1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

War on drugs-A JOKE

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Bisi, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    What is the old saying - the government doesn't care what you do as long as you cut em in the action. Now they got their money so everything is forgiven.
     
  2. Shooting Sailor

    Shooting Sailor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,083
    HSBC - Hong Kong Shanghai Bank of Canada.

    The Chinese government owns what percentage of the American national debt?

    The Chinese government owns or controls what percentage of HSBC?

    Does it make sense to piss off the financial entity that owns a percentage of your debt? Or that MAY perhaps let you go further in debt to them?

    Not if you are the government of the US of A, apparently.
     
  3. kenf

    kenf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,016
    A modern day make work program. Just think on the federal level alone how many jobs would be gone if everything was legalized today.
     
  4. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,006
    The so called war on drugs could be more or less won tomorrow with legalization.

    Would there still be addicts? Yes. Would there be any more addicts with legalization? No. Could the money being spent on this mind boggling scam be better spent on treatment and education? Yes.

    So why no legalization? Because there is no money in it. Because an endless parade of beurocrats and cops would not have a purpose for being.


    Darr
     
  5. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,357
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    Any war has collateral damage, often hurting innocent folks, while not stopping enemy combatants.

    The War On Drugs is no different. It simply drives up the price on an available product, causing those addicted to take ever more desperate steps to get their high.

    I think China has the right policy on drug dealers.
     
  6. joneseboy

    joneseboy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    127
    My wife is from Taiwan and we go there about every other year. At there international airport when we arrive to go through costumes there is a large sign that says in english "Drug Trafficing Will Be punishable By Death". I feel safer there then here and they don't have a crime problem.
     
  7. Johnny

    Johnny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,804
    Yes , it's a joke.

    What is the most abused drug in the USA?
     
  8. 635 G

    635 G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,229
    If the war on drugs ended , there would be 15% unemployment in the U S. In my opinion, its akin to saying Scotch is OK, but Vodka is a no no--- If you can afford what it costs to do drugs-go ahead, Here it is we're supporting Afghanistan--- the biggest drug field in the world.

    Phil Berkowitz
     
  9. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    "What is the most abused drug in the USA?" Easy peasy, alcohol. But even more addictive and harmful is nicotine. But they are LEGAL drugs.

    One of the problems with the War of Drugs is forfeiture. The cops are addicted to it. To the point where they have forfeiture without convictions. Oregon put a stop to that practice; there must be a conviction before forfeiture here. Another problem is the cops wind up going after the easy money. Meth addicts don't have much if any property to forfeit. It all goes to drugs. Pot heads usually had property of some sort. So the cops go after the pot heads so they can get forfeiture money and ignore the meth addicts. Pot heads usually are not a menace to society, whereas meth users steal obscene amounts of property or commit robberies. And the cops have seized cars and boats simply because a passenger had a joint in their pocket or purse.

    Then there is the collateral damage being done to innocent parties from botched raids. There is no justification for this whatsoever. The police are seldom held criminally liable, and often they skate for civil penalties. Actually, strike that. The cops ALWAYS skate because the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

    In my opinion, the cops need to refocus their priorities, plus make serious changes to prevent the deaths of innocent people. Or they need to end the War on Drugs.
     
  10. morepowder

    morepowder TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    You can compare the war on drugs to the Vietnam war.



    1. we have been at it longer

    2. we have spent more money on it

    3. we have lost more lives on it



    The only positive thing is we have taken more prisoners.
     
  11. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    How about we have a war on corruption? No, that would never fly. 99.9% of politicians would have to be prosecuted.
     
  12. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    Can anyone actually point to a nation that has legalized drugs on this scale and actually benefited from it? Scandinavia tried it and is going back. Too many more on welfare, unable or unwilling to work, and the cost of treatment and crime skyrocketing.

    I don't think we can afford another drug like alcohol?

    Kip
     
  13. Auctioneer

    Auctioneer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,965
    Lets see. This gov catches a drug person. They take the car or car's, the land, the house, and anything else they think was bought by drug money and then auction it off. They take the money from bank accounts or the money being sent back to Mex. There is to much money in it to stop the drug trade. That is one reason why they will not legalize the drugs.
     
