against society. And as long as they use in amounts that do not make them 'nod' they can function and lead long lives working without being identified as golden triangle drug users. If they can afford the $1,000 per week habit and use to maintain a steady high but not enought to nod you will never know. Rush Limbaugh maintained a steady high on oxy's for quite a while and is a very high functioning person (or at least seems to be, politics aside). That drug is very similar to the golden triangle drug, his route of administration was different and less time consuming, that's all. He did not steal or rob or act out violently.

The golden triangle drug does not make people violent or make them dangerous. It makes them get limp dick and gives them constipation. Cops can not fix societies alcohol problem and they can not fix societies heroin problem. why run them into the ground making them try?

[40plusnewbie]

There is nothing in hard drugs that makes the transportation or distribution of those substances tend towards violence. It is the illegality of the substances that do so.

A gym bag full of soft drugs that all the college kids use costs what, 5-10 grand? A gym bag full of hard drugs casts what, 300 grand? What does a gym bag full of money cost? $300 grand?
So If I want to acquire $300 grand and am willing to brandish a gun to do so I am incentivised to go after the hard drugs, or money because I will obtain 3000% more net gain from the hard drugs/money than I will from the common soft drug, all other things being equal.

And it is pretty common for people transporting a bag of money on a regular basis to carry a gun regardless of whether that money is 'legal', be they armored car drivers, legal businessmen, or a drug dealer.

So the hard drug guys and the money guy are almost certainly armed with lethal force while the soft drug guy is probalby not since he risks much much less. I can simply kick him in the balls and take his [censored], he doens't keep enough product and cash in one place for me to see him as a reasonable target. He is merely carrying the bag of pot which is much less at risk, so he is much less likely to be carrying a gun.

Robbing with a gun is not an everyday affair. Only a select minority of the population does this with proficiency, we are talking about professional armed robbers here, not
moron drug users who rob. They are a different issue, but I can address that as well. at a later time.

So I have my gun and I want to make my score, a nice score, I'm no small timer. So how do I decide? If I rob the hard drug dealer, so long as they do not know who I am I have a very, very high likelyhood of success. Remember I am a professional armed robber. I do my homework and develop a plan that maximizes my chances of success while minimizing my risk. And I keep my mouth shut about it afterword too. Either no one else knows I am doing this, or only a very select few who are my crew and are doing it with me know. We don't brag about it and don't even tell anyone about it. We are careful afterwards to
not show any signs that we just 'hit a score' by flashing cash or moving drugs to avoid attracting attention.

If I choose the hard drug dealer, so long as I can get away from them
physically and they do not know my identity, I am home free! This is true whether
I rob them of money, drugs, or a combination.

Why are they my target of choice over the armord car, or other legal business transporting money and/or goods?

If I rob the businessman or the armored car driver they have the entire city of police officers behind them as well as the national media. They set into motion a 24/7 investigation run by people with professional traning and experience in conducting
such investigations. So even if I get away from their presence I have a law enforcement machine hunting me. This starts moments after I am away from the scene. Dozens of armed officers are mobilized with their sophistocated communication systems. Once the investigation starts the trained detectives start interviewing anyone who they think can assist them. They can freely interview pretty much anyone on the planet to aid in their investigation. Whereas when the drug gang is robbed all they can do is put the word out to their network of users and sellers to be on the lookout
for someone throwing cash around or drugs around that did not have them before. The police investigation can go on for weeks and months. There is really no drug dealer investigation lol

If I rob the armored car/legal business I am in a cat and mouse game with trained professionals who work in shifts to catch me. Some of them live for this hunt. This is a huge disincentive in robbing the 'legal' bags of money. I get the same payoff but there is significanlty more risk in going after the 'legal' bags of money.

So the drug dealers are at significantly more risk of being jacked. These are the 'crimes' that you do not hear about on the news, but they sure as hell exist! And since the drug dealer can not mobilize the law machine to recoup their loss they deal with the inherent risk more proactively by being armed and ready to fire. They know they are screwed if I get the drop on them and have virtually no chance of 'catching me'once I am out of their site with their money/drugs. What else are they going to do besides being armed and ever viligant, post a sign saying "please don't rob me?"

There is no insurance to make the drug dealer whole. Their lifeblood is gone. All the risk they have lived with of spending a decade in jail is wasted. So they arm themselves as a means to address that risk and are hyperviligant about not becoming my prey.

They are VERY HIGH RISK targets. These crimes just don't make the news.

Assuming I can get the drop on both the businessman/armoured car and the drug dealer, the drug dealer is my target EVERY TIME.

