OPINION & EDITORIAL
‘War on drugs’ cloaks oppression
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- Candidates betray King's radicalism (April 16, 2008)
- Media coverage favors U.S. interests (April 2, 2008)
- Irrational fears fuel crime focus (March 26, 2008)
- Revolution deep in the hearts, minds of Americans (March 12, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Moderation possible on drug law (April 28, 2008)
- Readers slay Goliath with e-responses (April 25, 2008)
- Which right is right on drugs? (April 24, 2008)
- Leave drunkenness as drinkers' problem (January 30, 2003)
- Increasing taxes to fund Medicaid (March 11, 2005)
Share This:
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
In 2000, the leading cause of death in the United States was tobacco, killing an estimated 435,000 people, according to the American Medical Association. The No. 3 cause of death was alcohol, accounting for 85,000 deaths. Much further down the list were illicit drugs — including heroine, cocaine, etc. — resulting in the deaths of 17,000 people. Marijuana was not responsible for a single fatality.
The term “war on drugs” is a misleading one, as the above should have made clear. The battle against drug use applies to only a select number of body-altering chemical substances, specifically the less dangerous ones. More potent killers — namely tobacco — have been annually lavished with tens of millions in subsidies from the federal government, according to its own statistics.
And U.S. foreign policy has been, to say the least, less than helpful in inhibiting the growth of an international drug market. During the Vietnam War era, the CIA participated in the heroine trade in the Golden Triangle in Southeast Asia to fund its anti-Communist military operations in the region, as documented by UW professor Alfred W. McCoy. He writes, “As an indirect consequence of American involvement in the Golden Triangle until 1972, opium production steadily increased.”
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s support for the Contras likely materialized in clandestine cocaine sales, much of which ended up in the streets of inner city America. During the same decade, the opium trade was again utilized by U.S.-backed Islamic fundamentalists — the same types who are now the targets of the equally dubious “War on Terror” — in their mutual campaign against the Soviets.
More recently, U.S. neo-liberal policies in South America, especially in Bolivia, have pushed many impoverished farmers into coca production.
Despite a long history of U.S. support for the international illicit drug trade — though only when it suits its purposes — and a more open tolerance for its far less dangerous counterparts, the official rationale still goes something like the following: The war on (certain) drugs is necessary to protect people from what they choose to put into their own bodies. And about $50 billion annually in taxpayer money is needed to carry out the policy, according to government statistics.
Obviously, the invasion of Iraq isn’t the only war in recent American history based on faulty intelligence. The stated rationale for the drug war, along with the war itself, is an utter farce. If the government was truly interested in the health effects of illegal drugs, it might pay heed to the reports of the Rand Corporation and countless other studies: Education, prevention and treatment are far more effective than police enforcement in both limiting the number of users and curbing the most deleterious consequences of drug use.
But the real aims of the policy are something else entirely — the war on drugs serves as a method of social control. Hard drug use, especially its trafficking, is most prevalent among the underclass. This group is largely marginal to the U.S. economic system, so the current drug laws do an effective job — via aggressive police enforcement — in containing a superfluous yet potentially rebellious population. They also effectively demonize the often poor and largely minority cohorts associated with them, a necessary mechanism in justifying the existence of millions of impoverished people in the wealthiest country in the world. The results have been a massive influx into the stupendously profitable prison-industrial complex — more than one in 100 adults are now behind bars — many of which are nonviolent drug offenders.
For the rest of the population, the hysteria surrounding drug use induces fear and, consequently, malleability. Similar in effect to the bellowing about Islamic terrorism, the drug war forces people to look to the paternalistic and ever-benign state for protection, justifying the building up of the police state and military-industrial complex.
Drugs become illegal only when they come to be associated with the poor. This allows for their demonization and accounts for the current road toward the criminality of tobacco, a drug increasingly unpopular among the educated and affluent. It also explains the wildly disparate consequences for possession of crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.
