♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Al Capone style of drug war NOT workingLaw Enforcement Against Prohibition by Alison Myrden 'In drug reform news all over the U.S this past week, it seems more Americans than ever are being arrested for cannabis. Upwards of 10 million Americans since 1990 have been arrested for casual pot smoking. That means approximately 740,000 people this year alone have been arrested for cannabis. If this isn't an absolute outrage I don't know what is!" (10/09/07) http://tinyurl.com/3xlvy9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Of course it's not working. Prohibition didn't work for the exact same reasons the drug war isn't working. I'm willing to bet that tobacco will be classified as an illegal drug in the U.S. within a decade. And people will still find ways around it, like going to Mexico or Canada instead. When will the idiots in government learn? Oh, wait...never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The term *war* is used in our government not so much as a philosophical way of looking at a struggle, but it has real government meaning. If we are at *war* certain of our rights are taken away, and more power is given to the government. So with the *war* on drugs, and the *war* on terror, we are perpetually *always* in a state of war, so this enables the government to have the same wartime privileges, like in WWII etc etc, and they use it to stomp our rights. Peace time means WE have more rights, so I think we will find that no matter what the future holds we will always be in a state of war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I can only shake my head at the stupidity of making criminals out of millions of people for engaging in a relatively innocuous activity which the government has no business making illegal to begin with. I have to shake my head even more looking at the inconsistency that alcohol, a more dangerous drug if abused (and incidentally with a higher abuse potential), is not only fully legal when marijuana is not, but fully defended by most of the same people who want to arrest pot smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 The term *war* is used in our government not so much as a philosophical way of looking at a struggle, but it has real government meaning. If we are at *war* certain of our rights are taken away, and more power is given to the government. So with the *war* on drugs, and the *war* on terror, we are perpetually *always* in a state of war, so this enables the government to have the same wartime privileges, like in WWII etc etc, and they use it to stomp our rights. Peace time means WE have more rights, so I think we will find that no matter what the future holds we will always be in a state of war... Actually the phrases "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" are ungrammatical and nonsensical. How can one make war on a military tactic? One cannot; that is why there are tactics and counter-tactics. It is the same with drugs, how does one make war on organic or inorganic chemical substances, which are in themselves neutral? Both phrases are utter rubbish but they sound plausible, at least to the ill-informed. As the ill-informed make up a very large proportion of any society, when any Government wishes to talk rot, their task is made all the easier. There is however, one sentence containing the word "war" that is both grammatically correct and makes sense. "War is the health of the State". You won't hear any Government using that sentence; the Ministry of Propaganda wouldn't like it. Casey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Consider the original Prohibition (of alcohol). The benefits of Prohibition were stated to be these: Society would be free of drunken brawlers, health costs caused by the abuse of alcohol would be reduced, there would be increased productivity in industry and so on ad infinitum. The actual results are summarised here: Prohibition did little to reduce the demand for alcohol. It simply replaced law-abiding brewers, distillers, vintners, and liquor stores with moonshiners, smugglers, and bootleggers who were willing to flout the law and risk prison. The alcohol industry became the province of gangsters operating a black market. Prohibition spawned many evils: * People bought from bootleggers, with no knowledge of where the products came from, and no company staking its reputation on the quality and safety of the products. As a result, many people died from drinking bad liquor. * Having committed themselves to a life of crime, bootleggers were prepared to break more laws to control liquor territories. Gang warfare, drive-by shootings, and the killing of innocent bystanders became commonplace. * People still wanted to patronize bars and restaurants that served alcohol, and such places continued to operate. But they could do so only by paying off the police. * Corruption of law enforcement went far beyond the payoffs from speakeasies. Selling black-market liquor through monopolies enforced by Tommy guns was much more lucrative than the legal, competitive sale of liquor had been. And a good deal of the money passing through the hands of gangsters was used to buy "protection" from prosecutors and judges. * Because the demand for alcohol couldn't be stopped, the uncorrupted police who tried to enforce Prohibition turned to law-breaking themselves. They resorted to ever-more-draconian attacks on the individual liberties the Constitution was supposed to protect. * Because alcohol Prohibition eventually was seen as a farce, respect for the law in general went downhill. Prohibition encouraged the idea that all laws could be ignored. Substitute "drugs" for "alcohol" and is there any difference? I don't think so. Casey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 UK: Senior police officer calls for legalising all drugsIndependent [uK] "One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all drugs -- including heroin and cocaine -- to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the 'failed' war on illegal narcotics. Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, advocates an end to UK drug policy based on 'prohibition.' His comments come as the Home Office this week ends the process of gathering expert advice looking at the next 10 years of strategy. In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Wales Police Authority today, Mr Brunstrom points out that illegal drugs are now cheaper and more plentiful than ever before." (10/15/07) http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3061121.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 The term *war* is used in our government not so much as a philosophical way of looking at a struggle, but it has real government meaning. If we are at *war* certain of our rights are taken away, and more power is given to the government. So with the *war* on drugs, and the *war* on terror, we are perpetually *always* in a state of war, so this enables the government to have the same wartime privileges, like in WWII etc etc, and they use it to stomp our rights. Peace time means WE have more rights, so I think we will find that no matter what the future holds we will always be in a state of war... Actually the phrases "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" are ungrammatical and nonsensical. How can one make war on a military tactic? One cannot; that is why there are tactics and counter-tactics. It is the same with drugs, how does one make war on organic or inorganic chemical substances, which are in themselves neutral? Both phrases are utter rubbish but they sound plausible, at least to the ill-informed. As the ill-informed make up a very large proportion of any society, when any Government wishes to talk rot, their task is made all the easier. There is however, one sentence containing the word "war" that is both grammatically correct and makes sense. "War is the health of the State". You won't hear any Government using that sentence; the Ministry of Propaganda wouldn't like it. Casey Grammatically incorrect or not, my point is not about grammar but the use of the term "War On.." is used to put our government in a state of war, as opposed to being in a state of peace. Being that war gives our government more POWER that was the point of my post, not about the grammar of the phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Interesting how many cops are speaking out against the drug campaign. I totally agree. Legalize everything. Tax it. Use the money to build schools instead of prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts