This is what Obama will be privately hearing from Latin American leaders when he starts to attend meetings with them and send envoys. Doubtlessly they will do polling on the issue to see what the American people want to do about the failed drug war.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/12/latin-american-leaders-say-us-drug-war-failure/?zIndex=52098
RIO DE JANEIRO — The war against drugs is failing and the U.S. government should break with "prohibition" policies that have achieved little more than cram its prisons and stoke violence, three former Latin American presidents said on Wednesday.
The respected former presidents urged the United States and Latin American governments to move away from jailing drug users to debate the legalization of marijuana and place more emphasis on the treatment of addicts.
Former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said there was no meaningful debate over drugs policy in the United States, despite a broad consensus that current policies had failed.
"The problem today in the U.S. is that narco-trafficking is a crime and so any politician is fearful of talking about narco-trafficking or talking about policies because they will be called soft," he said.
Gaviria has joined with former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo to try to change the debate on drugs in Latin America, where trafficking gangs have killed tens of thousands of people and weakened democracies through corruption.
From Mexico's gang wars to the drug-funded FARC guerrilla group in Colombia and daily shoot-outs between gangs and police in Rio de Janeiro's shantytowns, much of the region is scarred by drug violence and many believe U.S. policies have failed.
A United Nations meeting in Vienna next month will frame international drugs policy for the next 10 years, and the three former presidents, whose group is called the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, said it is time for change.
They pointed to falling street prices for cocaine and still high levels of consumption in the United States despite decades of policies focused on punishing users and cutting supplies from Latin American countries such as Colombia.
'PREJUDICES, FEARS'
The presidents' commission released a report calling on governments to refocus policies toward treating users, move toward decriminalizing marijuana, and invest more in education campaigns. It said current policies were rooted in "prejudices, fears and ideological visions" that inhibited debate.
Even as the group met in Rio on Wednesday, police arrested 51 people in a major operation in the city and other states against a suspected drug smuggling ring that sent cocaine to Europe and brought back synthetic drugs like Ecstasy.
Organized crime has flourished around drugs and is now threatening the stability of Mexico, where a spiraling war between rival gangs killed more than 5,700 people last year.
Cardoso, one of Latin America's most respected figures, said U.S. leadership was essential to break the cycle of drug-related crime and violence. "It will be almost impossible to solve Mexico's problems and other countries' problems without a more ample, comprehensive set of policies from the U.S. government," he said.
Despite winning power on broad promises of change, drugs policy featured little in U.S. President Barack Obama's election campaign and there are few indications that he will embark on a major overhaul.
Gaviria said Washington appeared increasingly isolated in its repressive approach as Latin America and Europe move toward treating drug abuse as a health problem rather than a crime.
Comments
RRPatLaw
February 12, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. Suggest removal
6 of 6 people found this comment useful.
The point being made is that decriminalization/legalization of drug use and possession will effectively make it unprofitable for the Latin American drug lords to operate, i.e., we'll win the war against these criminals in much the same way that bootlegging was eliminated with the end of prohiition on alcohol.
I know the argument with legalization is "OH no!!! My children and grandchildren are sure to be all drug addicts if this happens!!!" But, honestly, alcohol is legal, but is everyone who consumes it an alcoholic? Does everybody choose to consume alcohol just BECAUSE it's legal? No. The same will be true of drugs if legalized.
Latin American leaders say U.S. drug war a failure
The MG Experience ~ Off Topic Forum ~ Archives
General non-MG related discussions. No politics here please!!
Off Topic Forum: Latin American leaders say U.S. drug war a failure
http://www.mgexperience.net/phorum/read.php?47,1032850,page=1
Join the discussion, post your photos, or ask your own questions. Membership is FREE!
Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:
The point being made is that decriminalization/legalization of drug use and possession will effectively make it unprofitable for the Latin American drug lords to operate, i.e., we'll win the war against these criminals in much the same way that bootlegging was eliminated with the end of prohiition on alcohol.
I know the argument with legalization is "OH no!!! My children and grandchildren are sure to be all drug addicts if this happens!!!" But, honestly, alcohol is legal, but is everyone who consumes it an alcoholic? Does everybody choose to consume alcohol just BECAUSE it's legal? No. The same will be true of drugs if legalized.