So we can see that it is the fact that they can not seek legal means to protect their business which makes them a very lucrative target. This is one reason behind the high levels of violence in the drug world. The dealers become accustomed to carrying guns and remian in hypervigilant adrenaline charged states, and operate outside of the 'legal' system. They realize they are lucrative targets. Their profession is very high risk simply because it has been deemed illegal.

[40plusnewbie]

Prohibition that we had is a perfect example. Alcohol legal- people go buy and use it. Cops stroll by the stores where people are selling and using alcohol and don't give it a second thought. Just like they stroll by the laundrymat.

Make it illegal: All the businesses that were selling alcohol stop because they obey the law. They don't like to take wild risks that can land them in jail. They find another busines to open. BUT there is still demand from the populace. So.... everyone just gathers in a circle and says "oh well it's illegal now so lets just forget about it and hug"
Not! When there is a demand then unscrupulous people jump in to fill the demand. By the very act of entering the market of selling alcohol we know that they do not obey the law, or at least this law. But all unscrupulous people are not created equal. Some are more unscrupulous than others. And now the alcohol distributors can not call law enforcement to assist with problems and disputes. They can not access courts to settle disputes. So if they all just come to an agreement to have their little operations and no conflicts arise there is no violence.

But that doesn't happen, does it? And wereas the previous alcohol distributors were friendly with the cops and liked to have them around their stores, the new ones hate to have them around (unless they make contact with unscrupulous ones and pay them off to be left alone or to provide a mafia-esque protection service). They are now being hunted by the cops, who have guns and take people to prison and shoot them if they try to resist. So they have to decide, is it worth the risk? And a few leave the business.... but... there is still demand... so the risk is way up (jail or be shot) and this means they are not going to simply offer alcohol to the public at the old price, right?

This is a black market

In the black market there is no legal protection from theft. If no one wants to steal well that makes it a lot easer. But since we live in a society where people kill for money (like insurance payoffs) and kill for free (for emotional gratification such as anger and revenge, etc) is should not be surprising that people will steal.

And as I have demonstrated in an earlier post, the incentive to steal from a black market operation is significantly larger than to steal from an above ground 'white market' or 'legal' operation. Stealing requires ******* and/or force. Small time outfits are not effected in this way. Some dude mixing beer in his bathtub and selling to a close circle of friends is going to be ignored by the cops and by the robbers. Just like some kid selling soft drugs that he grows in his closet that he sells to friends.


So we understand that the black market merchant can not go to the cops for protection and that he is a huge target for theft....... because he can not go to the cops for protection. If he is big enough for robbers to want to steal from he has to decide: Get out of the business, OR find some other means of protection. This is where the violence comes in.

There is violence in the 'white market' or 'legal' business too but not as much because the cops are the protectiton for those businesses. The law machine is sophistocated and far reaching, hunting criminals is one of their specialties. And jail is the punnishment.

In the black market, mercenaries/violence specialists are the protection and.... death is the punnishment. What do you think they are going to do with a violator? (who would be sent to jail in the 'white market' and society as a whole shares the cost.)

Are they going to build their own private prisons and pay for 100% of the costs themselves? Pay for guards to watch the violators and feed them? (all the while opening themselves up to additional charges of kidnapping while the police machine hunts for this 'missing person'? Not! It doesn't work that way. They kill. (or administer beatings for more minor offences).

If you want set up some system where black market operators can utilize law enforcement and courts and jails, like some hotline where they can call and say "Hey I"m not gonna tell you my name, but C-Tone just jacked my crib. Pick his ass up and convict that mo fo, he deserves jail. I will be remaining anonymous of course because I don't want to expose my illegal business so I can't testify, but just trust me he did it and deserves punnishment" you can give it a try.

[40plusnewbie]

Why is it that every other commodity on the face of the earth (pretty much) has quadrupled in price over the past 25 years but hard drugs (which have been selectivly targeted for elimination by the government whereby a trillion of dollars have been spent 'fighting them') price has either remained constant or reduced?

Substitue drugs for any other commodity (say haynes underwear). Now the government sets out to go to war on haines underwear. They quadruple law enforcement and spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting haynes underwear. Thousands die from gunfights over the rights to control the distribution of haines underwear. Cops are shot and murdered. Innocent citizens are caught int the crossfire. Hundreds of thousands are paraded through our courts for possession of haines underwear. Jails are filled with haines uderwear dealers and users. We do a tally and find out that significanlty more haines uderwear are being imported into the country each year. We look around and the price of automobiles has trippled. House prices have trippled. Clothing, food, college, etc. All cost significantly more than they did 25 years ago and no one is fighting to get rid of them. No cops are raiding car dealerships and car manufactuer plants. No grocery stores or farms are raided with their food products conficated. And yet those goods have risen in price significantly. While a powerful government has spent a trillion dollars 'fighthing' haines underwear and it is cheaper 25 years later?