No one can really predict the effects of complete drug decriminalization. Illegal drugs are easy enough to obtain as it is, and the only way to completely prevent their use is to alter the need to experiment inherent in human nature. It is clear, however, that the current policy is futile, wasteful and blatantly immoral. If society is really interested in achieving the most humane and rational solution to drug use, a good place to start would be an honest discussion about the issue. For now, state policy and propaganda serve as the biggest impediment to the beginning of such a dialogue.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 1:17am):
You got 'em good this time, Kyle! change the world, one campus editorial at a time.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 2:24am):
good article, but isn't this just a boiled down version of Chomsky's treatise of the war on certain drugs?
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 7:13am):
Way to go for an original piece that has never before appeared in a campus newspaper.
4/20 was three days ago. Hope you've realized that that fact by now.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 8:38am):
The war on drugs is a farce, duh. Who wants to run a pro-drug campaign? A candidate who's gonna lose.
The war on drugs and the war on terror nicely fills the void of the former Cold war. Keep up the good empire.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 9:21am):
Come on, you know it's better if you can only kill yourself with alcohol, tobacco and prescibed drugs - dontcha?
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 9:45am):
Kyle, you are so full of it! You probably advocate for illegal immigrants, another source of illegal drugs flowing in the country.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 10:15am):
good article kyle, but i have to say i wasn't surprised to see you use the word "oppression." Isn't that like the signature far left noun these days?
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 10:21am):
correlation does not equal causation, the low number of deaths from cocaine and heroin could just as easily be tied to the high price caused by the "war on drugs" and the further lack of supply.
heres my favorite example: Since the drinking age was made 21 the number of deaths from drunk driving has dropped. drop in age--> more responsible drinking-> less deaths.
but wait! air bags, seat belts, better built cars, etc.... have made driving safer over all, so the assumption of causation is faulty.
So lets be honest, you just want the drugs to support the FARC and overthrow Columbia to pave way for the Chavez South America! / sarcasm
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 10:42am):
for the first time in my life i think i might actually agree with you
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 4:08pm):
Drug prohibition is working out just exactly like alcohol prohibition did - it is creating criminal organizations making huge profits that would not exist if drugs were legal.
It's easy to make a case that the Mafia would be much smaller if there had never been alcohol prohibition. Of course old Joe Kennnedy might never have made all that money on alcohol smuggling either.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 4:58pm):
It sounds like 10:21am took philosophy 101 this semester, and he's not afraid to prove it. Keep fighting the good fight for the drug war, brother!
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 5:09pm):
I agree with you overall(a first I think), but citing tobacco as a "dangerous" drug is just ridiculous. If the use rates for any drug, i.e. marijuana, were anywhere near as high as that of tobacco, you'd see cancer rates from that raise a great deal.
Although I do not do any drugs aside from alcohol, the War on Drugs' costs are far too high these days. If most drugs were legalized we'd stop wasting money pursuing drug traffickers, stop wasting money putting simple users in jail, take power away from street gangs, and have a giant new revenue source. Despite this, Washington still hasn't realized any of this so I doubt thing will change for quite some time.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 5:23pm):
"Marijuana was not responsible for a single fatality."
First of all kyle, cite your sources. I am assuming you got your numbers from DrugWarFacts.org (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm) While it is true that marijuana OVERDOSE was not responsible for any known deaths, the study says it did not take into account death caused by accidents while high or deaths ASSOCIATED with marijuana. (Point #9 on site). Quit ignoring data that doesn't support your argument.
Kyle Szarzynski (April 23, 2008 @ 9:25pm):
Clarification to 5:23: the website to which you refer got all of its information from the AMA, which was cited in the article - indeed, the very first sentence. And deaths that may have been caused by drugs were not added to any of the death totals, including alcohol (had it done so, it would have helped my argument). This is likely because of the inherent difficulty in determining the real cause of these types of accident deaths. In addition, even if the drug was obviously relevant to the fatality, it still would be a stretch to add that to the death tab. Should jogging be listed as THE cause of death when a jogger is hit by a car? Probably not. Just like automobile accidents - not alcohol - are listed as the cause of death even when the driver is intoxicated.
