The utter immorality of the 'Drug War'

[yellowtail3]

In the Washington Post, Peter Wehner advises the Republican Party to reassert itself as the anti-drug legalization party. "One of the main deterrents to drug use is because it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up," he writes. "And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems." Of course, no one is advocating that adolescent marijuana be made legal. And does Wehner understand that prohibition creates a powerful incentive for upping drug potency?But rather than focus on mistaken arguments common to drug prohibitionists, I want to address a relatively novel claim: "Many people cite the 'costs' of and 'socioeconomic factors' behind drug use; rarely do people say that drug use is wrong because it is morally problematic, because of what it can do to mind and soul," Wehner writes. "In some liberal and libertarian circles, the 'language of morality' is ridiculed. It is considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human character."What he doesn't seem to understand is that many advocates of individual liberty, myself included, regard it as a moral imperative. I don't want to ridicule the "language of morality." I want to state, as forcefully as possible, that the War on Drugs is deeply, irredeemably immoral; that it corrodes the minds and souls of those who prosecute it, and creates incentives for bad behavior that those living under its contours have always and will always find too powerful to resist. Drug warriors may disagree, but they should not pretend that they are the only ones making moral claims, and that their opponents are indifferent to morality. Reformers are often morally outraged by prohibitionist policies and worry that nannying degrades the character of citizens.Perhaps I should be more specific.

See the man in the photo at the top of this article? It isn't immoral for him to light a plant on fire, inhale the smoke, and enjoy a mild high for a short time, presuming he doesn't drive while high. But it would be immoral to react to his plant-smoking by sending men with guns to forcibly arrest him, convict him in a court, and lock him up for months or even years for a victimless crime. That's the choice, dear reader. So take a look at the guy in the photo and make your choice: is it more moral to let him smoke, or to forcibly cage him with thieves, rapists and murderers? 


Full article here:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/the-war-on-drugs-is-far-more-immoral-than-most-drug-use/274651/

[ChungDoQuan]

One would think that "conservatives" would WANT the government to but-out when it came to private behavior. The next candidate who comes out openly against the drug war will win.

[two-blocked]

HEH, the kid looks like a libby-dem. It would be immoral not to lock him up. ... along with you two!

[coyotejoe]

Unfortunately there is more money to be made by keeping the drug war going than by letting it fade away. If marijuana were treated like any other agricultural product it would be far cheaper than tobacco because it is far easier to grow with much higher yield per acre.

[guzzijohn]

Just referring to marijuana here but once again what is more dangerous and disruptive to a person's life the use of weed much like alcohol is used by most folk or the laws? In the vast majority of cases no one other than the person tells even knows users are using. They go to work, go to church, go to little league games, pay taxes, may hold a public office or do volunteer work much like most responsible alcohol users. Now what happens to that person's life if busted? Good chance of losing their job so no longer a tax payer, the stress and cost may break up the family. Obtaining other work will be much more difficult. They will probably lose most or all of their saving to lawyers and the courts. In other word their life is now a total mess, not due to the drug itself but the insane laws surrounding it.
GuzziJohn

[45-70.gov]

and just how do you  propose the CIA and other government agencies
get their  funding  for COVERT OPERATIONS  with out the underground drug industry?


CONGREES??......there goes the key word ''covert''  with all them  playing gotcha


we  need all these undergrond  addicts  funding  covert operations
DEA  is just to keep the price up and control competition

[ironglow]

  the utter immorality of the drug war...
 
  Hmmm... no immorality in using the garbage ?

[yellowtail3]

  the utter immorality of the drug war...
 
  Hmmm... no immorality in using the garbage ?

No, I don't see any immorality there. I suppose we could discuss what constitutes 'morality' on this issue. The guy pictured is smoking some cannabis, and you're calling it 'garbage' - so I'll guess, in this case, 'morality' is determined by your own personal preferences & prejudices?

let's restrict this to marijuana, for purpose of discussion.

[dukkillr]

Whoa now people.  Lets take a step back from the abyss here. 
 
