Hello:

Political correctness sucks. Words DO matter. Wars cannot be declared against things. Whoever heard of such nonsense? War should be reserved for what it means.

Oh, it's a great marketing campaign, but it makes lousy policy. That's because you can't WIN a war on crime, or a war on drugs, or a war on terror. A war phrased like that would mean that we'd be involved in a NEVER ENDING war.

And that's exactly how it's turned out.

Fortunately, adults have taken over the White House, and these never ending wars are going to find an end. The Drug War is the first to go. That's GOOD for us.

excon

Sounds like a lot of rhetoric on Gil Kerlikowske's part . He hasn't shown any real change in policy . Besides things like leaving medical marijuana clinics alone for now ;he is doing the same as the past ;paying lip service to pushing treatment while still pursuing a tough criminal justice approach.

With the way the administration is coming up with creative ways to fund their massive increase in the size of the nanny state I kind of doubt things like “asset forfeiture” laws are going away anytime soon.Their war on all the American people is directed at their wallets .

What's he going to call it ? Contingency operation is already being used,although he could conceivably call it a 'domestic contingency operation'... hmmmmm... maybe intervention ?

What's he going to call it ? Hello tom:

Why does "it" need a name? We didn't declare war on tobacco, yet we reduced it's use by HALF simply by telling the truth.

That, whatever it was called, saved the lives of millions of people, and we didn't have to put ONE person in jail to accomplish it, either. Seems to me, we're better off NOT naming those things.

excon

Hello:

Political correctness sucks. Words DO matter. Wars cannot be declared against things. Whoever heard of such nonsense? War should be reserved for what it means.

Oh, it's a great marketing campaign, but it makes lousy policy. That's because you can't WIN a war on crime, or a war on drugs, or a war on terror. A war phrased like that would mean that we'd be involved in a NEVER ENDING war.

And that's exactly how it's turned out.

Fortunately, adults have taken over the White House, and these never ending wars are going to find an end. The Drug War is the first to go. That's GOOD for us.

Excon


Stakes rise as drug war threatens to cross border - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/18/mexico.us.cartels/)





The violence that has spilled over into the U.S. has been restricted to the players in the drug trade -- trafficker-on-trafficker, DEA agents say. But law enforcement officials and analysts who spoke with CNN agree that it is only a matter of time before innocent people on the U.S. side get caught in the cartel crossfire.

"It's coming. I guarantee, it's coming," said Michael Sanders, a DEA spokesman in Washington.





Ahem, reality contradicts what you say and believe :eek:

Face reality, don't deny it EX. Just because Obama or those on the left term it different or say it is over does not mean it is.

Any addict knows that "winning" requires constant vigilance.

Amy Winehouse may say she ain't going to rehab, but that does not make her problem go away. ;)






G&P

"It's coming. I guarantee, it's coming," said Michael Sanders, a DEA spokesman in Washington. Ahem, reality contradicts what you say and believe :eek:Hello in:

It's not a left or right issue. It's a reality issue. We've faced this reality before too. That's why it's so difficult for me take the drug warriors seriously. How could they have forgotten??

It's NOT drugs. It's prohibition. I DO agree with the DEA dude, though. It's coming.

We could end it in one fell swoop by legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs. Rip - zap, lot's of problems get solved.

excon

Hello again, drug warriors:

You DO know that the drug war is racism in disguise, don't you?? No? You don't know that?? Let me see if I can elucidate you.

Opium became illegal because white girls started hanging around Chinese because they had the opium. White people didn't like that.

Heroine became illegal because black jazz bands had the heroine and the white girls. White people didn't like that.

Marijuana became illegal because the Mexican farm workers smoked it, and the white girls wanted it too. White people didn't like that.

X amount of crack cocaine would land a black person in jail for 10 times as long as a white user of the same amount of powdered cocaine. White people LOVED that. Fortunately, that recently changed. I guess somebody besides me noticed the raging racism in the discrepancy.

excon

Hello in:

It's not a left or right issue. It's a reality issue. We've faced this reality before too. That's why it's so difficult for me take the drug warriors seriously. How could they have forgotten???

It's NOT drugs. It's prohibition. I DO agree with the DEA dude, though. It's coming.