But the haines underwear, which is one single product out of thousands that there is a 'war' against is more widely available now at the same price as they were 25 years ago. LMAO

When in the hell are they gonna start a war on pizza (my favorite food)? I will be able to buy them for pennies in a couple decades lol
Call the president and tell him to start a 'war on vacations' I want to visit hawaii in a few years!

Car dealers have not been murdering each other or shooting at cops. Nor have college administrators or teachers. Not grocery store owners either. But cocaine dealers they have and yet the product flourishes at a cheaper price than ever.

Money and lives and familes down the toilet and nothing changes. One haines underwear dealer arrested and two more are shooting it out in the streets to take his place. Send in more cops to arrest them, risking their lives in the proces. Spend 50K annualy to lock each one of them up. Rince and repeat a hundred thousand times. Haines underwear is still widely available at a cheaper price.

Legalize drugs and guess what? Prices drastically drop. Every clown dope dealer is out of business overnight. Pharmacists take over. People buy products of a consistent potentcy without adulterants. They don't rob and steal to pay for them because they are leagal and affordable. They get accurate and professional safety information.

Crime and violence drops dramatically.

[40plusnewbie]

Our way, the beginning:

On April 3 1924, a group of American congressmen held an official hearing to consider the future of that drug that is manufactured from plants grown in afganistant/the golden triangle. They took sworn evidence from experts, including the US surgeon general, Rupert Blue, who appeared in person to tell their committee that heroin was poisonous and caused insanity and that it was particularly likely to kill since its toxic dose was only slightly greater than its therapeutic dose.

They heard, too, from specialist doctors, such as Alexander Lambert of New York's Bellevue hospital, who explained that "the herd instinct is obliterated by that drug manufactured from the plants grown in afganistan, and the herd instincts are the ones which control the moral sense ... makes much quicker the muscular reaction and therefore is used by criminals to inflate them, because they are not only more daring, but their muscular reflexes are quicker." Senior police, a prison governor and health officials all added their voices. Dr S Dana Hubbard, of the New York City health department, captured the heart of the evidence: "That drug that is manufactured from plants in afganistan addicts spring from sin and crime ... Society in general must protect itself from the influence of evil, and there is no greater peril than heroin."

The congressmen had heard much of this before and now they acted decisively. They resolved to stop the manufacture and use of that drug for any purpose in the United States and to launch a worldwide campaign of prohibition to try to prevent its manufacture or use anywhere in the world. Within two months, their proposal had been passed into law with the unanimous backing of both houses of the US Congress. The war against drugs was born.

To understand this war and to understand the problems of the afganistan plant bi-product drug in particular, you need to grasp one core fact. In the words of Professor Arnold Trebach, the veteran specialist in the study of illicit drugs: "Virtually every 'fact' testified to under oath by the medical and criminological experts in 1924 ... was unsupported by any sound evidence." Indeed, nearly all of it is now directly and entirely contradicted by plentiful research from all over the world. The first casualty of this war was truth and yet, 77 years later, the war continues, more vigorous than ever, arguably the longest-running conflict on earth.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsa...506730,00.html

No wonder why we are all conditioned to think of those drug addicts as pieces of [censored].

Here is a study from another country:

Medical prescription of that drug to treatment resistant addicts addicted to the drug manufactured from the plant grown in afganistan: two randomised controlled trials


Objective To determine whether supervised medical prescription of that drug can successfully treat addicts who do not sufficiently benefit from methadone maintenance treatment.
Design Two open label randomised controlled trials.

Participants 549 addicts of that drug.

Interventions Inhalable afgan refined drug (n = 375) or injectable (n = 174) prescribed over 12 months. The drug (maximum 1000 mg per day) plus methadone (maximum 150 mg per day) compared with methadone alone (maximum 150 mg per day). Psychosocial treatment was offered throughout.

- Now let me tell you 150mg of methadone is a HIGH DOSE and we are talking about giving that drug IN ADDITION to that. Up to 1000mg- that's a gram of that drug, that is one hell of a lot of 'bags'.

Results Adherence was excellent with 12 month outcome data available for 94% of the randomised participants.
(no kidding lol, but more importantly):

With intention to treat analysis, 12 month treatment with that drug plus methadone was significantly more effective than treatment with methadone alone in the trial of the inhalable form of that drug (response rate 49.7% v 26.9%; difference 22.8%, 95% confidence interval 11.0% to 34.6%) and in the trial of injectable route of administration of that drug (55.5% v 31.2%; difference 24.3%, 9.6% to 39.0%). Discontinuation of that drug coprescribed resulted in a rapid deterioration in 82% (94/115) of those who responded to the drug coprescribed. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across treatment conditions.