The drug war, "immoral"?  Are you freaking kidding me?  We need more drug wars.  Drugs are wrong!  People who do drugs are wrong!  By drugs I mean the ones I've decided are wrong!  And if you think people should be free to make their own decisions about what to put in their bodies, not only are you wrong, buy you're also a druggie.  Don't try to claim otherwise, or you'll be wrong!
 
For instance:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/29/4151124_kansas-couple-indoor-gardening.html
 
These people were wrong.  They thought they had some kind of right to grow tomatoes in their own house without it resulting a police raid.  They were wrong.  So wrong.  They are also wrong to think they should be treated with some respect, hey, they used to be CIA agents and had classified clearance.  So wrong.  The police will treat you the way you deserve to be treated because they are right.  If you don't like it, you are wrong.  They were also wrong to suggest they deserve an apology, or even an explanation.  It is wrong to think one should be allowed to see what "evidence" was used to justify a warrant because the police are right, and the owners are wrong.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant?  WRONG!  Trusting the government to safeguard your rights is right, except for the second amendment, when it's wrong. 
 
Whew.  Let's recap.  Drugs I don't like - wrong.  Huge tax bills to enforce my own code of morality - right.  Questioning obvious logical flaws in my own code of morality - wrong (and you must be a druggie).
 
Got it?  If you don't, well... you're wrong (and probably a druggie).

[mcwoodduck]

One would think that "conservatives" would WANT the government to but-out when it came to private behavior. The next candidate who comes out openly against the drug war will win.

The problem is not moral as to the use of the drugs.  You can argue effects and use of this or that and compare pot or other to alchol all day. 
It is not a right or left thing. 
The moral question is weather you inforce the law.  If you enforce the law on the books than all laws mean something.  If you can ignore one law or not enforce it then all laws can be ignored.  The morality question is that of our system.  Either our system is moral and applied evenly to all or it is not.  Once some can pick and choose laws they want to break.  Can I pick three laws I think are wrong and just ignore them?  If you are letting some peole choose laws they will follow or enforce why have any laws at all?
I am all for your freedoms ending where mine start.  I voted to legalize medical pot here in CA it was sold as medicine and to be regulated and sold at a pharmacy with a prescription.  Making it a legal drug would have standardized potency, would have set standards for growing and packaging like you have with alchol.  None of that has happened.  and all it has done in encourage more crime in growing, tax evasion, and the crime lods of Mexico getting involved in growing in our state and national forests.  Causing bio hazards, loss of wild life, and violence to protect these fields from people wanting to use the national forests and parks. 
As a leftist you would think that they would want to enforce the drug laws.  And push Booze over pot.  Pot is not taxed, booze is.  There are not DUI laws for pot, there are for booze.  Illegal drugs are a money looser for the state, federal and local governments.  Where as legal drugs like booze are a money maker at all levels for government.  Why do they go after the moonshiners?  Safety or is it the tax money?
And yes you can argue that the illegal part of the drugs make them more enticing to try.   But shouldn't there be real punishments to make it the real bad item?  Are you willing to do 4 months in jail for pot?  Loose your time in school?  Are you willing to spend 9 months in jail for dealing first offense?  Maybe if we applied the laws, we wound not have to problems in Mexico, our schools, our inner cities, and the violence protecting the drug trade and the crime to feed the habits of them. 

[Doublebass73]

Trillions of taxpayer dollars spent and the same amount of people still get high. We sure are getting our money's worth.

[ironglow]

      Of course, how could I have been so wrong ?  Certainly, laws should not be made simply because some people's  NORALITY is offended!
 
    Shucks!  Some folks think such harmless fun as rape, murder, pillage and robbery are IMMORAL!  Why in the world should those things be outlawed simply because SOME people think they are IMMORAL acts?
     
    With the various drugs at which the "drug war" is aimed, why outlaw them, just because some fuddy-duddy thinks they are immoral?  So what if that same old fuddy-duddy is concerned with the druggie who is going to get stoked up and run his Tahoe down the street and kill your wife or kids?  How do your family's lives rate anywhere as valuable as the druggie's "freedom"?
 
      It is so much more important that some drug-dependant idiot get his "fix" than your wife or kids be safer on the high way  After all, how can our loved ones be compared in value to that batch of heroine, meth, marijuana, PCB or cocaine? 
     How could I be so insensitive to the potheads?
 