-Kyle
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 1:18am):
Kyle: Your article is poorly researched and your opinion poorly argued.
It seems like you personally want to feel like you live in a society where you are oppressed so that you have something to rise up against (with passionately ignorant editorials).
Itâs 2008. The âWar on Drugsâ is not only is not called that anymore, it has also transformed its methodology. Why donât you look up the outstanding effects of community anti-drug coalitions (CADCA) that fight drug use and abuse as a community, grass-roots initiative. You carelessly state that itâs neo-liberal policies that push Bolivian farmers to grow coca. Why donât you look up how many millions of dollars USAID spends in Bolivia and Peru to assist farmers in rebuilding subsistence farming after the coca has been eradicated from their land.
Narcotic drugs are a cancer that attacks communities internationally: coca-planting families who are abused by drug lords, women used as mules who swallow cocaine to get it into the US, the child of a mother addicted to coke. Not to mention the violence and crime associated with drug-trafficking.
Do your homework next time before you write another outdated and ignorant opinion article.
Anon Anon (April 25, 2008 @ 8:07am):
So young. So ignorant. So politically brainwashed. So non-objective. So naïve. This is yet another regurgitation of absurd political theories about the war on drugs targeting âthe poorâ.
You and everyone else who espouses these beliefs have it backwards. Drugs are not illegal because they target the poor. People who make poor choices about using drugs are poor (financially, socially, spiritually, and ethically) because they use drugs. Even rich people who use drugs most often end up poor because they use drugs. Their drug-using mindset affords them the comfort that their âpovertyâ is not the result of their own action but that their actions are perceived by others to be illegal and immoral. The false premise is that if drugs were made legal, all the problems associated with drugs would instantly and magically disappear.
Let me educate you on the facts about the disparity of punishment for crack and cocaine users. People like you repeat this lie because you have been brainwashed and have no knowledge of the past and you exploit ignorant beliefs.
I lived in New York City during the âcrack epidemicâ of the mid 1980âs. During that time, crack was devastating black communities and black communities were desperate to end the scourge of crack. It was blacks who demanded that the police target drug dealers in their communities to get rid of drug users and drug pushers. Black leaders and black family members were the ones demanding harsher punishment for drug deals and drug users because they saw with their own eyes the consequences of drugs in their communities.
If we made drugs legal today, itâs likely your contention that the drug problem and all associated problems would end. No. They would get demonstrably worse. Choosing to use drugs is a bad choice whether itâs legal or illegal. The consequences of drug use are the same. Itâs not that poor life outcomes are the result of drugs being illegal. Poor choices lead to poor life outcomes.
If drugs were made legal today, in 10 years, people like you would demand the reinstatement of drug laws to save their communities and family members from drugs.
Drugs are illegal because they devastate peoples lives and exploit the poor. Is that true of the occasional marijuana user? No. There are some people who can use marijuana responsibly to no ill effect and live responsible lives. However, many can not. Just because alcohol may be responsible for more problems doesnât mean that marijuana is harmless to a greater number of irresponsible people.
Letâs run your utopian experiment and see whether legalizing drugs would make irresponsible users act responsibly. After a decade or two, people like you would be writing the exact opposite of what you wrote. People like you, just like the black communities of the 80âs, would demand that drugs be made illegal. Your reason would be âto protect the poor from the scourge of drugsâ.
Anonymous (April 26, 2008 @ 9:50am):
>correlation does not equal causation, the
>low number of deaths from cocaine and
>heroin could just as easily be tied to the
>high price caused by the "war on drugs" and
>the further lack of supply.
