Author Topic: Why the "War On Drugs" is so successful. (Read 3087 times)

blind ear · « **on:** December 05, 2011, 05:06:28 AM »

US Agents Laundered Drug Money: report

http://news.yahoo.com/us-agents-laundered-drug-money-report-180012421.html

bilmac · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2011, 06:25:40 AM »

About 20 years ago I served for a year on a Federal grand jury. We had a lot of drug cases brought before us. The experience brought me to the conclusion that a lot of the drug enforcement community is not really trying to win the war. Cops and the judicial system alike seem to have the attitude that the war on drugs is job security and a game of matching wits with the dealers.

What disturbed me most was that users and low level dealers were almost never really punished. They were almost always given slaps on the wrist because they "cooperated in catching more important dealers". The users are almost overwhelming law enforcement in many communities with petty crime, stealing to support their habits.

I say if we want to really win the war we need to punish the buyers. An excuse for not doing so is that jailing so many would overwhelm the system. I say hire a Joe Arpio no nonsense type type lawmen, and if we don't have enough jails put the druggies in, put them in tents, and make sure that they really don't want to come back for a second visit.

scootrd · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2011, 06:28:57 AM »

Others may not agree , but I have always like Joe Arpio and his no nonsense approaches to resolving issues.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2011, 06:51:25 AM »

Quote from: bilmac on December 05, 2011, 06:25:40 AM

I say if we want to really win the war we need to punish the buyers.

Naw; if you really want to end the war, just declare victory and go home, kind of like Vietnam. Anything less is a losing strategy that will continue to have high dollar and freeedom costs. Besides.. .it's none of the gubmint's damned bidness what a free man thinks, eats, drinks, or smokes.

mdwest · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2011, 09:58:38 AM »

The solution isnt on the supply side of the equation.. its on the demand side..

as long as the US wants drugs.. there will always be a supply.. if they cant get cocaine out of south america.. they'll buy herion out of mexico.. if they cant get herion out of mexico.. theyll get opium out of afghanistan.. if opium isnt available.. theyll go to to dirty doctors right here in the US that will sell them prescription drugs.. if that goes away, theyll go to synthetics out of europe and the middle east...

as long as there are people in this country willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for drugs every month.. there will be someone in the world willing to do whatever it takes to sell people what it is they are willing to pay for...

Not saying there shouldnt be a penalty for selling dope in this country...

simply saying that until we are willing to make the consequences so severe for those already here to motivate them to stop asking people to bring them here for them.. then the problem will never go away...

no one wakes up one day as a kid and says "when I grow up, I want to be a crack head..."...

but for whatever reason as they get older they dont mind giving dope a chance.. whether it is they want to be "cool", are self medicating so they dont have to deal with other problems in their life, are being expirimental, etc.. the penalties and/or repercussions arent severe enough to make them think twice about it.. if they get caught, even with coke or meth, the penalties are fairly light on first offense (couple of days in jail at worst.. plus a couple of grand in attorneis fees) in most jurisdictions for first offenders that no one cares..

by the second time they are getting caught.. they are already hooked and couldnt stop the habit on their own if they wanted to..

there are plenty of kids that grow up however and say "I want to get rich.. and I am willing to do it at anyone elses expense.. ".. they dont mind slinging dope at all..

if there were no buyers.. there would be no dealers..

We focus far too much on catching the dope load traveling on the interstate.. and want to catch Pablo with 4 keys of coke.. or the million dollar money run headed back to mexico..

and dont penalize the end users that inspired pablo to bring the junk into our country in the first place nearly enough..

blind ear · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2011, 10:31:33 AM »

Quote from: mdwest on December 05, 2011, 09:58:38 AM

The solution isnt on the supply side of the equation.. its on the demand side..

as long as the US wants drugs.. there will always be a supply.. if they cant get cocaine out of south america.. they'll buy herion out of mexico.. if they cant get herion out of mexico.. theyll get opium out of afghanistan.. if opium isnt available.. theyll go to to dirty doctors right here in the US that will sell them prescription drugs.. if that goes away, theyll go to synthetics out of europe and the middle east...

as long as there are people in this country willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for drugs every month.. there will be someone in the world willing to do whatever it takes to sell people what it is they are willing to pay for...