  Some of you guys seem to think it is my sense of morality which drives my objections to the drug culture (or non-culture).  My morality is only a very  minor part.. more cogent is the concern for our own America.  Do we really want a percentage of our citizens to be moving around zombie-like in drugged up stupors?  Do you want every neighborhood to be like those where drugs are tacitly  "accepted" ?
   
     Don't come up with that "It can't happen here" trash talk; I've lived long enough to have seen several "can't happen heres" come about exactly as predicted they would note   Most recently, we heard people right on this forum swearing that Obama would never try to grab our guns.  They said we have the 2nd amendment ...and it "can't happen here"..
 
  Sorry, but I believe we who perhaps may be the deeper, longer range thinkers, have the duty to be "watchers on the wall" ..and sound a warning when an obvious danger threatens our national & cultural existence.
 
  Naturally, somebody who is already hooked on one drug or another is going to dispute the validity of my observation.

[yellowtail3]

Shucks!

whoa - not a sign of a thoughtful person....

Some folks think such harmless fun as rape, murder, pillage and robbery are IMMORAL!  Why in the world should those things be outlawed simply because SOME people think they are IMMORAL acts?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
     

It is so much more important that some drug-dependant idiot get his "fix" than your wife or kids be safer on the high way  After all, how can our loved ones be compared in value to that batch of heroine, meth, marijuana, PCB or cocaine? 
 

Is that why MJ is illegal? Fear of traffic accidents?

How could I be so insensitive to the potheads?

Possibly because you're sometimes an obtuse, self-righteous clown?

Naturally, somebody who is already hooked on one drug or another is going to dispute the validity of my observation.

I do believe that dukkillr predicted that very response - didn't he?

[guzzijohn]

Quote from ironglow:
"So what if that same old fuddy-duddy is concerned with the druggie who is going to get stoked up and run his Tahoe down the street and kill your wife or kids?"


IG, basically the above happens multiple times a day across the nation with ALCOHOL because society has decided that DRUG is okay.
GuzziJohn

[dakotashooter2]

I just laugh whenever I hear the statement that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper. It will do just the opposite and make them more expensive because the government will get their fingers in it.....................Want an example..... walk down to the local pharmacy..................

I guess if people want to use drugs let them use drugs.....but increase their accountability for their actions. No using the effects of the drug as an excuse for their actions. You know going in that there may be consequences for your actions under the influence so you take responsibility for those actions up front or don't take the drugs. I feel the same about alcohol.  Since the govt essentially wants us to be licensed/registered to have guns how about a license to consume/buy alcohol or drugs?

[yellowtail3]

I just laugh whenever I hear the statement that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper. It will do just the opposite and make them more expensive because the government will get their fingers in it.....................Want an example..... walk down to the local pharmacy..................

I say, it's none of the gubmint's damned bidness what a free man grows in his garden or smokes in his pipe.


The line about 'legalize, regulate, tax...' I detest it. It's like a Tony Soprano shake-down: 'we'll let you operate so long as you pay us off'

[ChungDoQuan]

I do have to point out that marijuana was originally made illegal because Standard Oil (J.P. Morgan) and Dow Chemicals LOBBIED to get it made illegal. It had nothing to do with it being a mild drug. In the early 1900s, automobiles could be run on alcohol, gasoline or even batteries, as well as diesel. Even industrial hemp leaves could produce as much as 25 times as much ethanol per acre than corn. And Dow produced the raw materials for rayon, which was almost as strong as hemp cloth, and was made from petroleum by-products. Hemp was being grown by very poor farmers in Kentucky West Virginia, Tennessee, etc. The Morgan/Rockefeller bunch didn't want competition from alcohol burning engines or in the textile industries, so they initiated a campaign against marijuana--- the whole 'drug' idea was blown out of proportion to scare the public, most of whom had never heard of it. Just more unregulated capitalism at work.

You could still still order opiates in the mail, and Coke still had cocaine in it at the time.

[yellowtail3]

Do you have a problem with colloquialisms ?

