Skip to comments.The "War on Drugs" has failed - time to consider legalisation?
Posted on 04/18/2012 1:18:55 PM PDT by sussex
A FORMER British MI6 chief has joined growing calls to end the war on drugs and consider legalising them. The battle has left tens of thousands dead in Latin America but failed to reduce drug-use around the world. Here Nigel Inkster, of the International Institute For Strategic Studies, argues that we need to rethink our approach to narcotics.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
Look at places like Kalipornia, the left and leftarians are in full alliance.
“We’ll let you have your socialist welfare police state if we can have our drugs and immoral sex.”
Protecting children from perverts.... is that being a nanny stater too? Of course it is. Some liberaltarians even admit it. The Free West Alliance even lists the “victimless crimes” they want to legalize, like organ trafficking and incest.
I agree with your points, but I have to point out one thing.
Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, and John Dillinger were all bank robbers, who sprung up during the Depression, mainly in response to the bad economy and new cars, guns, and highways that gave them an edge over law enforcement. That would have happened even if alcohol had been legal still. Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Deanie O’Banion, Dutch Schultz, those were the kind of guys who were warring over the bootlegging.
I lost any idea that the WOD was about drugs on the first case I did where a cop let a drunk go instead of arresting him. This POS then traveled about 5 miles down the interstate and killed most of a nice young family.
The COP was waiting on the interstate to arrest a drug/money courier that supposedly was going to come through his community. He didn’t do his duty because of the ability to confiscate cash and vehicles and enrich his department.
As usual the COP was protected because you can’t sue them for doing or not doing their duty. So some kids are growing up poor and without a parent.
As always follow the money and power it ain’t about the drugs.
Point noted and correction appreciated.
It’s not my “strawman” argument, it was in the headline and intro to the article that was posted.
Another enemy of the Constitution reveals himself. Thanks.
enemy of the Constitution.... where does it say drugs have to be legal?
Hey, since it doesn’t ban Child Rape I guess thats okay too??
state or fed, I am still against child rape.
“Lucky for you guys there is no war on ignorance and illogic. At least not yet. “
Anyway who sees drug abuse as a victimless crime is tragically ignorant.
And to call a war against a certain crime “a failure” because all incidents of that crime have not ceased is illogical.
“Do you think states should decide issues like medical marijuana under authority of the Tenth Amendment, or do you think fedgov should have that authority under the Commerce Clause?”
If all of our ducks were in a row, the states should do it.
However, our chain of command is so screwed up right now I don’t see a quick answer to the dilemma. Theoretically, the states. But I’d need to see the proper alignment of all states/federal rights at the same time. No cherry picking.
You bolded the wrong part, here’s what you SHOULD have bolded:
The battle has left tens of thousands dead
THAT’S the failure of the WOD, it kills more people than the drugs, and then on top of that has also failed to reduce drug use. But the important part is the THOUSANDS DEAD. That’s what makes the WOD, and all its supporters, evil.
IOW, you support continuing a policy that you acknowledge to be in violation of the Constitution. Typical prohibitionist contempt for the Constitution.
I bolded the part of the article I was disputing.
The argument that we should get rid of laws because they don’t reduce the outlawed crime is silly. I can’t believe my point appears to be so controversial.
If you want to make OTHER arguments for legalizing drugs, then fine, write your own article. Knock yourself out.
“The comparison of drugs to murder is poor logic IMHO. Make a better argument.”
I made no such comparison. Not even close. You meant to post to another person maybe?
My point is that there never was a true war on drugs; I don’t know what games they’re playing out there but there is no intention of getting the job done. Therefore stating the ‘WOD’ was a success or failure is invalid, the way I see it.
I did not render an opinion as to whether or not I personally think drugs should be legal or not, just that the argument needs to be made in light of the Consitiution, freedom and liberty, not whether or not this faux war attained its goals.
You bolded the parts to create a strawman and lie about what the article is actually saying.
OK, what is your position on the issue?
Bullsh_t, jerk. Maybe if your brain wasn't fried you could grasp a simple point.
No BS, pure truth, and if anybody is a brain fried jerk it would be the one that needed to resort to insults to back up his lies. You creatively edited the line, ie LIED, top create a strawman. And you’ve been called on it.
“IOW, you support continuing a policy that you acknowledge to be in violation of the Constitution. Typical prohibitionist contempt for the Constitution.”
El Wrong-0. I am against selective application of it. All or nothing.
“Protecting children from perverts.... is that being a nanny stater too?”
No, of course it’s not, since child molestation is not a victimless crime.
Insults? You resort to “liar, liar, pants on fire” when you have nothing coherent to say. And I never EDITED a single word in the article, idiot (speaking of liars).
The argument that the “war on drugs” is ineffective and doesn’t reduce drug use and therefore we should legalize drugs is not something I made up. It is constantly made by the legalize drugs movement and echoed in the media.
Truth be told, it is a childish argument.
Unless someone takes the position that all substances of whatever nature should be legal for all people of whatever age or condition to produce, possess or give to other people, then one must get into the difficult matter of making distinctions among substances that are to be regulated and with respect to whom and how. Therefore, there will always be a “war on substances.”