Wrong. You need to do your homework. Start with the first several chapters of the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
There was a time when there were no drug laws at all. Heroin was included in baby colic remedies. Lots of patent medicines were 50 percent morphine by volume. Cocaine was included in everything from toothache drops to soda pop. Kids could buy the stuff just as easily as they can buy aspirin today. There weren't even any labeling requirements so manufacturers didn't even have to tell people what was in the stuff. Neither were there any advertising laws -- so sellers could (and often did) claim that their product would cure any illness had by you or your mule.
Now here is the interesting part. Even under those conditions, we didn't have the major problems that we do today. The addiction rate was the same or lower, addicts did not commit crimes, and they didn't suffer from the huge range of health effects that affect them now. There were no major campaigns to get the stuff outlawed, as there was with alcohol.
The problems we have today didn't start until the drugs were outlawed in 1914.
You can read all about it in the first several chapters of Licit and Illicit Drugs.
Anonymous (April 26, 2008 @ 9:56am):
>First of all kyle, cite your sources. I am
>assuming you got your numbers from While it
>is true that marijuana OVERDOSE was not
>responsible for any known deaths, the study
>says it did not take into account death
>caused by accidents while high or deaths
>ASSOCIATED with marijuana. (Point #9 on
>site). Quit ignoring data that doesn't
>support your argument.
The American Medical Association did a study a few years back that addressed the question of ASSOCIATED deaths from illegal drugs. They estimated that, if you took all causes -- from overdose to auto accidents to falling off the roof while stoned -- the total number of deaths from illegal drugs is about 20,000 per year. That is compared to over 100,000 for alcohol and over 400,000 for tobacco.
What they did not do was to break out deaths associated with marijuana specifically. The reason is that it would be extremely difficult to show that marijuana had any actual effect on the death, for a number of reasons -- one of which is that it just isn't that severe an intoxicant. Alcohol destroys motor coordination so the mechanism by which it causes auto accidents is quite clear.
It just isn't that way with marijuana. Marijuana intoxication is generally quite easily controllable. In terms of research, the only reliable way to tell if someone is stoned on pot is to ask them. There isn't any motor coordination test that will do it.
Anonymous (April 26, 2008 @ 1:35pm):
>Let�s run your utopian experiment and
>see whether legalizing drugs would make
>irresponsible users act responsibly.
I have good news for you. We don't have to wait. We can see an example right now, right here in our own country. Marijuana is de facto legal in California. Let me explain.
California has a medical marijuana law. The terms of the law say that the only person to make the decision as to whether marijuana should be medically recommended is the doctor. As it turns out, there are quite a few doctors who believe that marijuana is good for quite a range of ailments. The end result is that any adult who wants a medical recommendation can get one with a simple trip to the doctor.
Then, there are literally hundreds of marijuana stores operating throughout California. They have regular storefront operations in strip malls and similar places. They advertise marijuana specials in the newspaper and some even have neon signs in the window. Most of them carry a dozen or more varieties of marijuana, as well as cookies, browns, candies, and all sorts of other marijuana-related products.
Some of them have done $50 million in business from a single location in a single year.
Here is the bigger news. The sky did not fall. I am not kidding, Chicken Little, there are no chunks of big blue sky blocking the roadways. Drug addiction rates have not changed, the marijuana fiends are not going wild and robbing anyone and the dentists have not reported any epidemics of six-inch-long marijuana-induced fangs. There are no marches in the streets against it and no drive to get the law repealed. Surprise, surprise, any adult who wants marijuana can get it with a simple trip to the store and it isn't really bothering anyone.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Chicken Little, but legalization works.
Anon Anon (April 27, 2008 @ 12:26pm):
- Sorry to burst your bubble, Chicken Little, but legalization works. -
Once again, someone without the skill of critical thinking or knowledge of history.
You say legalization works because itâs legal in California and the sky hasnât fallen (yet). As I said, give it a decade and then tell me itâs a success. You canât give heroin addicts clean needles and immediately proclaim that weâre succeeded in preventing the spread of AIDS among heroin addicts. Only time will tell. Never forget the law of unintended consequences. What you donât know and canât anticipate will prove whether this is a success or failure.