When used to express dismissive contempt? - Yeah, I do.

You haven't been reading your own thread.  I have been accused of injecting my MORALS into the discussion.  Heavens forbid we base any laws on MORALITY..

?
     

Sleeping drivers are not effective drivers...  

What does this have to do with this thread?

And perhaps you disagree..because you are puffing..  

More likely because I've actually thought about this, and because I'm NOT an obtuse, self-righteous clown.

Naturally, somebody who is already hooked on one drug or another is going to dispute the validity of my observation.

I do believe that dukkillr predicted that very response - didn't he?   You had better re-read my post; I didn't say ALL who disagree are druggies, but I did say those who are on drugs..would dispute my observations..a bit different, if you read carefully.
Your meaning is clear; no need to weasel or hedge.

  Hey YT;
  Cool avatar you have there..  the queer "marriage" logo..

that was intentional. And those are AR-15 mags. All kinds of upsetting to FB friends who have the HRC symbol on their pages - at least, the ones who support the kinds of freedoms they approve of, and not those they disapprove of... they've kind of like you, in that regard, except you're probably not gay.

[mcwoodduck]

I just laugh whenever I hear the statement that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper. It will do just the opposite and make them more expensive because the government will get their fingers in it.....................Want an example..... walk down to the local pharmacy..................

I say, it's none of the gubmint's damned bidness what a free man grows in his garden or smokes in his pipe.


The line about 'legalize, regulate, tax...' I detest it. It's like a Tony Soprano shake-down: 'we'll let you operate so long as you pay us off'

If you are going to compare A to B they need to be on equal footing.  and I agree what you do at home is what you do at home.  But the problem comes with what you do outside the home.  Growing and smoking at home is one thing selling it, then other things come into the equasion.  Is it a Drug being used for medicine?  Then a dose needs to be established.  How strong and how often are what decribes a drug.  We clearly have limits on Wine, beer and booze as to the strength of them.  Now you can make your own wine, beer and cidar in the house and no one will do anythng to you, you can give it to your friends.  The sale for profit is where things get sticky and taxes need to be paid.  Lets move away from legal and illega for a minute.  And look at your garden.  You grow peas.  You can eat them your self, you can give them away, and you can make things with them like soup.  The only time the government is going to get involved with your growing and using the peas is if you are making a profit out of them and they want their share.  So you start selling the soup.  It is real good and people love it.  The government gets involved in you selling it as a restaraunt and making sure you meet health standards and you do not make others sick.  The same would go if you were canning the soup.  With that they want to tax your profits as income tax.  Why should anything else be any different.  You grow corn and make corn squeezings and let them ferment and turn it into whiskey they just want to make sure it is safe to drink.  The first portion and the last are poison.  Now the problem comes with the corn or the peas if the growing of them is illegal.  Then you have to up hold the law or change the law.  You simply can not ignore the law  I am all for personal growing and use.  You grow it and you can use it.  Would end a lot of the drug problems.

[yellowtail3]

looky here what just popped into the new feed....


http://news.yahoo.com/majority-now-support-marijuana-legalization-184407288.html

For years, supporters of marijuana legalization have pointed to polls trending their way, claiming the issue was about to tip as favorable to a majority of Americans.
Now, their prediction has finally come true.
For the first time, a major U.S. poll shows a majority of nationwide support for legalizing marijuana: 52 percent now back legalized pot, compared with 45 percent who oppose it, according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center. Pew has been asking about marijuana since 1969, when only 12 percent thought it should be legal, and 84 percent said it shouldn't be.
In the last few years, national polls have shown marijuana flirting with overall popularity.
In 2011, 50 percent told Gallup that marijuana should be legal-a record in that firm's polling. (That support sank to 48 percent last year.) ABC and The Washington Post found 48 percent support in November, and CBS found 4 7 percent in favor of legalization in the same month. Gallup reported in December that 64 percent said the federal government should step aside when states clear the way for pot.
The new Pew survey comes on the heels of two big victories for marijuana supporters in 2012, when Washington and Colorado became the first two states to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
Support has grown rapidly in the last three years. Since March 2010, when most opposed marijuana legalization and 41 percent backed it, support has grown by 11 percentage points in Pew's data. Since 2002, it's grown by 20 percent.
The legalization charge is being led by young people: Support ranked highest among 18-29-year-old respondents, 64 percent of whom think pot should be legal. Politically, liberal Democrats overwhelmingly think marijuana should be legal, at 73 percent.
But the idea of legalization has grown by making inroads among Republicans. Since 2010, the demographic that has shifted more support than any other-including groups broken down by age, political leaning, race, gender, and education-is liberal and moderate Republicans. Among them, support has jumped 17 percentage points in the last three years, from 36 percent in 2010 to 53 percent today.

