The "War on Drugs" is dinosaur technology

Huffington POst ^ | 03/22/2015 | Johann Hari

[Yollopoliuhqui]

Nearly fifteen years ago, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with 1 percent of the population addicted to heroin. They had tried a drug war, and the problem just kept getting worse. So they decided to do something radically different. They resolved to decriminalize all drugs...

[DiogenesLamp]

The context concerns my original statement about the (tertiary) risk of small govt, and your response regarding social collapse which I inferred to be cautionary.

I would use the term "demonstrable" and "Historical." As a matter of fact, the phenomena is so well known and for so long that Andrew Fraser Tytler created a theorem back in the 18th century regarding it.

[Lurker]

You said “executed on the spot” did you not?

[ConservingFreedom]

I suggest we remedy that situation by executing a lot more and faster.

By how much would we have to expand the judicial system - nd at what cost - to pose a threat of death comparable to the risk inherent in the illegal trade where violence is the means of dispute resolution?

[ConservingFreedom]

You are familiar with the consequences of a chemical addiction? Free will is the first casualty.

Only a minority of those who use a given drug ever become dependent - even for heroin, less than a quarter of those who have ever used it ever became dependent.

[DiogenesLamp]

Absurd and patently untrue — organized crime in prior the `20s was a piddly little thing, but when Prohibition came along it made alcohol very, very profitable and that is where the mafia got its money and power.

This is another example of you people thrashing about in the weeds instead of looking at the larger picture. A huge chunk of England's wealth is a consequence of it's opium distribution business.

Your efforts to link drugs to alcohol are silly.

[DiogenesLamp]

If, as you say, he is a drug dealer I doubt he will be going to the police to file charges against you. And as Mr. K points out, he could sue you for libel and not go to the police. But that would be a very expensive proposition for him.

Still concern trolling. Well let me put your fears at rest.

Firstly he is posting anonymously, as am I. Unless his name is actually "conserving freedom", you can't argue libel because no person has been identified.

Secondly I called him a "Dope Pusher", i.e. someone who is pushing dope, and in a discussion forum can only mean advocating dope, which can be factually demonstrated by a perusal of his posts. The Truth is the ultimate defense against libel.

Thirdly, I don't give a sh*t.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, the correct answer is: there is no such clause.

You are mistaken. There really is such a clause as the one you mentioned. You need to put down the bong at least 24 hours before you post.

[DiogenesLamp]

By how much would we have to expand the judicial system - nd at what cost - to pose a threat of death comparable to the risk inherent in the illegal trade where violence is the means of dispute resolution?

You've got it backwards. We don't have to expand it at all, we have to contract it back to it's original purpose and methodology.

Assassin Giuseppe Zangara, an Italian immigrant with a ferocious hatred for politicians, strikes a defiant pose in a Miami jail. He was executed two weeks after the death of Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who he killed intending to shoot Franklin Roosevelt. —

[DiogenesLamp]

Only a minority of those who use a given drug ever become dependent - even for heroin, less than a quarter of those who have ever used it ever became dependent.

Oh? So you think you ought to be able to decide what portion of the population is expendable?

[Secret Agent Man]

You cannot even read and carry on a conversation. “I do” means I do own it, moron. And you did not addres anything in post 15.

I am done talking to you, brick wall.

[JimRed]

Exterminate all drug dealers On the spot. They care nothing about individuals or society.

I've said that for years, along with suggesting that they get inside the business, poison the crap, let it go through and repeat as necessary.

[Ken H]

Firstly he is posting anonymously, as am I. Unless his name is actually "conserving freedom", you can't argue libel because no person has been identified.

You are not truly anonymous on the internet. There are people here who know my name, for example, as well as non-FReepers who know that I post here under this screen name. I suspect that is the case with many of us. From the EFF =>

To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

__________________________________________________________

Secondly I called him a "Dope Pusher", i.e. someone who is pushing dope, and in a discussion forum can only mean advocating dope, which can be factually demonstrated by a perusal of his posts.

Oh dear. Good luck convincing a court with that argument.

[DiogenesLamp]

Reason number 3 trumps all. I don’t give a sh*t.

[Secret Agent Man]

And re-reading your post I did not say that. You can’t even quote me accurately. I said “exterminate”. Like the vermin pest infestations they are.

[ConservingFreedom]

Which clause of the Constitution discusses enemies foreign and domestic? [...] the correct answer is: there is no such clause.

You are mistaken. There really is such a clause

Bad news, ignoramus: that phrase is in the oaths sworn by enlisted men and officers (http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html) but occurs nowhere in the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) as a link click and Control+f will show.

[DiogenesLamp]

Implicit in these and other enumerated powers.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[ConservingFreedom]

You are familiar with the consequences of a chemical addiction? Free will is the first casualty.

Only a minority of those who use a given drug ever become dependent - even for heroin, less than a quarter of those who have ever used it ever became dependent.

Oh? So you think you ought to be able to decide what portion of the population is expendable?

I don't have to - they decide themselves with every pre-addiction high they choose to engage in.

[ConservingFreedom]

Implicit in these and other enumerated powers.

Whatever you say, penumbral emanationist.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't have to - they decide themselves with every pre-addiction high they choose to engage in.

Stuff like this is why I don't like wasting time on you. Once they get high, their brain short circuits their free will. Thereafter most of them are just worms responding to stimulus.

You can't play games with an organ that runs on chemicals by tampering with it's chemistry. It doesn't function correctly after that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever you say, penumbral emanationist.

One need not mention bullets when one has mentioned "arms." The necessity of such is implicit.