Conclusions Supervised coprescription of that drug is feasible, more effective, and probably as safe as methadone alone in reducing the many physical, mental, and social problems of treatment resistant addicts of that drug.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7410/310

Here's an example of where the Brit's messed up:


Prescribing that drug was standard British practice through the 1960s, and it was credited with keeping the number of addicts low. In 1971, there were 500 addicts, the Telegraph reported; now, after three decades of drug war, there are 500,000. In 1989, the National Health Service began an experimental program offering prescription heroin to addicts. Although the so-called Widnes or Liverpool experiment, run by psychiatrist Dr. John Marks, reported no drug-related deaths or new HIV infections in five years, and although local police reported a 93% drop in drug-related crime, the program's funding was pulled in 1995 after coverage on the TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes led to pressure from the US government on the British (http://www.drcnet.org/guide2-95/liverpool.html).

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...ugpolicy.shtml

The swiss seem to have their act together:

The liberalisation of drug laws in Zurich has led to a massive fall in the number of new heroin users, according to a study published yesterday. Now Britain, which has the highest number of drug deaths in Europe, is being urged to follow suit

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 02 June 2006

Drugs charities called yesterday for Britain to abandon its tough approach to that drug use after research showed one European city had cut the number of new addicts by transforming the image of that drug into a "loser drug".

The UK should follow the example of Zurich, which adopted a liberal drug policy a decade ago, and has seen an 82 per cent decline in new users of that drug, experts say.

The change has been achieved by offering drug addicts in Switzerland "substitution" treatment with injectable form of the drug on prescription, as well as oral methadone, needle exchange and "shooting galleries" where they can give themselves their fix.

The new approach has medicalised drug use and removed its glamour, researchers say. Crime and deaths linked with drugs have fallen, and the image of that drug use has been transformed from one of rebellion to an illness.

"Finally, that drug seems to have become a loser drug, with its attractiveness fading for young people," said Carlos Nordt of the Psychiatric University Hospital in Zurich.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...icle623415.ece

[40plusnewbie]

http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.p...195-000611.htm

In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work.

Prohibition doesn't work There is no evidence to show that prohibition is succeeding. The question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the benefits of criminalising any drug?" If, after examining all the available evidence, we find that the costs outweigh the benefits, then we must seek an alternative policy

[40plusnewbie]

In 2003, the “War on Drugs” cost $19 billion dollars in federal money alone. An estimate puts state costs at about the same level. That’s nearly forty billion dollars. That’s enough to pay for one million college students’ educations, per year.
That doesn’t even include the costs for arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and housing of the convicted. Around 10,000 people per year are incarcerated because of drug violations. Drug offenders make up over 60% of the US prison population. Housing them costs about $2 billion per year. The lost wages are estimated at about $4.2 billion per year. This doesn’t include the costs needed to try someone, which are surely astronomical.

http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/08/...ize-drugs.html

[JiGGaMaN]

While i agree with your position on the war on drugs, i disagree with the idea that potency/purity has increased. Thats simply not true at all. I also disagree with legalization bringing down the costs of heroin/crack addiction.

[Atomini]

While i agree with your position on the war on drugs, i disagree with the idea that potency/purity has increased. Thats simply not true at all. I also disagree with legalization bringing down the costs of heroin/crack addiction.

Legalization would bring down the costs of every single illicit drug due to the fact that the illicit street dealers would no longer have monopoly over it. What the drug war creates is a monopoly for the drug dealers. The drug war is actually designed to create profit FOR dealers and jack up the prices of the drugs. The less access people have to these drugs from other sources, and the less dealers are on the streets, the higher the price goes. Demand skyrockets and supply is limited. If you were a drug dealer, what better conditions to make money by jacking up your prices? As an example, just look at the prices of AAS right now concerning all the busts that have happened in the past year and a half or so.

Legalize drugs and the price falls through the floor, and all the street dealers, gangs, mafia, etc. go out of business and lose their monopoly.

Btw youre gonna have to edit out the drug names from all your posts here... it's a no-no to post recreational drug names on this forum.

[40plusnewbie]

Atomini is correct. If drugs were legal there would be no need for clandestine operations that cost extra money. There would be no need to pay people a premium for smuggling as they would not be risking 20 years in jail.

Which costs more, paying someone to bring a pair of socks across the border for you or paying someone to bring something that can put them away for life across the border for you?

As for purity, google it dude, but that's not the jist of my argument anyway.

If steroids were legal OTC tomorrow do you think they would cost more or less?