"
The issue with drugs is their addictive nature. Alcohol is addictive, yes, but not as addicitve as other drugs. We have a foster daughter who was doing meth while she was pregant (at 13). She had been clean until we caught her w/ extacy and weed last August (at 17). If the drug were legal she would have had no incentive to break the cycle. You see, she has quit the drugs because she didn't want to lose her son. For many, her mom included, they don't care. But for her, it did matter. One saved life is worth it.
S. Duerr Wrote:
Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:Quote:
The point being made is that decriminalization/legalization of drug use and possession will effectively make it unprofitable for the Latin American drug lords to operate, i.e., we'll win the war against these criminals in much the same way that bootlegging was eliminated with the end of prohiition on alcohol.
I know the argument with legalization is "OH no!!! My children and grandchildren are sure to be all drug addicts if this happens!!!" But, honestly, alcohol is legal, but is everyone who consumes it an alcoholic? Does everybody choose to consume alcohol just BECAUSE it's legal? No. The same will be true of drugs if legalized.
The issue with drugs is their addictive nature. Alcohol is addictive, yes, but not as addicitve as other drugs. We have a foster daughter who was doing meth while she was pregant (at 13). She had been clean until we caught her w/ extacy and weed last August (at 17). If the drug were legal she would have had no incentive to break the cycle. You see, she has quit the drugs because she didn't want to lose her son. For many, her mom included, they don't care. But for her, it did matter. One saved life is worth it.
"
I understand your point and I don't advocate legalizing everything but the so called war on drugs is clearly not working and never will.
Drugs are a serious problem, no doubt, but the war as fought hasn't been a great success, has it?
showroomgarage Wrote:
I understand your point and I don't advocate legalizing everything but the so called war on drugs is clearly not working and never will.
"
I agree that the "war" on drugs isn't working. But we need something to use as a club. I'm a classroom teacher. I see the effects of weed every day. It's not as harmless as people make out. Sure, many say that they can smoke it w/ no ill effect and others say tha they can give it up any time. But, even something as "benign" as weed destroys these kids--they are apathetic and lethargic; nothing matters to them. Think what they'll be like 10 year or 20 years from now--just more empty lives to toss welfare at.
I agree that a reexaminatin of the policies needs to be done. But just legalizing things and calling it good isn't the right answer either. The problem is that the people in charge have their heads up their butts and can't come up with viable solutions to anything, so nothing good will be done to effect a positive change.
The war on drugs has been a massive failure. It's way past time to admit that legalizing drugs would save this country billions of dollars and reduce the crime rates in the process. Do I want to see our people turned into addicts? To late they already are.
The war is a lost cause and a waste of money. The mystery of trying something illegal and banned makes it's use more attractive .
The war on other crimes has not been a success, either. There are still rapes, murders and thefts. Laws alone will not stop crime. Punishment has to be sever enough to make a person think twice about doing the crime. Only one is for sure, an executed drug dealer will not deal drugs again. An executed murderer will not murder again.
Or you could just legalize everything today and then there would be no crimes committed.
S. Duerr Wrote:
I agree that the "war" on drugs isn't working. But we need something to use as a club. I'm a classroom teacher. I see the effects of weed every day. It's not as harmless as people make out. Sure, many say that they can smoke it w/ no ill effect and others say tha they can give it up any time. But, even something as "benign" as weed destroys these kids--they are apathetic and lethargic; nothing matters to them. Think what they'll be like 10 year or 20 years from now--just more empty lives to toss welfare at.
I agree that a reexaminatin of the policies needs to be done. But just legalizing things and calling it good isn't the right answer either. The problem is that the people in charge have their heads up their butts and can't come up with viable solutions to anything, so nothing good will be done to effect a positive change.
"
I do not believe anyone would support decriminalizing the big three pot/cocaine/heroin for minors. One thing would be that by clearing out the laws for those three drugs for those over 21, it would free up resourses for the enforcement of meth (a fast killer). The laws against distribution to minors would remain very strong, or made even stronger. Each state could choose to allow those three and set up laws controling them. Many of the pot heads would migrate to places where they can get away with it. Laws against public intoxication and DWI would remain in place everywhere. An employer could always choose to test and fire a worker for being a user. Loss of a job is a BIG motivator not to use. If I were to test positive only once, I would loose EVERYTHING.
I believe a different set of laws combined with treatment would yield only a few more addicts and casual users, but far less violent crime overall both here and overseas. The Taliban pay for guns with heroin they sell in Europe.
For those who want LESS government, the possible reduction of personnel in the DEA over time would be in line with their politics.