  14. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,006
    Kip I don't care what other nations have done. What I don't care about are other nations. I care about the USA. I do care about history. I do know prohibition did not go so well.


    I also know that every time freedom is used it works. The free market says that pot, or coke, or whatever can be produced for far less than it can be obtained for now. I also know that if drugs were legalized today there would be the same amount of addicts tomorrow. Nobody that was abstaining from drugs today would do them tomorrow because they are legal. It is always more productive to allow people to do the right thing than it is to make them do the right thing. And when I say that I mean it within the range of common sense.

    Let us help the people that need help. Next, let's stop paying the cartels. Then, and only then, can we move on to the next problem.

    Darr
     
  15. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    "Can anyone actually point to a nation that has legalized drugs on this scale and actually benefited from it?"

    The United States before the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914??
     
  16. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    Darr & Bisi,

    With all due regard, There is empirical evidence to the contrary. Morphine was once known as the "Soldier's drug", and was reaching epidemic abuse proportions at the turn of the century. The British used Opium to control the Chinese population for decades.

    The reason for the Harrison Act was, again, an alarming increase on addictions. Some scholars believe that a component of Harrison was racial & minority control on the scale of China's opium addictions. The same addictions Chinese coolies brought to San Fransisco.

    History, and experience clearly indicates substantial increases in addiction when such substances are freely available. There is also the population component. Today, any increase in addiction would be extremely harmful to sober citizens, not to mention likewise devastation on families (like alcoholics). i.e., in 1914 people had little to fear in a drunken/stoned horse and buggy driver. High-speed auto's and 8X the population are a different story.

    I'm curtailed by pending duties right now, but I'll add to my list of references here, as time allows. I am very interested in this topic and look forward to hearing what that your views could provide.

    http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

    Kip
     
  17. Tripod

    Tripod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Iowa man!!
    The problem as I see it is who will sustain the lives of the druggies? Right now anyone who chooses not to contribute to society gets their social welfare given to them by the productive class. I see them using alcohol, tobacco, sporting tattoos and pretty much living the lifestyle of the working class. Until that is somehow resolved I will not care too much about the dopers.
     
  18. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,006
    So Kip, are you suggesting that substances aren't presently freely available. I haven't done illegal drugs for 30 years and I'll bet I could find some in a couple of hours.


    I would say there is "empirical evidence" that the war on drugs hasn't solved anything. In fact I would say there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is an abject failure. In my opinion the only way prohibition is going to work is a zero tolerance policy. By that I mean draconian type laws. Possession gets you 20 years. Dealing gets you life. We would have to completely and totally commit to shutting down the border. All of these things would work. But, of coarse they are politically impossible.

    You know the saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome being insane. It would most certainly pertain to the war on drugs. If there were strong moral ground to continue the current strategy then I would be for it. But to imprison people for selling something as relatively harmless as pot is wrong. To accept the murder that insane profits encourage is wrong. Morally wrong.


    My reasons for legalizing drugs are many. The most important reason is ideologically it works for me. Morally it works for me. I'm against the government getting involved with something that should be a family matter, a religious matter, an educational matter. Some might consider it a medical matter. I don't. I think it is a weakness. But, it can be treated at any rate. The money used to carry out this ridiculous war should be used for treatment and education.


    I have touched on several reasons to quit this farce of a war. What gives you hope it can be won? There is no shortage of dope anywhere. In fact it is as cheap as it has ever been. Yet people are killing over the right to sell it everyday. The cartels literally run parts of Mexico with the obscene profits given to them by prohibition.


    At this time it's not feasible to legalize all drugs. I understand that. But if only pot was legalized it would take 60% of the cartels profits away. It could put that money in the pockets of legitimate business. It could be taxed. Although I'm not for more taxes it surely would happen.

    So Kip can I assume you are happy with the results of the war? If not, what would you do? Spend more money? Kill more people? Imprison more people? These are really the only other options other than legalization.