[SMCengineer]

I fully agree with everthing you posted, unfortunately this thread won't last.

[Atomini]

It's not even about people charging more money to run clandestine operations.

Look at it from a drug dealer's perspective: if you have 200 regular customers for any given recreational drug you're selling, and suddenly 5 other local drug dealers get busted or move away or stop selling, and you get 200 MORE customers due to the downfall of other dealers, then you have 400 eager and wanting customers at your fingertips that really badly want what you're selling. You can jack up the price as much as you want and most of those customers with nowhere else to get their stuff can ONLY go to you if they want. So, most of them will dish out their money for what they want. That's called monopoly.

I do believe, however, that if drugs were legal tomorrow WITH A TAX on them (like cigarettes), they wouldn't be much less costly than they are currently. If they were legal without some rediculous tax, then they'd be far less costly.

[40plusnewbie]

Look at it from a drug dealer's perspective: if you have 200 regular customers for any given recreational drug you're selling, and suddenly 5 other local drug dealers get busted or move away or stop selling, and you get 200 MORE customers due to the downfall of other dealers, then you have 400 eager and wanting customers at your fingertips that really badly want what you're selling. You can jack up the price as much as you want and most of those customers with nowhere else to get their stuff can ONLY go to you if they want. So, most of them will dish out their money for what they want. That's called monopoly.

I do believe, however, that if drugs were legal tomorrow WITH A TAX on them (like cigarettes), they wouldn't be much less costly than they are currently. If they were legal without some rediculous tax, then they'd be far less costly.

If those drugs were legalized all the current distributors would be out of business overnight.

The mafia, et al can not compete with large 'legal' corporations. If they could they would be competing against them selling clothing, cars, soda, coffee, etc, etc, etc. The fact of the matter is that they can not compete with 'legitimate' business. They don't have the expertise. If they could they would. After all they are in the business of making money just like any other corporation.

Again. This thread has nothing to do with a stance that any drugs should be taken or that they are good for you.

Ending the war on drugs is a solution to the crime and violence problem, not the drug problem.

The fact of the matter is the percentage of addicts in the population in the usa has remained constant from before the harrison drug act, to after the war on drugs was declared, up until today.

That video I referenced at www.leap.cc gives an interesting statistic at the end. It shows how many black people were imprisoned under apartied in south africa per 100,000 and compares it to the number of black people in the usa who are imprisoned under the war on drugs in america per 100,000. It's waaay more in america under the war on drugs.

Jack Cole, co-founder of leap says "If that's not an example of institutionalized racism, I don't know what is." I have corresponded with him and he doesn't live too far from me. He's a hero for doing what he is doing as far as I am concerned.

[MuscleScience]

Took my advice to post up the leap.cc link, see I am a genuis....LOL

[FallenWyvern]

All I know is that there aren't any drug dealers openly dealing drugs or drug addicts doing drugs in public in my neighborhood where my kids play.

I like the laws the way they are.

People are going to do drugs no matter what the laws are.

If you want drugs, deal with the drug dealer, pay a lot and do it behind closed doors.

If it is legal, it will be cheap and in front of my kids.

[MuscleScience]

All I know is that there aren't any drug dealers openly dealing drugs in my neighbor hood where my kids play.

I like the laws the way they are.

People are going to do drugs no matter what the laws are.

If you want drugs, deal with the drug dealer, pay a lot and do it behind closed doors.

If it is legal, it will be cheap and in front of my kids.

It will still have a negative social stigma. Kids will not have anymore access to it now than they already do. Plus if a teen screws up and has something on them and gets pulled over after leaving a party at college. They will not loss the ability to receive financial aid from the government, that other convected felons still have the ability to get.

[JiGGaMaN]

All I know is that there aren't any drug dealers openly dealing drugs or drug addicts doing drugs in public in my neighborhood where my kids play.

And if they are, what of it? Its not like you can sit there and shelter your kids from the real world.

[FallenWyvern]

It will still have a negative social stigma. Kids will not have anymore access to it now than they already do. Plus if a teen screws up and has something on them and gets pulled over after leaving a party at college. They will not loss the ability to receive financial aid from the government, that other convected felons still have the ability to get.

I am certain that if drugs were legal, my 9 year old would have been exposed to them by now.

She hasn't yet.

When she is a teenager, she might/will be exposed, and she might partake, in private, behind closed doors, not in front of a nine year old. I would hope also that it is expensive too.

The laws are fine now. People still do drugs, but it is expensive and underground. Just like steroids.


I do think that the most common smoked drug should be legal, not a fan myself, but I don't see the harm.