Maybe the gov't should just freely distribute meth and reduce the gene pool over the next few decades. After all, I have repeatedly been told that the tendency for drug and alcohol abuse is genetic.
Gerry Wrote:
Maybe the gov't should just freely distribute meth and reduce the gene pool over the next few decades. After all, I have repeatedly been told that the tendency for drug and alcohol abuse is genetic.
"
I have wondered about that too. For the purpose of public policy, it is best not to go there. However, many societies have had certain (now illegal) substances for thousands of years, and now have relativly few addicts. One example I remember is opium in India. A reverse of that would be alcohol's tragic effect on American Indians. Most Americans are mutts, so it is hard to say what role genetics would play. However, AFAIK nobody thinks meth is a good thing. It kills addicts very quickly with little chance for recovery.
LaVerne Wrote:
The war on drugs has been a massive failure. It's way past time to admit that legalizing drugs would save this country billions of dollars and reduce the crime rates in the process. Do I want to see our people turned into addicts? To late they already are.
"
Thank you, when illegalizing something does deter it or the crime associated with it, then it's a lost cause to keep our currecnt polices.
Many law abiding people think illegalizing drugs is rational way to do things, but it hasn't decreased drug use, it fact it has alarmly increased. WEa are paying may tax dollar to fight the war on drug, and we're losing.
Being a alcoholic will cause you to lose custody of chile and booze is legal, something to thing about.
Kids can buy drugs and will never be asked for a ID, unlike cigarettes and beer. Just come and watch all the white kids cruise the area around here for drugs, hell the black kids sell drugs becuase the white kids buy it, plain and simple.
Gerry comparing legalizing drugs to murder and rape is goofy to say the least, come on dude, you not that out of touch are you? Gerry next time you see a brother riding down the road in a hoop-dee with a $6000 set of rims, and you know a assault rifle under the seat, ask yourself, are we going about this the right way?
People still struggle with the fact that you can not legislate good judgment, there is no fix for stupid, so why the hell should we have to pay for it.
.
"Gerry comparing legalizing drugs to murder and rape is goofy to say the least, come on dude, you not that out of touch are you? Gerry next time you see a brother riding down the road in a hoop-dee with a $6000 set of rims, and you know a assault rifle under the seat, ask yourself, are we going about this the right way?"
Hap, the point I was sarcastically trying to make was that legalizing crime to reduce it is not the way. As a recovering addict myself I know that had alcohol not been readily available at every grocery store I would not have found it as easy to become an alcoholic. True, the I chose to buy it and consume it at a fifth a day, and the blame is 100% mine, but I was addicted and would do almost anything to get my daily fix. Instead of quitting I continued for years. When you cannot legislate good judgment then you have to use harsher means to solve the problem. In the case of drugs, they need to be removed from the marketplace by any means necessary. The system we have is surely not working. Why? Because the very people who break the law are turned loose with very little punishment. BTW. a few years ago, I worked with a fellow who had 14, yes that is 14 DWI arrests. He had one conviction and that is all that would show up on his record every time he would get stopped again. It took THREE YEARS for the second DWI to get worked through the system! Another 8 months for the third. Got a $500 fine after the first one, $1000 fine after the second, $2000 after the third and left the state before he had to answer for any of the others. All this time he was out driving on the roads. The others sharing the roads he traveled were just lucky is all I can say. Have no idea where he is now or how many he has killed while abusing his right to drink alcohol. I often how things would have turned out had he gotten a real sentence after the first DWI instead of a $500 fine. At no time did he lose his drivers license because the judge felt he needed to be able to drive to work and back.
The only way to solve the drug problem in the USA is take a hardline and not veer off course because someone wants to be able to more easily get his fix instead of quiting
This would be a good time for someone to define exactly what a drug is.
AS far as I am concerned, alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same as heroin and coke. I see no legitimate reason for any of them to be on the open market. The problem is that alcohol and tabacco generate too much income for all involved, from growers to sellers to health care providers to government, for either to be severely restricted.
Gerry Wrote:
AS far as I am concerned, alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same as heroin and coke. I see no legitimate reason for any of them to be on the open market. The problem is that alcohol and tabacco generate too much income for all involved, from growers to sellers to health care providers to government, for either to be severely restricted.
"
Might as well include caffeine too, Gerry. I never use caffeine, so could easily do without it.