Years ago, people used to point to the Netherlands and other countries that legalized drug use. Have you noticed how no one uses them as examples any more? Want to know why? Because far from being successful, theyâve ended up creating greater problems. These countries have added more restrictions to where drugs can be used and because people who use drugs are largely irresponsible, communities have been given greater powers to regulate drug use.
Someone pointed out that cocaine used to be added to common everyday products. This is supposed to prove that cocaine is innocuous.
This proves just the opposite and proves my point. The reason we have strict regulation of drugs is because people did abuse them. If people didnât abuse these products with these drugs, these drugs would still be in these products. They were removed and regulated them because they were a detriment to communities and families.
- The problems we have today didn't start until the drugs were outlawed in 1914. â
Again, this is ignorant and backward thinking. It was not making drugs illegal that made the problem. The drugs were the problem and always have been which is why they needed to be regulated.
Some of you may see no harm in smoking pot once in awhile and for some people, Iâm sure it isnât a problem. But for many people, drugs are an escape from problems (and everyday life), not a solution to problems. The consequences may not be immediate but eventually, there will be personal consequences.
We regulate drugs not because we target the poor or we want to incarcerate minorities. We regulate drugs because history has shown over and over that left uncontrolled, people abuse drugs.
Californiaâs drug laws are just beginning. As I said before, in a decade or a bit more, youâre going to be reading articles saying that legalizing drugs was wrong because it had a detrimental affect on the poor and minorities.
Mark my words.
Anonymous (April 28, 2008 @ 9:59am):
>You say legalization works because it�s
>legal in California and the sky hasn�t
>fallen (yet). As I said, give it a decade
>and then tell me it�s a success.
>You can�t give heroin addicts clean
>needles and immediately proclaim that
>we�re succeeded in preventing the spread
>of AIDS among heroin addicts. Only time
>will tell.
I guess you hadn't heard about that either. It has already been in effect for more than a decade. Do try to catch up with modern events.
>Never forget the law of unintended
>consequences. What you don�t know and
>can�t anticipate will prove whether this
>is a success or failure.
Already been more than ten years, thanks. It is actively supported by the local governments in several areas, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, among others.
>Years ago, people used to point to the
>Netherlands and other countries that
>legalized drug use. Have you noticed how no
>one uses them as examples any more? Want to
>know why? Because far from being
>successful, they�ve ended up creating
>greater problems. These countries have
>added more restrictions to where drugs can
>be used and because people who use drugs
>are largely irresponsible, communities have
>been given greater powers to regulate drug
>use.
OK, you just showed that you are at least ten years behind on Europe, too. Just FYI, the policy is the same as it always has been -- except that they are expanding their heroin maintenance programs to new countries -- with the full support of the police.
Oh, and I almost forgot -- the Dutch government has issued formal diplomatic protests because the US Government outright lies about what is going on over there.
>Someone pointed out that cocaine used to be
>added to common everyday products. This is
>supposed to prove that cocaine is innocuous.
No, you missed the point. It is used to show that prohibition didn't improve things.
>This proves just the opposite and proves my
>point.
Well, you were only arguing with yourself about cocaine being innoccuous, so congratulations! You won the argument with the guy in the mirror.
> The reason we have strict regulation of
>drugs is because people did abuse them. If
>people didn�t abuse these products with
>these drugs, these drugs would still be in
>these products. They were removed and
>regulated them because they were a
>detriment to communities and families.
What history book did you get that from? I am sorry, flat wrong.
>- The problems we have today didn't start
>until the drugs were outlawed in 1914. �
>Again, this is ignorant and backward
>thinking. It was not making drugs illegal
>that made the problem. The drugs were the
>problem and always have been which is why
>they needed to be regulated.