[FreeDOOM]

If drugs were legal they would still not be able to be sold on the street corner and i gurantee the age limit would be somewhere around 21-25. You would still go to jail if you took them under age, bought them off a street corner or were driving under the influence. The government would regulate them just like they do any other drug. The problem is what drug company's are going to start making crack cocaine or heroine? They would be to afraid the junkies would start suing them over their addictions. Also If they would make them legal they should require everyone who wants to take them to go through a nice long class/seminar where they learn all about them and their effects and be issued a licenses to use. At any rate it will never happen, this war on drugs is about power over the people and money. There is simply to much money in trying to stop drugs, to many government employs. Government will never harm itself. It will only feed and grow until one day it is so big it has a heart attack.

[MuscleScience]

I am certain that if drugs were legal, my 9 year old would have been exposed to them by now.

She hasn't yet.

When she is a teenager, she might/will be exposed, and she might partake, in private, behind closed doors, not in front of a nine year old. I would hope also that it is expensive too.

The laws are fine now. People still do drugs, but it is expensive and underground. Just like steroids.


I do think that the most common smoked drug should be legal, not a fan myself, but I don't see the harm.

I really feel that the laws for the drug dealers are fair, lets put it that way....lol. I do not think that anyone should be charged and jailed for felony possession of drugs. Which is the vast majority of drug convictions and arrest. There are 440,000 people in jail right now for none violent drug offenses, more than the total amount of prisoners in countries in europe.

The addiction rate to drugs has not changed in 100 years according to the US Governments own statistics despite all our Trillions of dollars spent on the drug war. The cost to morally police americans is without reason and hurts americas and citizens of other nations.

[MuscleScience]

If drugs were legal they would still not be able to be sold on the street corner and i gurantee the age limit would be somewhere around 21-25. You would still go to jail if you took them under age, bought them off a street corner or were driving under the influence. The government would regulate them just like they do any other drug. The problem is what drug company's are going to start making crack cocaine or heroine? They would be to afraid the junkies would start suing them over their addictions. Also If they would make them legal they should require everyone who wants to take them to go through a nice long class/seminar where they learn all about them and their effects and be issued a licenses to use. At any rate it will never happen, this war on drugs is about power over the people and money. There is simply to much money in trying to stop drugs, to many government employs. Government will never harm itself. It will only feed and grow until one day it is so big it has a heart attack.

I think you read my mind

[FallenWyvern]

I really feel that the laws for the drug dealers are fair, lets put it that way....lol. I do not think that anyone should be charged and jailed for felony possession of drugs. Which is the vast majority of drug convictions and arrest. There are 440,000 people in jail right now for none violent drug offenses, more than the total amount of prisoners in countries in europe.

Sounds like it is a stupidity test then. Don't be a dealer.

[MuscleScience]

Sounds like it is a stupidity test then. Don't be a dealer.

hahahha, true its stupid now but money speaks volumes. Most drug dealers can continue to run their enterprises from jails.

[SMCengineer]

William F. Buckley (founder of National Review) on the War on Drugs:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-4bYI6fwZU
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32cs6mBA2Fc

[Atomini]

hahahha, true its stupid now but money speaks volumes. Most drug dealers can continue to run their enterprises from jails.

And they do. It is infact easier to obtain drugs in prison than it is out here in the outside world. If criminals in prisons can get it, what makes anyone think we can eliminate drugs here? Rediculous idea.

Drug laws are designed to benefit drug dealers.

[40plusnewbie]

Your daughter may or may not see drugs on the streets now. She may or may not be exposed to them at age 9.

But she is at a much greater risk of being home while your house gets robbed by some addicted person trying to get money to pay for their drugs. If drugs were legal, like alcohol and cigarettes, their cost would be much less and addicts would not resort to violent crimes to acquire the money to pay for them.

So your daughter is at greater risk of being murdered under the current drug war be if from some home robbery gone bad or from some stray bullet where drug dealers are fighting it out in the streets.

Alcohol distributors and their customers don't shoot each other and don't shoot at cops. As a result innocent 9 year olds don't get caught in the crossfire.

That is the part of the puzzle you are ignoring. I had an armed man enter my residence in the middle of the night before and come at me with a knife the size of his forearm. He was looking to steal stuff to get money for drugs. People don't do that to get money for cigarettes or alcohol, despite them both being physically addictive. Why? They are legal and therefore they don't cost an arm and a leg to purchase.

What are you going to think of yourself if your daughter is home when some junkie breaks in to steal the vcr and she ends up getting killed?

And what about the 50K or so your going to pay over your lifetime to support the war on drugs, money that could be used to send your daugher to college, or pay for a downpayment for a house for her?

If you don't have enough parental skill to keep your 9 year old away from using drugs I don't know what to say.