Not saying there shouldnt be a penalty for selling dope in this country...

simply saying that until we are willing to make the consequences so severe for those already here to motivate them to stop asking people to bring them here for them.. then the problem will never go away...

no one wakes up one day as a kid and says "when I grow up, I want to be a crack head..."...

but for whatever reason as they get older they dont mind giving dope a chance.. whether it is they want to be "cool", are self medicating so they dont have to deal with other problems in their life, are being expirimental, etc.. the penalties and/or repercussions arent severe enough to make them think twice about it.. if they get caught, even with coke or meth, the penalties are fairly light on first offense (couple of days in jail at worst.. plus a couple of grand in attorneis fees) in most jurisdictions for first offenders that no one cares..

by the second time they are getting caught.. they are already hooked and couldnt stop the habit on their own if they wanted to..

there are plenty of kids that grow up however and say "I want to get rich.. and I am willing to do it at anyone elses expense.. ".. they dont mind slinging dope at all..

if there were no buyers.. there would be no dealers..

We focus far too much on catching the dope load traveling on the interstate.. and want to catch Pablo with 4 keys of coke.. or the million dollar money run headed back to mexico..

and dont penalize the end users that inspired pablo to bring the junk into our country in the first place nearly enough..

sounds similar to the thought police. ear

jimster · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2011, 11:40:08 AM »

I agree with mdwest, it's supply and demand, you can't stop that any better than trying to stop booze when that was illegal.
Add to that, if you ever did win the war on drugs, or even legalize most of them, there would be a whole heap of feds out of work, so you know they would fight it tooth and nail. Heck, the feds make money both ways, being paid on the job and some of them cashing in on the corruption as well. Now that's a pretty big war to try and win when your talking that much money involved. Personally, I think it would be best to legalize most of them, if you choose to do drugs, it's your problem, and no tax payer money to take care of you. Sooner or later your just dead. Sounds rough, but life can be rough after you make bad choices. Seems these days nobody wants anyone to suffer the consequences of bad choices.

mdwest · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2011, 12:53:59 PM »

Quote from: blind ear on December 05, 2011, 10:31:33 AM

sounds similar to the thought police. ear

think of it in these terms ear...

the same thing applies to the oil industry...

arab states have a huge supply of oil...

we have a huge demand for it..

we pay them tons of money for it..

they in turn use some of that money to fund terrorist acts (both state sponsored and individually sponsored)..

If we didnt demand the oil.. say if all cars ran on carbon dioxide... arab nations would still be the same countries and people they were in the 1930's... insignificant.. a bunch of bedouins wandering around aimlessly in the desert, without the money or the power to do anything.. oil supply would be inconsequential.. there would be no demand, and people wouldnt be willing to pay for it..

same thing with drugs..

we have a high demand.. therefore there are people out there willing to supply it.. people that will use those huge sums of money to do bad things if necessary, to protect their markets (pay off cops and judges, kill people, whatever...)....

take out a supplier.. and nothing changes.. as long as there is a demand.. someone is going to step up, take their place, and sell dope...

take out the demand however.. and poppies and coca goes back to what it was 1000 years ago.. just another plant that has little or no monitary value..

45-70.gov · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2011, 01:57:30 PM »

let me answer this with a QUESTION

HOW WAS THE PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOL AND ASSOCIATED CRIME RESOLVED?

?

ALSO I MIGHT ADD
government needed a reason to invade you privacy.....before the war on terrorism
americans always get what they want....many of them want drugs
government NEEDS a cash source for covert operations
the ''king pins'' are the governments competition.....
.users and low level dealers are the ''cash cows''

its a matter of right and wrong!!!!!!!!!
people have a right to be stipid
you and i or the government have NO right to stop them

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.........
many died for freedom........more have died from it

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2011, 02:52:56 PM »

Yeah, that's the answer to America's drug problem - Bigger government and Trillions more taxpayer dollars spent!

dukkillr · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2011, 05:58:35 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on December 05, 2011, 02:52:56 PM

Yeah, that's the answer to America's drug problem - Bigger government and Trillions more taxpayer dollars spent!

Sadly, a lot of people who claim to be Conservative will look you in the eye and tell you that exact thing. They want the government out of our lives, except when it's to impose their religious beliefs...

mdwest · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2011, 02:50:08 AM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on December 05, 2011, 02:52:56 PM

Yeah, that's the answer to America's drug problem - Bigger government and Trillions more taxpayer dollars spent!

maybe I missed something....

who said anything about bigger government and trillions more dollars spent? where did that come in?

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2011, 03:07:15 AM »

we've already spent gazillions of dollars on the War on (some) Drugs, and continue to do so... and lock of thousands of our fellow citizens. Some call it a good fight. I call it stoopid, mis-guided, and long overdue for a change in thinking.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral

Here you go... yer Drug War in action. The dogs killed by the police were better than the authors of this Charlie Foxtrot.

mdwest · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2011, 04:09:37 AM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on December 06, 2011, 03:07:15 AM

Some call it a good fight. I call it stoopid, mis-guided, and long overdue for a change in thinking.

