Posted on 12/13/2012 5:26:46 AM PST by Thad Lost
We have had the “War on Drugs” since the 70’s. In the 80’s, the “War” went from just skirmishes to an all out nuclear war on drugs.
Now, thirty years later what have we accomplished? Has the “War on Drugs” become just another epic government failure like the “War on Poverty” with the only thing accomplished being massive government spending and an equally massive erosion of our Constitutional Rights?
My perspective on the “War on Drugs” is a little different from most people. I practiced law for 24 years. Ten of those years were as a prosecutor. The rest were as a criminal defense lawyer. Three of my years prosecuting I spent as a drug prosecutor.
In my line of work I have met and worked with more drug dealers and users than the average person would see in a lifetime. I have no sympathy for drug dealers and while I have some pity for drug users, controlled substances of all kinds including Marijuana are something to be avoided at all costs.
The “War on Drugs” has created several things. None of them are really good. First it has created a massive government bureaucracy at not only the Federal level of government but also at the state and local levels as well. The Federal Government pumps billions of dollars out in the “War on drugs.” This money is spent on law enforcement, prosecutors, defense lawyers, prisons, corrections employees, social workers, advertising and the list goes on beyond belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartynation.com ...
Legalization of marijuana certainly does pertain to teen drug use because it sends the wrong messages to teenagers. The warnings on the packaging would be a reminder to parents that they could be putting their children at risk by not teaching the dangers of teenage marijuana use.
There was another school shooting today and a mall shooting two days ago, someone should do a study about whether these young schizos had a history of teenage marijuana use.
Legalization of marijuana certainly does pertain to teen drug use because it sends the wrong messages to teenagers. The warnings on the packaging would be a reminder to parents that they could be putting their children at risk by not teaching the dangers of teenage marijuana use.
There was another school shooting today and a mall shooting two days ago, someone should do a study about whether these young schizos had a history of teenage marijuana use.
Are you claiming that teen marijuana use shot up to 40% in the few weeks since CO and WA legalized marijuana? If not, then legalization has nothing to do with teen use.
Legalization of marijuana certainly does pertain to teen drug use because it sends the wrong messages to teenagers.
So you claim - but the 40% teen use rate you cite gives no support to your claim, since that use rate came about while there was no legalization in any state.
Does the legality of the addictive, dangerous mind-altering drug alcohol send the wrong messages to teenagers? Should we ban that drug?
I think that your marijuana usage has impacted your reasoning ability.
Does the legality of the addictive, dangerous mind-altering drug alcohol send the wrong messages to teenagers? Should we ban that drug?
I think that your marijuana usage
I use no drugs - including the mind-altering drug alcohol.
has impacted your reasoning ability.
You're projecting - it's YOU who is abandoning reasoned discourse for personal attacks.
“So, your state government is helpless, your local government is helpless, your community is helpless, and you are helpless, and only the federal government can save you from the druggies.”
You might want to learn to read instead of substituting your vivid imaginings for what I write.
“I think he was harmed by the fact that the illegality of milder intoxicants incentivized both the creation of bath salts and his use of them. “
Occam’s Razor is an effective cure for such convoluted thinking.
Accumulated evidence is just that. Data. Evidence.
I can appreciate your attempt to avoid dealing with the harsh externalities of drug use by dismissing it all as “feelings”.
Are you appreciative of your own attepts to avoid dealing with the extra-Constitutional nature of the drug war and it's corrosive effects on our property and gun rights?
The "harsh externalities" of drug use can dealt with while avoiding those consequences if we'd just properly authorize and define the scope of power being used, but that's never going to happen if we refuse to even acknowlege that there's anything wrong with the way we're doing it now.
When you carefully avoid writing about things, even in resonse to direct questions about them, I'm forced to make assumptions about it that are implied by the arguments you do make.
Do you support honoring the Tenth Amendment in the case of CO and WA legalizing marijuana, YES or NO?
Many drugs have been illegal since the early 1900s.
Outlawing drugs doesn’t require violating property and gun rights since that wasn’t the case for many decades.
Reigning in law enforcement doesn’t require legalization of drugs, but that is a common argument of libertarians who routinely use that false dilemma.
“When you carefully avoid writing about things, even in resonse to direct questions about them, I’m forced to make assumptions about it that are implied by the arguments you do make.”
Since my posts were specifically against drug legalization I will once again recommend that you read instead of injecting your own assumptions.
The problem arises from the libertarian habit of arguing that you either have a police state or drug legalization. That’s a false dilemma. You can outlaw drugs without having a police state. We did exactly that for many decades.
I didn’t defend law enforcement violating property and gun rights. I addressed only the demand that drugs be legalized.
Drug use doesn’t confine its problems to the user.
I do not dispute your arguments are against drug legalization. I submit that they refuse to acknowlege and attempt to sidestep the issues of the unintended consequences of the drug war.
Admittedly there are assumpions being made about why you don't want that conversation to take place, but that's because you won't provide answers to that question.
I went back and reviewed the response/reply history. There was no demand for drug legalization in the post you replied to that started this exchange.
“Admittedly there are assumpions being made about why you don’t want that conversation to take place, but that’s because you won’t provide answers to that question.”
Those assumptions are your problem, not mine.
For starters I’m not “preventing a conversation from taking place” other than in your imagination. I’m not even sure what that comment is supposed to mean.
Maybe you’re bothered because I ignore loaded questions that attribute positions to me that I don’t hold. Those are strawman arguments, ‘fallacies of the complex question’ and there’s no reason to waste time on them. A little refresher with Copi’s Logic might be in order.
My comments were confined to the unwisdom of drug legalization, nothing more.
Really? Then why is it you're the one complaining about them?
I think he was harmed by the fact that the illegality of milder intoxicants incentivized both the creation of bath salts and his use of them.
Occam’s Razor is an effective cure for such convoluted thinking.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my statement was in contradiction to yours. In fact, it went deeper to address these questions: why is there such a thing as 'bath salts' and why did the openness of their sale matter to him?
People who use illegal drugs to escape reality are cowards. I’m still waiting for someone to prove this statement wrong.
<><><><><><><><>
I’m unclear as to how one proves an opinion to be wrong.
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.