[40plusnewbie]

Look at it from a drug dealer's perspective: if you have 200 regular customers for any given recreational drug you're selling, and suddenly 5 other local drug dealers get busted or move away or stop selling, and you get 200 MORE customers due to the downfall of other dealers, then you have 400 eager and wanting customers at your fingertips that really badly want what you're selling. You can jack up the price as much as you want and most of those customers with nowhere else to get their stuff can ONLY go to you if they want. So, most of them will dish out their money for what they want. That's called monopoly.

This is kind of off the point of my post, but your ignoring the fact that there are other dealers and other suppliers ready and willing to step in and take the place of the ones who are arrested. We all know this because it's been happening for decades.

What is going on is that the demand for drugs is what economists call 'inelastic', it really doesn't change that much.

From wikipedia:
In economics and business studies, the price elasticity of demand (PED) is a measure of the sensitivity of quantity demanded to changes in price. It is measured as elasticity, that is it measures the relationship as the ratio of percentage changes between quantity demanded of a good and changes in its price. Water is a good example of a good that has inelastic characteristics in that people will pay anything for it (high or low prices with relatively equivalent quantity demanded), so it is not elastic. On the other hand, sugar is very elastic because as the price of sugar increases, there are many substitutions which consumers may switch to.
end quote

The profit for dealers comes because the profit margin for black market goods is much, much greater than the profit margin for white market goods. There is a premium charged do to the risk of being killed and or imprisonded, risks that the typical white market dealer does not face.

[40plusnewbie]

All I know is that there aren't any drug dealers openly dealing drugs or drug addicts doing drugs in public in my neighborhood where my kids play..

If drugs were legal all of the people who currently deal drugs would be out of the drug dealing business overnight. Drugs would be regulated and distributed more like alcohol.

I like the laws the way they are...

Why? Please share.

People are going to do drugs no matter what the laws are.

True. So why do you support policies that get police murdered, turn the entire population of our country ages 16-23 into 'suspects' (i.e. a high likelyhood they have that stuff that some people smoke on them) and also turns most of the population of black and brown people into suspects? Why do you support policies that turn non-violent, non-stealing people into felons and send them to prison which costs us billions of dollars and also puts those same people in a position where they are at a much greater risk of failing at life as now that have 'felon' stamped on their record? Why do you support a policy that turns millions of people into theifs where they rob stores and break into houses to get money to support their daily maintenance dose of some drug? Why do you support a policy that gets thousands of people murdered each year, turning thousands of 9 year olds into orphans? Why do you support a policy that puts control of a products street level distribution into the hands of millions of teenage gang members with little to no brains and a willingness to murder as part of their business model?

If it is legal, it will be cheap and in front of my kids.

Bleach is cheap and in front of your kids, are you afraid they might start drinking THAT?

Paint is cheap and in front of your kids, are you afraid they are going to start sniffing it?

Alcohol is cheap and in front of your kids, are you afraid your kids are going to start knocking back shots of whiskey?

[gixxerboy1]

All I know is that there aren't any drug dealers openly dealing drugs or drug addicts doing drugs in public in my neighborhood where my kids play.

I like the laws the way they are.

People are going to do drugs no matter what the laws are.

If you want drugs, deal with the drug dealer, pay a lot and do it behind closed doors.

If it is legal, it will be cheap and in front of my kids.

as a teen drugs were easier to get then alcohol. Drug dealers will sell to anyone. Its harder to find an adult or a store to sell you alcohol

[FallenWyvern]

Big disconnect here.

I have a good life. No crime around me, no drugs. I like it the way it is.

What you are saying might change that.

You can still can get drugs now and I don't care. Go ahead. Sorry if you are inconvenienced and that you have to deal with criminal drug dealers and that it is expensive for you. I am so sorry that you can't do drugs in public and that you have to do it underground in private.

I will pay much, much more than $50,000 in taxes for that. That's a good deal, the US is a nice place to live.

I doubt this will be a fruitful discussion for either of us.

[Atomini]

Big disconnect here.

I have a good life. No crime around me, no drugs. I like it the way it is.

What you are saying might change that.

You can still can get drugs now and I don't care. Go ahead. Sorry if you are inconvenienced and that you have to deal with criminal drug dealers and that it is expensive for you. I am so sorry that you can't do drugs in public and that you have to do it underground in private.

I will pay much, much more than $50,000 in taxes for that. That's a good deal, the US is a nice place to live.

I doubt this will be a fruitful discussion for either of us.

Say that to one of the many thousands of inconvenienced Americans living in crime-ridden and drug infested neighborhoods where drug-related violence and murder occurs on a daily and weekly basis due to this whole drug war. Just because you may feel safe in some suburb unaffected by the drug war, doesn't mean it's this way in America everywhere. None of this was happening in America before prohibition.