But we might have to answer to the Cocacola company! ;)
Gerry, I totlally disagree, your co-workers danger to me and you was not that he drank booze, it was that he got behind the wheel of a car when he was drinking (big difference), throw the book at him, he put folks in danger. I not saying we make it legal to smoke crack or pot and drive, you can get a DUI for leaving the denist office while you're stilled gassed up. IMHO, I truely feel the only laws we need in our country are laws that protect harm against persons and property, the rest of it is just morally driven BS, and other folks thinking they know what is right or just for the rest of the population. We paying way too much tax money for a guy getting caught in Brownsville, Texas with a 100 pounds trying to get back to US with it, or some drug lard thug shooting and killing another one over territory fights, screww the balck market and all it's crime element, let CVS and Walgreens sell the crack and pot, and we just put the thug out fo business, and all the crime that goes with the drug war. If we can beat them with laws we beat them with price, and get a tax cut while we're at it. Laws don't mean shit if people don't follow them, this is not alot different than proabition. I mean if people want to kill themselves doing meth and herion, then screw it, lets tax them for it, and get on with it.
Gerry I always said if you want to do away with addictive drugs make them so powerful they kill you after doing them a few times, then people will learn, the threat of going to prison or getting arrested doesn't even phase these folks, thye don't think like you and I, they are ready and willing to give up everything they have to get high, what possible words on a paper (a law) can reach them?
Rod H. Wrote:
Gerry Wrote:Quote:
AS far as I am concerned, alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same as heroin and coke. I see no legitimate reason for any of them to be on the open market. The problem is that alcohol and tabacco generate too much income for all involved, from growers to sellers to health care providers to government, for either to be severely restricted.
Might as well include caffeine too, Gerry. I never use caffeine, so could easily do without it.
But we might have to answer to the Cocacola company!
"
Can you name me some cases where someone high on CocoCola got in a car and killed his passengers or others? Is caffeine a serious threat to those other than the users? Is millions of dollars spent in the health industry trying to treat the injuries caffeine causes? There needs to be some critier to determine whether the benefit out weighs the hazards of a drug but I do not have the expertise to decide what they are, just an opinion
Hap, if we let CVS or Walgreens legitatise drug use/abuse all we are doing is creating millions more addicts, all with the blessings of the government. When that happens, the drug use will become so rampant that it become commonplace in the workplace. Would you really like to be sharing the roads with drug adicts who LEGALLY acquired their drugs at CVS? Think they will have the good sense not to drive while they are impaired? When these drugs become available leagally, how do you intend on dealing with the multitudes who will be using them while driving trains, semis, airplanes or even operating your local chemical plant or nuke? Legalizing tabacco and alcohol and taxing the dickens out of it has not reduced the carnage it produces has it. I know smokers that would rather see their kids go hungry that do without their smokes. Is that what we really want to create, a whole set of legal vices to destroy people lives? I wonder where we would be now had prohibition had not been repealed. Do you think we'd have all the alcohol addicts that we have now? Would we have lost the millions of lives from DWI that we have now?
Gerry Wrote:
Rod H. Wrote:Quote:
Gerry Wrote:Quote:
AS far as I am concerned, alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same as heroin and coke. I see no legitimate reason for any of them to be on the open market. The problem is that alcohol and tabacco generate too much income for all involved, from growers to sellers to health care providers to government, for either to be severely restricted.
Might as well include caffeine too, Gerry. I never use caffeine, so could easily do without it.
But we might have to answer to the Cocacola company!
Can you name me some cases where someone high on CocoCola got in a car and killed his passengers or others? Is caffeine a serious threat to those other than the users? Is millions of dollars spent in the health industry trying to treat the injuries caffeine causes? There needs to be some critier to determine whether the benefit out weighs the hazards of a drug but I do not have the expertise to decide what they are, just an opinion
"
I don't have the expertise either, Gerry. I think you understood my point though, being that people will disagree on what drug is dangerous and what isn't, based on their personal experiences and preferences.
A usual, a few people ruin things for everyone else. Instead of each individual being able to do as he pleases, as long as he is responsible and does not interfere with the rights of others, we have blanket laws that end up allowing things that some people would consider dangerous, while prohibiting things that other people would do responsibly. We live in an imperfect world.
Of course I'm not for making caffeine illegal, Gerry. I'm *also* not for making everything that could potentially be dangerous in the wrong hands illegal. If I was, I would have to include lots of things we all do on a daily basis.