[mcwoodduck]

looky here what just popped into the new feed....


http://news.yahoo.com/majority-now-support-marijuana-legalization-184407288.html

For years, supporters of marijuana legalization have pointed to polls trending their way, claiming the issue was about to tip as favorable to a majority of Americans.
Now, their prediction has finally come true.
For the first time, a major U.S. poll shows a majority of nationwide support for legalizing marijuana: 52 percent now back legalized pot, compared with 45 percent who oppose it, according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center. Pew has been asking about marijuana since 1969, when only 12 percent thought it should be legal, and 84 percent said it shouldn't be.
In the last few years, national polls have shown marijuana flirting with overall popularity.
In 2011, 50 percent told Gallup that marijuana should be legal-a record in that firm's polling. (That support sank to 48 percent last year.) ABC and The Washington Post found 48 percent support in November, and CBS found 4 7 percent in favor of legalization in the same month. Gallup reported in December that 64 percent said the federal government should step aside when states clear the way for pot.
The new Pew survey comes on the heels of two big victories for marijuana supporters in 2012, when Washington and Colorado became the first two states to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
Support has grown rapidly in the last three years. Since March 2010, when most opposed marijuana legalization and 41 percent backed it, support has grown by 11 percentage points in Pew's data. Since 2002, it's grown by 20 percent.
The legalization charge is being led by young people: Support ranked highest among 18-29-year-old respondents, 64 percent of whom think pot should be legal. Politically, liberal Democrats overwhelmingly think marijuana should be legal, at 73 percent.
But the idea of legalization has grown by making inroads among Republicans. Since 2010, the demographic that has shifted more support than any other-including groups broken down by age, political leaning, race, gender, and education-is liberal and moderate Republicans. Among them, support has jumped 17 percentage points in the last three years, from 36 percent in 2010 to 53 percent today.

OK so now what?  Because a majority favor it, it does not change the law.  It is still illegal.  You need to enforce the laws until you change the laws.  Right they asked Elliot Ness what he was going to do once they repeal Prohabition.  He said have a drink.  But until the point the repealed it wit hthe 19th amendment he enforced the laws on the books. 

[mcwoodduck]

I have a question. 
If smoking is bad and has been banned in almost all public places will weed be alloowed but not tabacco?  The kid in the picture is clearly lighing up in a bar.  And unlike Tabacco you can have a contact high from the weed.  Will you be allowed ot smoke pot in bars as you will be effecting others in the bar that may not want to get high.  After all you do not vaporize a shot of vodka for all to inhale.
At what point is your lighting up, if made legal infringe on my rights to be in a public place? 

[yellowtail3]

Right they asked Elliot Ness what he was going to do once they repeal Prohabition.  He said have a drink.  But until the point the repealed it wit hthe 19th amendment he enforced the laws on the books.

I believe that was Kevin Costner who said that. The real Elliot Ness was nowhere near as clean as his fictionalized portrayals. either way... enforcing unjust laws is just plain wrong, IMHO.

[magooch]

Wow!  I think I'm having de'ja vu all over again.  Haven't we cussed and discussed this topic to death yet?  Here in Washington State the voters decided pot should be sort of legal.  It's still illegal for kids, it's still illegal for anyone to use it in public and you can't drive, or operate machinery with it in your system.  I don't know if they have a final decision on whether, or not an employee can be canned if it shows up in a blood test.


I think a lot of idiots voted to legalize the crap, because it was said that the state would make a lot of money from the tax on it.  Recently they got the news that it won't amount to a fraction of what the proponents said.  So now they'll have to look into how much revenue might come from legalizing cocaine and heroine.


