War on Drugs

[sd'sker]

The 'war on drugs' is a critical and worthwhile expenditure that the US government has been conducting since at least 1970. .

lulz!!1!!!! i have never heard anyone say this in my entire life. it is just an excuse to attack and smother latin american nations who elect leaders we find disagreeable.

[Conga3]

The 'war on drugs' is a critical and worthwhile expenditure that the US government has been conducting since at least 1970. .

Now we're talking. (And I guess that you've abandoned your demand that I back up my statements with facts, bro?)

 

No arguments that combatting illegal drug abuse is critical. From what I've seen I'd like to see the following changes in our strategy:

 

1. Focus more attention on treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts rather than straight incarceration.

2. Simultaneously, maintain or increase the penalties for distributing narcotics.

3. Where fiscally prudent, expand the training and deployment of canine units.

4. Increase cooperation with foreign governments (Mexico - methamphetamine, Columbia - cocaine, etc.) to intercept shipments both inside and outside of the US.

5. Decriminalize marijuana.

 

Thoughts?

 

1, rehab is for quitters.

2. agreed. death penalty texas style for drugs distributed of 'foreign' origin. (read dirty mexican weed)

3. everyone likes dogs

4. no

5. legalize cocaine, shrooms, acid, opium, peyote, and DMT for productive adults over the age of 25 who do not receive government assistance in any form and do not have any children under the age of 18.

6. marijuana remains illegal, it's a gateway drug and we gotta protect the children - but I might be persuaded if a good argument is made.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

[carlfense]

1, rehab is for quitters.

2. agreed. death penalty texas style for drugs distributed of 'foreign' origin. (read dirty mexican weed)

3. everyone likes dogs

4. no

5. legalize cocaine, shrooms, acid, opium, peyote, and DMT for productive adults over the age of 25 who do not receive government assistance in any form and do not have any children under the age of 18.

6. marijuana remains illegal, it's a gateway drug and we gotta protect the children - but I might be persuaded if a good argument is made.

What?

[Conga3]

1, rehab is for quitters.

2. agreed. death penalty texas style for drugs distributed of 'foreign' origin. (read dirty mexican weed)

3. everyone likes dogs

4. no

5. legalize cocaine, shrooms, acid, opium, peyote, and DMT for productive adults over the age of 25 who do not receive government assistance in any form and do not have any children under the age of 18.

6. marijuana remains illegal, it's a gateway drug and we gotta protect the children - but I might be persuaded if a good argument is made.

What?

OK, that wasn't completely serious.

 

Dead serious about #3 and #5 though.

[Conga3]

BTW, please update your birthday so I know how old you are. Edit your profile.

 

I can tell from your posts you are much younger than me, but if you're too young I might decide to censor my posts. Gotta protect the children.

[carlfense]

I can tell from your posts you are much younger than me, but if you're too young I might decide to censor my posts.

You're much older than me and you use the word "bro?"

 

Yikes.

[BigRedBuster]

The 'war on drugs' is a critical and worthwhile expenditure that the US government has been conducting since at least 1970. .

Now we're talking. (And I guess that you've abandoned your demand that I back up my statements with facts, bro?)

 

No arguments that combatting illegal drug abuse is critical. From what I've seen I'd like to see the following changes in our strategy:

 

1. Focus more attention on treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts rather than straight incarceration.

2. Simultaneously, maintain or increase the penalties for distributing narcotics.

3. Where fiscally prudent, expand the training and deployment of canine units.

4. Increase cooperation with foreign governments (Mexico - methamphetamine, Columbia - cocaine, etc.) to intercept shipments both inside and outside of the US.

5. Decriminalize marijuana.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

The first 12 posts in this thread should just be deleted.

 

The war on drugs is very frustrating. I think it is a necessity just like we must always now fight against terrorism in one form or another. The problem will always be here and we must always fight against it.

 

However, surely there are things we can do better. I can't disagree with very many of the points you posted Carl.

 

As for #1, I know drug problems persist in every economic level. However, I am most concerned about the lower income people who have absolutely NOTHING to their name but are addicted to this drug life style that literally ruins their entire world and they can be taken advantage of in forms of prostitution and other crimes.

 

I agree that we need to put more into rehab instead of incarceration. However, I will put one more point on this. To receive public assistance such as welfare...etc, the person should be required to undergo a drug test. I am required to do that for my job along with many of the other millions of people who have jobs. Welfare is supposed to be a system to assist a person to support themselves while they imrpove their lot in life. It isn't supposed to be how they survive long term. NOBODY is going to get off of welfare while they are on drugs. If they can be put into rehab and they can see the difference that makes in their lives and THEN we can give them welfare while they get their life back together, the entire welfare system will be much more successful. Nobody can make a clear cut effort to get off of welfare and take care of themselves while they are in a drug infested state.