I agree with you..

The money spent, and the actions being taken, have a 30+ year track history of being ineffective... We have been due for a change for a long, long, time..

magooch · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2011, 04:41:11 AM »

So, if the answer to the problem is legalizing all drugs--what was the problem again?

First off, the war on illegal drugs was never going to be a war that has a time limit. It is an ongoing problem the same as any other societal misbehavior. We don't give up and legalize robbery (except for taxation), murder, rape, mopery on the king's highway, or whatever. And legalizing drugs would not make them go away. Using the alcohol argument to attempt to rationalize drugs is lame at best.

Gary G · « **Reply #15 on:** December 06, 2011, 06:06:02 AM »

The question is: can you legislate behavior through force?
The answer is NO.

And so the result is: many are in prison, an enormous amount of the peoples resources has been wasted, many innocent people have been caught in the crossfire, and drug use is higher than ever.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #16 on:** December 06, 2011, 06:20:40 AM »

The business people want the govt. to do its dirty work. The govt likes that as it gives them reason to get more power and funds. I have heard Dupont pushed the criminalization of smoking pot. They wanted to protect their synthetic rope market .
If those using drugs were not hired ( tuff business owners ) and govt. didn't take care of them thru. wealfare/wic/what ever free ride then some would get stright.

Casull · « **Reply #17 on:** December 06, 2011, 10:54:38 AM »

Quote

The question is: can you legislate behavior through force?
The answer is NO.

Well, by that thinking, all laws should just be abolished. Bring on the anarchy.

Bugflipper · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2011, 10:55:23 AM »

Can anyone comment on if the European model is any more effective? Some of the countries have legalized all or most drugs. Instead of fighting the drugs, money is allotted to rehabilitation. Seems like a piss poor proposal in any regard, either way the outcome is a nanny state. But which has proven more effective?

blind ear · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2011, 11:40:46 AM »

Don't let the state support them if they can't pass a drug test. The drug use will be thier concious decision.

If that drug user causes injury or harm to others or breaks standing laws, let them suffer the consequences of the law. The judicial and prison system will deal with them then and that debt must be paid before any rehab program is allowed to take first priority. First serve the time earned.

It will still be less of a burden on the prison system. ear

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 06, 2011, 11:45:07 AM »

Quote from: magooch on December 06, 2011, 04:41:11 AM

And legalizing drugs would not make them go away. Using the alcohol argument to attempt to rationalize drugs is lame at best.

Naw, Magooch, I think your assertion is what's lame. But convince: how is the prohibition against citizens using marijuana, fundamentally diff than prohibition of citizens using alchohol, 1920-1933? What is the difference, that makes their comparison lame? Spell it out... ?

Gary G · « **Reply #21 on:** December 06, 2011, 01:22:46 PM »

Quote from: Casull on December 06, 2011, 10:54:38 AM

Quote
The question is: can you legislate behavior through force?
The answer is NO.

Well, by that thinking, all laws should just be abolished. Bring on the anarchy.

Well, maybe it is true that all laws that have nothing to do with the protection of life, liberty and property should be abolished.

If you can prove your disagreement with my statement concerning governments inability to legislate behavior, then you will have proven that no child will disobey their parents ever again.

Individuals make decisions based on the information that they have at the time.

Gary G · « **Reply #22 on:** December 06, 2011, 01:32:44 PM »

Quote from: Bugflipper on December 06, 2011, 10:55:23 AM

Can anyone comment on if the European model is any more effective? Some of the countries have legalized all or most drugs. Instead of fighting the drugs, money is allotted to rehabilitation. Seems like a piss poor proposal in any regard, either way the outcome is a nanny state. But which has proven more effective?

It has proven to be more effective. There was a video on Portugal recently documenting a decline in use. I saw where one of the Norwegian countries is closing down prisons and renting out others to neighboring countries. My brother-in-law just got back from Amsterdam where about everything is legal. He said he never saw anyone using drugs. He liked it over there.

mdwest · « **Reply #23 on:** December 06, 2011, 01:48:00 PM »

Quote from: Gary G on December 06, 2011, 01:32:44 PM

My brother-in-law just got back from Amsterdam where about everything is legal. He said he never saw anyone using drugs. He liked it over there.

not only baseless... but completely wrong..