OK, so you have no clue who you are talking to, you haven't take the kinds of classes that are now taught routinely in California high schools, and you missed the four-hour History Channel special on the subject.
Let me introduce myself. I am Cliff Schaffer. I founded the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Among other things, it has the largest online collection of research on the history of the drug laws, and has since the earliest days of the Internet. My site includes numerous histories by different authors, hundreds of original historical docunents, and the full text of every major government commission on drugs from around the world over the last 100 years.
My library is referenced at hundreds of colleges and universities around the world, as well as in numerous books, in modern government commissions, etc., etc., etc. It was also the basis for the four-hour History Channel special "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way." If you want to see me, you can search for the show on Youtube. I am that extremely handsome guy with the beard.
Boy, do you feel dumb now, or what? It is lucky you didn't post your name. You would be a laughingstock.
Well, never mind, Junior. You can do a quick job of catching up so you won't look like such a fool next time. Just try reading the various links I provide. On this particular point, spend some time at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Then try the short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm That one is downright funny.
>Some of you may see no harm in smoking pot
>once in awhile and for some people, I�m
>sure it isn�t a problem.
If you are sure it isn't a problem for some people, then why should we hassle them about it? You know, same as with alcohol. If you are drinking a beer by yourself and not bothering anyone, what is the point in making them into criminals?
> But for many people, drugs are an escape
>from problems (and everyday life), not a
>solution to problems. The consequences may
>not be immediate but eventually, there will
>be personal consequences.
If that is your concern then alcohol wins all the prizes for that sort of thing. All the illegal drugs combined don't even come close. Does that mean that alcohol prohibition was a good idea?
>We regulate drugs not because we target the
>poor or we want to incarcerate minorities.
>We regulate drugs because history has shown
>over and over that left uncontrolled,
>people abuse drugs.
When you finally study any history on the subject, your prof will probably refer you to my web site. Make sure you follow his advice because right now, you wouldn't qualify for an F+ in the class.
>California�s drug laws are just
>beginning. As I said before, in a decade or
>a bit more, you�re going to be reading
>articles saying that legalizing drugs was
>wrong because it had a detrimental affect
>on the poor and minorities.
>Mark my words.
I certainly will. Your words are just laughable. It has already been more than ten years. So much for you great knowledge of the history of these drugs, I guess.
It has already been in effect for more than a decade. Do try to catch up with modern events.
>Never forget the law of unintended >consequences. What you don�t know and >can�t anticipate will prove whether this >is a success or failure.
Already been more than ten years, thanks. It is actively supported by the local governments in several areas, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, among others.
>Years ago, people used to point to the
>Netherlands and other countries that
>legalized drug use. Have you noticed how no
>one uses them as examples any more? Want to
>know why? Because far from being
>successful, they�ve ended up creating
>greater problems. These countries have
>added more restrictions to where drugs can
>be used and because people who use drugs
>are largely irresponsible, communities have
>been given greater powers to regulate drug
>use.
OK, you just showed that you are at least ten years behind on Europe, too. Just FYI, the policy is the same as it always has been -- except that they are expanding their heroin maintenance programs to new countries -- with the full support of the police.
Oh, and I almost forgot -- the Dutch government has issued formal diplomatic protests because the US Government outright lies about what is going on over there.
>Someone pointed out that cocaine used to be
>added to common everyday products. This is
>supposed to prove that cocaine is innocuous.
No, you missed the point. It is used to show that prohibition didn't improve things.
>This proves just the opposite and proves my >point.
Well, you were only arguing with yourself about cocaine being innoccuous, so congratulations! You won the argument with the guy in the mirror.
> The reason we have strict regulation of
>drugs is because people did abuse them. If
>people didn�t abuse these products with
>these drugs, these drugs would still be in
>these products. They were removed and
>regulated them because they were a
>detriment to communities and families.
What history book did you get that from? I am sorry, flat wrong.