Naturally, that is not simplistic enough for aging stoners and their clogged synapses to get their heads around. Any discussion of laws dealing with substance abuse evokes only an image in their minds of swat teams breaking into their living rooms and prying their bong out of their sweaty hands.
I pointed out that you creatively bolded text to bury the important part (thousands dead) and thus make the headline appear to say something it did not. Making something appear to say something it doesn’t is also known as lying. Sorry that bothers you, but if you don’t like it don’t do it.
And there you go again with your strawman lie. The argument is NOT that the WOD hasn’t stopped drug use so it should end. the argument IS that the WOD has a massive cost in dollars, destroyed elements of the Bill of Rights and lives AND has done nothing to curb drug use so it should end. The part you deliberately avoid both in your use of bold and replies is the COST. Everybody knows laws don’t eradicate behavior, the question before us is if the cost of enforcing those laws is worth their results. The WOD has a massive cost and NO results.
Truth be told the childish argument is the one of lying about the argument to erect a strawman.
Alcohol and tobacco are regulated with respect to whom and how without being in any war on them. Looks like you erected another strawman. Talk about thing not being simplistic enough for clogged synapses.
SWAT teams breaking into living rooms is an important image to have in your mind when talking about the WOD. Because that’s what the WOD has created, a world where SWAT teams bust doors down without knocking, search a premises, and THEN present a warrant that turns out to not actually be that house because they got the address wrong. Before the WOD they had to knock and present the warrant BEFORE entering. That’s part of that cost of the WOD thing you studiously ignore in your creative editing.
“You cant wage a war on terror while keeping the border open at the same time.”
Exactly. And nobody (imo) can call this a WOT knowing full well terrorists can cross the southern border easily and often. It is therefore not a war, imo.
My sentiments are the same on the so-called WOD. Therefore the legalization issue should be conducted using the Constitution and the principles of freedom and liberty, also imo.
“The battle has left tens of thousands dead in Latin America but failed to reduce drug-use around the world.”
I don’t know why you are trying so desperately to pretend the article doesn’t say exactly what it does.
Anyone with an unimpaired brain can read the headline and the above sentence and understand the point.
It speaks of a cost in the first part of the sentence and a failed objective in the second part. It’s not a complicated point.
You do raise an interesting biological point. If someone bolds words in a sentence in order to make clear the part he is disputing, is someone with the accumulated effect on the brain of long-term THC ingestion unable to physically see the other words in the sentence? Perhap a clinical study is called for here.
Anyone who pays attention to the arguments over legalizing drugs hears the point made constantly that the war on drugs has failed to reduce drug usage. We’ve all heard it, so give it a rest.
Oh look more lies and insults. How thoroughly typical and expected. Come back when you can discuss things like an adult.
Everyone who pays attention to the arguments over legalization has seen liars lie about the argument the exact same way you have constantly. Give it a rest.
If you’ve never heard legalization advocates make the argument that laws outlawing drug usage are a failure because they don’t reduce drug usage, then all I can say is this must be the first time you’ve ever encountered an article on the topic.
The rest of us have heard it a gazillion times.
I’ve heard legalization crowd reference the incredible cost of the WOD and relate it to its complete failure to reduce usage frequently.
I’ve also heard WOD supporters ignore the cost part and just focus on the failure to reduce part and pretend that’s the whole thing every single time. That is the go to counter for WODers, erect a strawman by studious editing and lies.
If you want to call our current policies with regard to the drugs alcohol and tobacco "wars," go ahead. The point is that those "wars" don't rob adults of their rights, cost taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars every year, crowd our prisons, or substantially enrich criminals - so those are the sorts of "wars" we should fight against other drugs.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should consistently apply the Tenth Amendment. But why can't we allow ourselves to get there one step (for example, medical marijuana) at a time? Must we make the best the enemy of the good?
“You meant to post to another person maybe?”
Correct and with my apology.
“the argument needs to be made in light of the Consitiution, freedom and liberty, not whether or not this faux war attained its goals.”
Now I can comment to the correct person. I agree completely, too many people forget that the Constitution is silent on many subjects and those are left to the individual or the states. Too many people on the right and the left want to make laws that suit their personal opinion and violate the Constitution. I prefer to make my on choices and then if I get it wrong God can tell me and make the final judgement. I don’t need man to force me.
Then you must be supportive of SCOTUS upholding Obamacare, since to strike it down would be selective, rather than all or nothing. After all, it does nothing about federal control of education, the environment, tobacco etc.
“Then you must be supportive of SCOTUS upholding Obamacare, since to strike it down would be selective, rather than all or nothing. After all, it does nothing about federal control of education, the environment, tobacco etc. “
Incorrect, it is a new breach.
I fear that if the feds suddenly stop prosecuting drug crimes, the citizens of each state, who, according to polls, want recreational drugs to remain illegal, will find themselves suddenly unprotected. There are no laws extant on the books, presumably. The people they have elected and the bureaucracies which are entrenched were not elected or appointed with drug policy in mind. Therefore the citizens are vulnerable to policies being implemented with little to no say on their part.
You presume incorrectly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.