If we are to prohibit people from having a glass of wine with dinner because some people drink an entire bottle and run over someone's child in their car, we might as well make guns illegal because sometimes innocent people get shot.
Sorry to mentions guns, it was just an example. I own guns, and want to keep that right also.
I've seen the results of crack/meth/weed/alcohol/... addicts who don't drive--I have had their kids in class. The kids are barely functional. Many have learning disabilities because of what their parents did to them. Now, we are paying extra educaitonal expenses to try to get these kids to learn at a normal level--something that will never happen because of the damage done to their brains when they were infused with drugs while in their mom's womb. When they get older, they are nonfunctioning adults who are predisposed to drugs because of the drugs they were exposed to while they were in their mom's womb and they become a financial burden to society.
I have the daughter of a meth addict living with me, she's been with us since April 2005. My foster daughter got pregnant at 13. She did weed, meth, alchol while pregnant. Her son is exhibiting some issues that concern me--he's 3. We have a whole foster care system in Bakersfield full of the kids of addicts. It is costing the system over 1k/month to house our foster daughter and her son with us. (We don't charge that, they reimburse us for the expense we incurr by haveing them live with us.) Multiply that times the hundreds of kids in the system, pluss health care, etc.
The only reason our foster daughter's mom cleaned up was because of the court and threat of jail. As I stated earlier, we cuaght our foster daughter with drugs. The only reason she cleaned up was because of the threat of jail and losing her son. In the case of both our foster daughter and her mom, the drugs were being done w/o driving, w/o "harming" others--done in the "privacy of their own home."
We need to have limits to have a functioning society. Without limits, we have anarchy. Every year, I have students who want anarchy until I point out that, if they get to do what they want, then I would get to do what I want as well. I ask them, "Do you really want me to do to you what ever I want to?" I'm willing to give up my "right" to [fill in the blank] to have a safe and orderly society.
Who decides which drugs should be illegal? The government. (I know, they can't decide how do do any thing properly.) What should be illegal? Those that are severly addcitve and those that impare functioning. Cigarettes are addictive, but don't impare funcitoning. Alcohol meets both categoreis... Weed meets both categores. Crack/cocaine/meth/heroin/extacy/...meet both requirements. Legalizing and taxing isn't the answer--it doesn't work with alcohol as evidenced by all the deaths from DUIs.
Just my thoughts.
Steve
Rod H. Wrote:
Of course I'm not for making caffeine illegal, Gerry. I'm *also* not for making everything that could potentially be dangerous in the wrong hands illegal. If I was, I would have to include lots of things we all do on a daily basis.
If we are to prohibit people from having a glass of wine with dinner because some people drink an entire bottle and run over someone's child in their car, we might as well make guns illegal because sometimes innocent people get shot.
Sorry to mentions guns, it was just an example. I own guns, and want to keep that right also.
"
The difference between guns and drugs is that the Constitution does not specifically guarantee the right to get stoned unless you lump into the right to the pursuit of happiness
S. Duerr Wrote:
I've seen the results of crack/meth/weed/alcohol/... addicts who don't drive--I have had their kids in class. The kids are barely functional. Many have learning disabilities because of what their parents did to them. Now, we are paying extra educaitonal expenses to try to get these kids to learn at a normal level--something that will never happen because of the damage done to their brains when they were infused with drugs while in their mom's womb. When they get older, they are nonfunctioning adults who are predisposed to drugs because of the drugs they were exposed to while they were in their mom's womb and they become a financial burden to society.
I have the daughter of a meth addict living with me, she's been with us since April 2005. My foster daughter got pregnant at 13. She did weed, meth, alchol while pregnant. Her son is exhibiting some issues that concern me--he's 3. We have a whole foster care system in Bakersfield full of the kids of addicts. It is costing the system over 1k/month to house our foster daughter and her son with us. (We don't charge that, they reimburse us for the expense we incurr by haveing them live with us.) Multiply that times the hundreds of kids in the system, pluss health care, etc.
The only reason our foster daughter's mom cleaned up was because of the court and threat of jail. As I stated earlier, we cuaght our foster daughter with drugs. The only reason she cleaned up was because of the threat of jail and losing her son. In the case of both our foster daughter and her mom, the drugs were being done w/o driving, w/o "harming" others--done in the "privacy of their own home."