>- The problems we have today didn't start >until the drugs were outlawed in 1914. �
>Again, this is ignorant and backward
>thinking. It was not making drugs illegal
>that made the problem. The drugs were the
>problem and always have been which is why
>they needed to be regulated.
OK, so you have no clue who you are talking to, you haven't take the kinds of classes that are now taught routinely in California schools, and you missed the four-hour History Channel special on the subject.
Let me introduce myself. I am Cliff Schaffer. I founded the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Among other things, it has the largest online collection of research on the history of the drug laws, and has since the earliest days of the Internet. My site includes numerous histories by different authors, hundreds of original historical docunents, and the full text of every major government commission on drugs from around the world over the last 100 years.
My library is referenced at hundreds of colleges and universities around the world, as well as in numerous books, in modern government commissions, etc. It was also the basis for the four-hour History Channel special "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way." If you want to see me, you can search for the show on Youtube. I am that extremely handsome guy with the beard.
Boy, do you feel dumb now, or what?
Well, never mind, Junior. You can do a quick job of catching up so you won't look like such a fool next time. Just try reading the various links I provide. On this particular point, spend some time at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
>Some of you may see no harm in smoking pot
>once in awhile and for some people, I�m
>sure it isn�t a problem.
If you are sure it isn't a problem for some people, then why should we hassle them about it? You know, same as with alcohol. If you are drinking a beer by yourself and not bothering anyone, what is the point in making them into criminals?
> But for many people, drugs are an escape
>from problems (and everyday life), not a
>solution to problems. The consequences may
>not be immediate but eventually, there will
>be personal consequences.
If that is your concern then alcohol wins all the prizes for that sort of thing. All the illegal drugs combined don't even come close. Does that mean that alcohol prohibition was a good idea?
>We regulate drugs not because we target the
>poor or we want to incarcerate minorities.
>We regulate drugs because history has shown
>over and over that left uncontrolled,
>people abuse drugs.
When you finally study any history on the subject, your prof will probably refer you to my web site. Make sure you follow his advice because right now, you wouldn't qualify for an F+ in the class.
>California�s drug laws are just
>beginning. As I said before, in a decade or
>a bit more, you�re going to be reading
>articles saying that legalizing drugs was
>wrong because it had a detrimental affect
>on the poor and minorities.
>Mark my words.
I certainly will. Your words are just laughable. It has already been more than ten years. So much for you great knowledge of the history of these drugs, I guess.
Anonymous (May 16, 2008 @ 1:13pm):
The war on drugs is a war on people. As is all war. This countries corporate prosperity was linked to war along time ago. Our country has been in a constant state of war ever since. The only difference is if it's an internal or external war. But, it's all about war profiteering. Victim's be d*mned. There are entire industries involved in the struggle for drug war profits. Such as defense lawyers, assett seizure, drug distribution, pharma, prison industries, police agencies. The list is endless. That's why it's probably impossible to dismantle the system. Drugs & their use should be a heatlh issue. Drug regulation comes through legalization. But, keeping certain drugs illegal is the biggest political gravy train ever created. The only difference between groups involved is this. Are you a legal criminal or illegal criminal? "few have virtue to withstand the highest bidder"-Pres. Geo. Washington. He grew hemp/cannabis. It was legal then. He also owned slaves. This too was legal then. And that was when our constitution said that all men were created equal. This country has been schizophrenic for a very long time. It's psychotic paranoid violence get's worse everyday. So, yes, the drug war cloaks oppression. The real question is how do we get out of this disaster, without making it worse? Like with a rebellion. Our politicians are so out of control, getting rich, that they won't heed the will of the people. They can't see the need to reform immediately, or ever. Don't expect them to be leaders towards national salvation. Instead, they are like leaders who say,"let's pick up these fish." Never asking why the seas retreated. It's always the same with a Tsunami. That's where this country is right now. The citizenry must stand up. Speak out. Not be shouted down. Not be misdirected or lead away from the best resolution for all. Legalization is the only solution. And, no one has to like it.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