    Darr
     
  19. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    darr,

    To be clear, no, I'm not happy with current efforts, nor am I disabused of the manner our political class manages the war on drugs (not my term).

    I'll be short and to the point. Harmful drugs will always be with us, it's a human failing (on this we agree). I don't believe that government throwing money at any problem has ever produced desired results. I do believe that legalizing the type of drugs we are talking about will do irreparable harm to our society. Especially to our youth and (not PC) sub-culture classes; as it is doing right now. If, that is all we do on the subject.

    All you have to do is look at the ghetto's, their schools, entire sections of major cities and our welfare and disability roles to know the damage that our half-assed efforts are providing for our nation right now. Legalizing (not my term) will double or triple those pariahs, just as it has in lax European countries that have tried it. Legalization is a dismal failure there, and most are returning to stricter enforcement to recover.

    It's also unwise to think that the drug wars in Mexico & South America will disappear with legalization. Violence is on the rise across legal European countries. Taxing legal drugs is about as attractive as our politicians actually paying the taxes they already owe. I predict a larger black market than exists now. Growing and producing is just too easy.

    I do some tutoring for teenage kids at-risk. 8 out of ten are recovering from drug &/or alcohol abuse. About half these kids have parents in the same condition. They are all irreparably damaged and face marginal lives because of their choices.

    We both know that our liberal OPM thieves will continue to steal from the the productive to coddle the drug-riddled voters. This is the area that concerns me most. Kid's need a clear chance to learn and grow, with responsible role models. Free drugs don't promote cognitive skills or behavior.

    Our most successful intervention with these kids has been the coordinated mandatory parent participation, insisted upon by our juvenile courts. The kid screws up, and both parents are required to attend all court, counseling and tutoring sessions. Inconvenience the whole family and you'd be surprised of the positive results. Recidivism rates dropped by 2/3 after this action.

    AA and drug & alcohol free homes are also demanded. In some cases the court has mandated random unannounced testing for any family member. Not optimal government involvement, but it has it's benefits, and reinforces the responsibility/consequences model I prescribe to.

    We agree on one thing, I would like to see smaller, less intrusive government. I see your position as more Libertarian in form. I prefer a two-sided citizen, imbued with Freedom and held accountable to responsibility (with both good, and bad consequences).

    I would spend money on securing our borders against all intrusions. I would not hesitate using our military and building outposts and training grounds right along the borders. Posse Comitatus laws would not be infringed if our soldiers trained by patrolling and listening and reacting to border intrusions. let our military dollars do double duty. Training with a national purpose.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

    I'm also a bit more draconian when it comes to drug enforcement. China has a 3 strike rule that sends chronic drug abuser and traffickers to basically opium dens, for life. I say that's the flip side of Freedom -- responsibility and/or removal from productive society. I would also consider a big federal/state detention facility in White Sands,NM for all such detainees, solar powered, of course. There they can have the freedom to smoke themselves to death, if they choose.

    Think of the beneficial side-effects of strict enforcement and interdiction: the enforcement/interdiction/consequence deterrent, fewer drug traffickers at-large,(and their families), 11 million fewer smog belching cars and trucks, fewer troubled/high maintenance kids in our schools (selling drugs, creating problems), fewer shoplifters, fewer gang-bangers and safer streets, decreasing enforcement costs, hospital's without over-run ER's. You get my drift.

    It would take a national character shift and commitment that I don't think we collectively have the resolve to sustain. But, it's still a better idea than unleashing the druggies and then trying to treat them with warm hugs and unconditional love and other peoples money.

    There's a lot more to be said, this is just the highlights. Thanks for listening.

    Kip
     
  20. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,642
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The war on drugs(sic) is a viable program, providing much needed employment in the legal profession and jurisprudence, not to mention the corrections industry, the endless procession of drug rehab programs and counselors of just about any type imaginable. Police and Insurance concerns are secondary beneficiaries inasmuch as their benefit is momentary and requires repeat performances.

    If anyone thinks the "War On Drugs" is intended to be won, I must remind the reader of the Viet Nam debacle.

    That conflict was only abandoned after the cannon fodder objected. It's unlikely that the same thing could happen here.

    HM