We need to have limits to have a functioning society. Without limits, we have anarchy. Every year, I have students who want anarchy until I point out that, if they get to do what they want, then I would get to do what I want as well. I ask them, "Do you really want me to do to you what ever I want to?" I'm willing to give up my "right" to to have a safe and orderly society.
Who decides which drugs should be illegal? The government. (I know, they can't decide how do do any thing properly.) What should be illegal? Those that are severly addcitve and those that impare functioning. Cigarettes are addictive, but don't impare funcitoning. Alcohol meets both categoreis... Weed meets both categores. Crack/cocaine/meth/heroin/extacy/...meet both requirements. Legalizing and taxing isn't the answer--it doesn't work with alcohol as evidenced by all the deaths from DUIs.
Just my thoughts.
Steve
"
Steve, your comments and concerns aren't lost on me. My wife has a Masters in Special Education and has been an educator for 15 years, most of which in that field, though now she teaches third grade. She has worked for both private and public schools, and began at a private school for ED kids. For four years she taught HS Sp Ed. The effects of fetal alcohol syndrome/drug children are very obvious to people like you and her who see these kids daily. I've been with her in the evening at school program night when parents have shown up drunk after the show to pick up their third grade kids from the classroom. The parents were at the tavern while the program was going...how cool, the teachers babysit the kids free that evening so parents can go to the tav. :(
Even so, do we really go back to prohibition days? It didn't work before, and I don't think it will work today any better. Do I have a solution? No, at least not a simple one. What I do believe is that we need to go to the root cause of why people can't practice moderation, whether it's a problem of attitude, upbringing, society, and psychology/chemistry. It's out of my area of expertise, but I know we can't just prohibit everything that causes problems in the hands of a few. If we do, and as a society accept this, soon we would have no liberties.
Gerry Wrote:
Rod H. Wrote:Quote:
Of course I'm not for making caffeine illegal, Gerry. I'm *also* not for making everything that could potentially be dangerous in the wrong hands illegal. If I was, I would have to include lots of things we all do on a daily basis.
If we are to prohibit people from having a glass of wine with dinner because some people drink an entire bottle and run over someone's child in their car, we might as well make guns illegal because sometimes innocent people get shot.
Sorry to mentions guns, it was just an example. I own guns, and want to keep that right also.
The difference between guns and drugs is that the Constitution does not specifically guarantee the right to get stoned unless you lump into the right to the pursuit of happiness
"
Gerry, you are an intelligent guy, so don't pretend that you don't understand my point. It's about (responsible) Liberty, and avoiding the erosion of the rights of the many because of the irresponsibility of the few, not about being stoned to pursue happiness.
I'm no expert on constitutional law, but my idea on it is that the intent was to give us the reasonable right to have weapons to defend ourselves if necessary, and to give us as much liberty as possible as long as we don't infringe on the liberty of others.
Pretty obvious that non-prohibition does not work, either. Prohibition lasted, what 13 or so years? In the following 70+ years has the problem gotten better or worse?
Bottom line here is that if restricting the access to drugs has not worked. Removing or reducing the restrictions is not going to reduce their use. It will only make them legal for the abusers to get. Taxing the crap out of them will only continue the blackmarket. Making them cheaper will only increase their use, leaving us with a bigger addict problem than we already have.
Just wondering, if the ownership and use of MGBs was restricted, do you think it would increase the ownership or discourage their ownership? Sure, there will always be a black market for illegal MGBs but would that black market feed the market enough to cause MGB ownership to rise?
Look to Holland...
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.[20] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[21]
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 41% of criminal investigations.[21]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Gerry Wrote:
Pretty obvious that non-prohibition does not work, either. Prohibition lasted, what 13 or so years? In the following 70+ years has the problem gotten better or worse?
Bottom line here is that if restricting the access to drugs has not worked. Removing or reducing the restrictions is not going to reduce their use. It will only make them legal for the abusers to get. Taxing the crap out of them will only continue the blackmarket. Making them cheaper will only increase their use, leaving us with a bigger addict problem than we already have.
Just wondering, if the ownership and use of MGBs was restricted, do you think it would increase the ownership or discourage their ownership? Sure, there will always be a black market for illegal MGBs but would that black market feed the market enough to cause MGB ownership to rise?