[carlfense]

I agree that we need to put more into rehab instead of incarceration. However, I will put one more point on this. To receive public assistance such as welfare...etc, the person should be required to undergo a drug test. I am required to do that for my job along with many of the other millions of people who have jobs. Welfare is supposed to be a system to assist a person to support themselves while they imrpove their lot in life. It isn't supposed to be how they survive long term. NOBODY is going to get off of welfare while they are on drugs. If they can be put into rehab and they can see the difference that makes in their lives and THEN we can give them welfare while they get their life back together, the entire welfare system will be much more successful. Nobody can make a clear cut effort to get off of welfare and take care of themselves while they are in a drug infested state.

That didn't work too well when it was tried in Florida.

[Conga3]

I can tell from your posts you are much younger than me, but if you're too young I might decide to censor my posts.

You're much older than me and you use the word "bro?"

 

Yikes.

 

That's your response? I thought you were interested in discussing the "war of drugs" which is simply code phrase for, "the government spends too much money fighting a stupid war when they could spend it on _____, and oh by the way, legalize weed." Fill in the blank with some sort of welfare program.

 

I'm a bit of a libertarian. I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I despise government waste and welfare programs designed to accumulate dependent recipients instead of provide temporary relief.

 

Legalize weed? Sure, but don't stop there, and only on a conditional "privilege" basis. Actually, I'd probably only want this law passed if it were an amendment to the constitution so future legislatures couldn't water it down like they do everything else.

 

I got lots of ideas...but if you just want to decriminalize weed because you think it doesn't hurt anyone and you do it anyway...blah blah blah. I'm not going to agree with you.

[BigRedBuster]

I agree that we need to put more into rehab instead of incarceration. However, I will put one more point on this. To receive public assistance such as welfare...etc, the person should be required to undergo a drug test. I am required to do that for my job along with many of the other millions of people who have jobs. Welfare is supposed to be a system to assist a person to support themselves while they imrpove their lot in life. It isn't supposed to be how they survive long term. NOBODY is going to get off of welfare while they are on drugs. If they can be put into rehab and they can see the difference that makes in their lives and THEN we can give them welfare while they get their life back together, the entire welfare system will be much more successful. Nobody can make a clear cut effort to get off of welfare and take care of themselves while they are in a drug infested state.

That didn't work too well when it was tried in Florida.

 

 

Why?

[carlfense]

That's your response?

That's my response to your question about my age. I think the age limit for calling someone "bro" should be around 21. That wasn't my response to the topic as a whole but to one post only. Catch the difference?

 

I thought you were interested in discussing the "war of drugs" which is simply code phrase for, "the government spends too much money fighting a stupid war when they could spend it on _____, and oh by the way, legalize weed." Fill in the blank with some sort of welfare program.

So you don't think that the government spends too much on a failing war on drugs? I don't think the money saved should go to anything but deficit reduction. Is that ok with you?

 

 

Legalize weed? Sure, but don't stop there, and only on a conditional "privilege" basis.

A libertarian wants conditions attached to freedoms? I guess that's where the "bit of a libertarian" part comes into play. Marijuana is small potatoes compared to some of the harder drugs. That's why legalization of that drug doesn't concern me.

 

...but if you just want to decriminalize weed because you think it doesn't hurt anyone and you do it anyway...blah blah blah.

I most definitely don't do it anyways. In fact, I doubt that I'd do it if it were legal. I'll stick to my booze and coffee, thanks.

 

 

I'm not going to agree with you.

[carlfense]

Why?

It wasn't cost effective.

[BigRedBuster]

I would be interested in information on that. Probably more specific information than what can be provided here.

 

I believe this is something that would need to be in place for a very long time and see a trend over time.

 

On one side, you have the cost of the welfare and the incarceration when someone gets caught with drugs. You also have the cost of all the crime that goes along with the drug lifestyle.

 

On the other side, you have the cost of rehab and the testing.

 

Now, saying that, I fully understand that the success of the rehab is going to be lower for this group than people who go to rehab on their own will.

 

I just don't know how you can quantify the "it wasn't cost effective".

 

If you are simply looking at the cost of the welfare compared to rehab...then yes...but, that isn't the entire story.

[sd'sker]

I just don't know how you can quantify the "it wasn't cost effective".

pretty simply, actually; drug testing the recipients costed more than they saved in denying benefits.