Your attitude is the same attitude as the civilians in WW1 or WW2 or any other war: "I'm safe and happy over here, I don't see any horrors or destruction on my end, i'm still living a comfortable life, and i'm not getting shipped out to war, so screw the war and the war effort!"

[40plusnewbie]

Big disconnect here.


You can still can get drugs now and I don't care. Go ahead. Sorry if you are inconvenienced and that you have to deal with criminal drug dealers and that it is expensive for you. I am so sorry that you can't do drugs in public and that you have to do it underground in private.

This is where the disconnect is. Either you didn't take the time to read my posts, or your lacking in reading comprehention skills. I clearly stated more than once I believe that my posts have NOTHING to do with advocating or condoning drug use and EVERYTHING to do with reducing VIOLENCE and CRIME.

Why on earth would you assume that I wish to purchase hard or soft drugs, or use them?

Do you think that the former DEA agents and former judges and police chiefs at www.leap.cc are advocating for the abolishment of drug prohibition becuase they use hard drugs or soft drugs and want to get them cheaper? lol

You are making a lot of false assumptions about me, basically pulling them out of your ass as far as I can tell. If you don't mind, could you put them back up there where they belong? Thanks.

I care about the lives of police officers, maybe you don't.

I care about the lives of children whose parents are murdererd needlessely and who grow up as orphans due to the policy of drug prohibition, maybe you don't.

I care about the Trillion dollars in taxes that have been pissed down the rathole, gone forever, with nonthing to show for it but a bunch of blood in the streets, millions inprisoned, millions of families torn apart, cops harrasshing non violent teenagers and NOTHING CHANGES.

If you live in an upper middle class neighborhood I doubt there would be a large influx of drug addicts going to the local walgreens to purchase narcotics should they become legal. Why? They can't afford the rent in those districts. And the ones who can never resort to any type of public distubrance behavior anyway, they have it delivererd and use in the privacy of their own homes anyway so it remains behind closed doors regardless of whether or not it is illegal or legal.

God forbid, if your daughter ever gets caught up being the victim of some violent crime related to drugs, your additutude and behavior is contributing to the climate that makes such circumstances possible.

BTW, you didn't answer any of my questions. That is very telling. It is plain as day that you have not spent much, if any, time thinking about this issue. I suggest you educate yourself about what is really going on.

Nice smear on my character btw (officially referred to as an ad hominum)... assuming i want cheap legal drugs so I can use them myself and attacking me on that basis rather than discussing the issues I have raised or answering the questions I have posed ot you.

And your right, we don't have much to discuss, so long as you ingnore evidence and avoid reading and listening to people who actually know something about this matter rather than relying on what the government propaganda machine has pumped into your home over the past 20 years. Some say ignorance is bliss. I am not one of those people.

[40plusnewbie]

Say that to one of the many thousands of inconvenienced Americans living in crime-ridden and drug infested neighborhoods where drug-related violence and murder occurs on a daily and weekly basis due to this whole drug war. Just because you may feel safe in some suburb unaffected by the drug war, doesn't mean it's this way in America everywhere. None of this was happening in America before prohibition.

Your attitude is the same attitude as the civilians in WW1 or WW2 or any other war: "I'm safe and happy over here, I don't see any horrors or destruction on my end, i'm still living a comfortable life, and i'm not getting shipped out to war, so screw the war and the war effort!"

Great post!

Screw everyone else so long as thing are the way *I* want them. I could care less if thousands are needelessly murdered every year, if tens of thousands of families are ripped apart, leading to never ending cycles of poverty and maladaptive behavior...so long as my wittle girl doesn't know what cocaine is when she is 9 years old it's worth it!

Does not speak higly of your parental skills at all my friend.
Anyone who can not keep their 9 year old child in the suburbs away from smoking crack is a terrible parent, extremely neglectful.

My kids will not be drinking bleach, sniffing paint, smoking drugs, etc at the age of 9 regardless of how many of the people around them do. Why? My approach to parenting.

Why is it some people grow up in the ghetto and turn into teenager murderers and some graduate high school and go to college? Family/positive role model influence. That's why.

If they can do it for their kids in the crime ridden ghetto and your afraid you CAN'T do it in the lilly white suburbubs I suggest you have some real soal searching to do about your degree of confidence in your own parenting skills and abilities. For real, regardless of our disagreement on this matter.

[RuhlFreak55]

And if they are, what of it? Its not like you can sit there and shelter your kids from the real world.

that's what i was gonna say.....being naive never helped anyone