All one has to do is look at our stupid leader to see what the affects of using drugs are.  He can't even hit ten percent of his set shots.

[mcwoodduck]

Right they asked Elliot Ness what he was going to do once they repeal Prohabition.  He said have a drink.  But until the point the repealed it wit hthe 19th amendment he enforced the laws on the books.

I believe that was Kevin Costner who said that. The real Elliot Ness was nowhere near as clean as his fictionalized portrayals. either way... enforcing unjust laws is just plain wrong, IMHO.

Ok but what is and unjust law?  I think it is unjust that I have ot pay for parking on a public street.  I think it is unjust that I have ot pay the sales tax on the List price of a Cell phone  and not the actual price I paid for the phone.  I think it is unjust that Illegals get away with not having a driver license and are released by the police with out a ticket or impoundment of their car.  If I were to do that I would be ticketed and car impounded.   Why are our laws not enforced, why are some allowed to ignore laws.  Police are sworn to up hold the laws of the nation and state.   They are not sworn to uphold the policy of the current administration.       

[mcwoodduck]

Wow!  I think I'm having de'ja vu all over again.  Haven't we cussed and discussed this topic to death yet?  Here in Washington State the voters decided pot should be sort of legal.  It's still illegal for kids, it's still illegal for anyone to use it in public and you can't drive, or operate machinery with it in your system.  I don't know if they have a final decision on whether, or not an employee can be canned if it shows up in a blood test.


I think a lot of idiots voted to legalize the crap, because it was said that the state would make a lot of money from the tax on it.  Recently they got the news that it won't amount to a fraction of what the proponents said.  So now they'll have to look into how much revenue might come from legalizing cocaine and heroine.


All one has to do is look at our stupid leader to see what the affects of using drugs are.  He can't even hit ten percent of his set shots.

But how can you have a State that is part of the union ignore federal law?  All ellected oficials are sworn ot uphold the laws of the land, not just their state.   So if it is illegal in all of the country how can you have it legal in a state, even if it is kind of legal.  If I were in Congress I would ask the governers of those states the same question and ask if they are leaving the union.  If they fail to enforce federal law I would have them held in contempt of congress.  If we need ot change the law the nwe change the law. until then you have to uphold the laws or none of the laws mean anything. 

[buffermop]

Lets bring home our troops from foreign ports of call and set up our own border protection from drug imports. When we catch the bums responsible for drug imports,ship them back to where ever. Increase our cruise ships with double duty assignments. A one way cruise that would end in the middle of the Carribean and let them swim there way back if they make it.

[SHOOTALL]

When presidents from as far back as George Washington used pot ( it wasn't illegal until the 1930's) use it and one would guess enjoyed it . You have to ask why was it not illegal before then ? If you are well educated in rope production you may notice that when synthetic rope became available then the laws were passed to ban pot. Now I won't claim one caused the other you judge. But maybe someone can enlighten us as to who paid for the production of REFFER MADNESS ? The film that convinced many of the need to ban pot. It would be hard to not notice the incentive for LEO's to go after the illegal drug trade as in many cases they get a cut of the confiscated goods and money , but again I won't draw conclusions here either because there may be a few that really do it to help.
 As for being legal vs. illegal get real when you tell kids they can't do something they start looking for ways to do it. Adults are the same , if not there would be no run on gun stores .
 Chasing pot smokers is not cost effective , never has been . I would rather my tax contribution be spend on elimating hard drugs and closing the borders.

[45-70.gov]

who  here drinks  or has drunk  alcohol??


and of you that have....... i want to ask.....
do you think people who use or have used drugs should be able to buy a gun??


are you stupid enough to tell me alcohol is not a drug??


i just want to see some perspective....not passing judgement  or any thing
3 simple questions.....who  has the guts to answer?

[Gary G]

One would think that "conservatives" would WANT the government to but-out when it came to private behavior. The next candidate who comes out openly against the drug war will win.

Not the neocons. They want to but in. It is a part of their mantra of desire to control everything. Same for the Social Democrats.