The Netherlands actually has EXTREMELY stringent drug laws on just about everything other than marijuana and hashish.. if you get caught with coke or other "hard" drugs in the Netherlands they will put you in prison VERY QUICKLY...

If you buy marijuana from anyone other than a licensed "coffee" shop.. they will put you in prison VERY QUICKLY...

If he never saw anyone doing drugs in Amsterdam, he obviously didnt go to the red light district.. where a HUGE percentage of the people in that area are there specifically to buy marijuana, or to visit prostitutes.. most of whom are not Dutch, but are instead from everywhere else in Europe and are vacationing so that they can get high and have sex with a variety of women and not get in trouble for it..

Casull · « **Reply #24 on:** December 06, 2011, 01:51:32 PM »

Quote

If you can prove your disagreement with my statement concerning governments inability to legislate behavior, then you will have proven that no child will disobey their parents ever again.

Let us not be ridiculous with absolutes. If you agree to open your eyes, you will see the proof of my disagreement by looking at those same children. As a whole, which children are better behaved, those whose parents make judicious use of corporal punishment or those that allow their children to do as they please?

powderman · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2011, 02:23:51 PM »

Quote from: Casull on December 06, 2011, 01:51:32 PM

Quote
If you can prove your disagreement with my statement concerning governments inability to legislate behavior, then you will have proven that no child will disobey their parents ever again.

Let us not be ridiculous with absolutes. If you agree to open your eyes, you will see the proof of my disagreement by looking at those same children. As a whole, which children are better behaved, those whose parents make judicious use of corporal punishment or those that allow their children to do as they please?

CASULL. Good post Sir. POWDERMAN.

scootrd · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2011, 03:58:08 PM »

Quote from: Gary G on December 06, 2011, 06:06:02 AM

The question is: can you legislate behavior through force?
The answer is NO.

Well of course you can . It's called tyranny.

tyr·an·ny
[tir-uh-nee]
noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

dukkillr · « **Reply #27 on:** December 06, 2011, 04:09:49 PM »

Quote from: Casull on December 06, 2011, 01:51:32 PM

If you agree to open your eyes, you will see the proof of my disagreement by looking at those same children. As a whole, which children are better behaved, those whose parents make judicious use of corporal punishment or those that allow their children to do as they please?

This is a great quote, and thank you for your honesty. The truth is that this is exactly how some people, even some "conservatives" see the role of government. To act as the parents for us poor saps who can't control our urges and need to be controlled. The government simply must save them from themselves, particularly from behavior that those "conservatives" find unappealing.

And before you return to your, "lets just get rid of all laws" ridiculous absolute lets make an important distinction. Laws are to protect people from others. Murder, rape, theft, whatever else you listed, are all crimes that deprive others. You and I agree on those laws. They are the proper role of government. What you are talking about it criminalizing behavior that does not, in itself, deprive anyone else of their rights. In that way it is exactly the same as prohibition, which is a valid comparison.

My job as a parent is to raise my kids to be good adults and people. This IS NOT the role of government with respect to adults, at least in a free country.

Gary G · « **Reply #28 on:** December 06, 2011, 04:16:58 PM »

And so then, they (government) will be the hammer and we will be the anvil on which they mold us.

I am sorry then, I just don't have that much trust in big government anymore to accomplish it's objectives, if that is it's objective. And if they do, which I don't think is possible and the facts bear that out, at what expense to liberty and freedom?

Casull · « **Reply #29 on:** December 06, 2011, 06:31:01 PM »

Quote

This is a great quote, and thank you for your honesty. The truth is that this is exactly how some people, even some "conservatives" see the role of government. To act as the parents for us poor saps who can't control our urges and need to be controlled. The government simply must save them from themselves, particularly from behavior that those "conservatives" find unappealing.

And before you return to your, "lets just get rid of all laws" ridiculous absolute lets make an important distinction. Laws are to protect people from others. Murder, rape, theft, whatever else you listed, are all crimes that deprive others. You and I agree on those laws. They are the proper role of government. What you are talking about it criminalizing behavior that does not, in itself, deprive anyone else of their rights. In that way it is exactly the same as prohibition, which is a valid comparison.

My job as a parent is to raise my kids to be good adults and people. This IS NOT the role of government with respect to adults, at least in a free country.

Nice manuever, Dukkiller. But, nowhere in that post do I indicate which laws I favor and which I don't. I was responding to Gary G's ridiculous statement that behaviour cannot be legislated. You, wisely, acknowledge that it can. In fact, that is exactly what laws do, whether they are ones you agree with (laws prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, etc.) or ones that you apparently do not agree with (sales of heroin, coccaine, etc.).