"
Gerry, I'm not off-the-cuff suggesting we legalize more drugs. This is a subject I'm undecided about, but have given some thought. There are good arguments for making alcohol harder to get and use, and for different reasons there are good arguments for allowing people the liberty to grow a little pot. Alcohol kills people way too often, and pot kills people's motivation. Both are problems. My first reaction, seeing the problems with alcohol, is to go the direction of making alcohol harder to get, but then I start to think about liberty. In addition, personally, being a moderate drinker I'd be pissed off about the government telling me I couldn't have a glass of beer with my pizza, or a glass of wine with my lasagna. Although I don't smoke or use caffeine, I'd be just as outraged on principle if the government banned these.
I think rather than focusing on legalizing things, or prohibiting things, it might be best to focus on a third idea. This idea is trying to find the solution to why people have problems with these substances in the first place. It's not an area I have any expertise in, but I can't help think it's a better avenue than blanket erosion of the rights of everyone.
Of course, what happens is that we have not found these hard found solutions, so we apply a pound of cure instead of the ounce of prevention.
Could it be that there are no easy solutions that will keep everyone happy? Every problem does not have an easy or PC solution. One thing is for sure, the problem has not go away in the 70 or so years we have been looking for that easy solution. That leads me to believe that the solution has be lie in a different direction that what we have been doing.
Gerry Wrote:
Could it be that there are no easy solutions that will keep everyone happy? Every problem does not have an easy or PC solution. One thing is for sure, the problem has not go away in the 70 or so years we have been looking for that easy solution. That leads me to believe that the solution has be lie in a different direction that what we have been doing.
"
A post I can agree with 100%, Gerry.
What if we randomly distributed drugs mixed with high levels of arsenic?
Frequent newspaper headlines such as "Sixty three fine, upstanding, young men and women dead at rave party, bad batch of ecstasy suspected" might quell things.
Rod H. Wrote:
Gerry Wrote:Quote:
Could it be that there are no easy solutions that will keep everyone happy? Every problem does not have an easy or PC solution. One thing is for sure, the problem has not go away in the 70 or so years we have been looking for that easy solution. That leads me to believe that the solution has be lie in a different direction that what we have been doing.
A post I can agree with 100%, Gerry.
"
Exactly, and a this point snce illegalizng drugs hasn't worked, I'm for anything that take the black market crime out of the illegal drug equaton, most folks here are far removed from this, and only hear about it on the news. Gerry I carry a gun with me to work everyday, not because I want to, because I need to and it's not to protect myself agianst cigarette smokers and alcoholics, I totally sick of the freaking crime associated with illegal drugs. It's high time (no pun intended) to take the crime out of this, for the safety of the people. It's not about morals, it's abut common sense, take away the income of the criminal. People have this illusion that if something is legal, it is easier to get, nothing is more easier to obtain than something illegal on the streets, most of us are just so far removed from that trian of thought, we don't get it.
Gerry Wrote:
Could it be that there are no easy solutions that will keep everyone happy? Every problem does not have an easy or PC solution. One thing is for sure, the problem has not go away in the 70 or so years we have been looking for that easy solution. That leads me to believe that the solution has be lie in a different direction that what we have been doing.
"
X2
What if we randomly distributed drugs mixed with high levels of arsenic?
Frequent newspaper headlines such as "Sixty three fine, upstanding, young men and women dead at rave party, bad batch of ecstasy suspected" might quell things
Didn't we aready do that with paraquat?
Yes, a huge failure.
What is the first rule, if you find yourself in a deep hole, quit digging? Sometimes it appears our approach has been to buy bigger shovels.
Drug abuse is an illness. As alcoholism. The more we can recognize that, the better off we are.
How we cure this illness, I haven't a clue. I suspect it's more like a viral infection; it never goes away. The majority of folks can get high occasionally, or have a drink, and not have an issue. Others cannot.
The morality of this just makes it harder. Like the old school preachers and moonshiners forming alliances to keep the country dry.
I know as a parent drugs are something I fear my offspring will struggle with. So far no issues. My son has had friends go off the deep end.
MudSnow Wrote:
What if we randomly distributed drugs mixed with high levels of arsenic?
Frequent newspaper headlines such as "Sixty three fine, upstanding, young men and women dead at rave party, bad batch of ecstasy suspected" might quell things.
"
Damn Nathan....did you go and join the Taliban or something?
This is an archived discussion from the The MG Experience Forums
If you would like to post a reply, please click below to visit the The MG Experience Forums:Off Topic Forum: Latin American leaders say U.S. drug war a failure
Archive Index | The MG Experience Forums | Return to The MG Experience