We could end it in one fell swoop by legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs. Rip - zap, lot's of problems get solved.

excon

EX


Legalizing drugs does not make them any less dangerous, any less addicting, any less socially damaging.


I do agree that legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs- may help somewhat but the REALITY is that even this does not help alleviate or control addiction. Oxycodone, hydrocodone, alprazolam and others are legal, regulated, and taxed, but there is still a healthy illegal drug trade in these substances. Then you have the legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, their legal status does not rid society of the damage they cause.





G&P

I do agree that legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs- may help somewhat but the REALITY is that even this does not help alleviate or control addiction. Hello in:

Legalizing drugs, by itself won't effect addiction... But, it WILL free the addict from the fear of arrest should he come forward...

Plus, with the amount of money we would save, no change that to money we would MAKE, from ending the drug war, we COULD offer treatment on demand. Today, unless you're wealthy, there's a LONG waiting list for available treatment... So long, that it's virtually useless...

I don't know if bringing addiction out of the closet will help to fix it... But, I certainly know that keeping in there DOESN'T work at all.

And, maybe we'll just have to accept the fact that some people like to be addicted.. Ok, let them be addicted. At least, if drugs were legal, we wouldn't have to worry about them ripping us off.

That is, of course, unless you think that a hit of cocaine makes one want to rob a 7/Eleven.

excon

EX

Yes it makes sense in theory, but the reality is that it does not.

Is there alcohol or tobacco treatment on demand? Is there treatment for valium or percocet addiction on demand? Somehow a lot of people who pay $s for a pack per day tobacco habit don't want to pay for chantix, or nicoderm, neither of which has a hundred percent success rate.

Yes some people want to be addicted - that is the behavioral aspect. The physical aspect is that these drugs alter brain neurochemistry - that is what makes them addicting. It is a physical dependence that is nobody's choice.

This neurochemistry is altered such that higher and higher, no pun intended, doses are needed to get the same effect. Every addict is chasing that "first high." Legalizing meth, or heroin, or cocaine would just expose more people to the risk of addiction and dependence and any tax revenue would be wasted by politicians and would not be enough to cover the societal costs.






G&P

would not be enough to cover the societal costs.Hello again, in:

Did you forget about the societal costs to waiting till "...it's only a matter of time before innocent people on the U.S. side get caught in the cartel crossfire...."??

excon

Don't be concerned about that . DHS Sec Janet Napolitano is determined to beef up border security... uh.. the Canadian border that is .

U.S. gets tough on Canadian border - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/la-na-other-border10-2009may10,0,2406313.story?track=rss)


The U.S. has increased security along the Canadian border since the Sept. 11 attacks. But changes are coming more quickly now, driven by fears of terrorists exploiting the relative quiet of the northern border and complaints that the U.S. has been disproportionately soft on Canada.


Check out this PC mumbo-jumbo


One of the things that I think we need to be sensitive to is the very real feeling among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," Napolitano said at a March conference in Washington on border issues.


Clearly Napolitano is the tip of the spear in Obama's trade war with Canada.

Hello again, in:

Did you forget about the societal costs to waiting till "...it's only a matter of time before innocent people on the U.S. side get caught in the cartel crossfire...."???

excon


And legalizing dangerous drugs will stop criminal activity by the criminals?

Okay, legalize meth , cocaine, heroin - --- you will have more total users, more total addicts, and more total demand. This will maintain the profitability of the drug trade. Even if the gov gets some tax revenue, competittion and market demand will always make it profitable and illegal for criminals to continue via a black market. Crime does not go away, it increases.




G&P

And legalizing dangerous drugs will stop criminal activity by the criminals?Even if the gov gets some tax revenue, competittion and market demand will always make it profitable and illegal for criminals to continue via a black market. Crime does not go away, it increases.Hello again, in:

Prohibition causes crime. Drugs do not. You miss a major point. Drugs are profitable only because the risk of prison is so high. If the risk goes away, so do the profits, and the price plummits...

Yes, the drug business will STILL be profitable, but no more so than the alcohol business is today. I submit, the cartels are NOT interested in operating LEGAL business's. They'll find something else to smuggle.

The above is true, unless, of course, you can show me the criminal activity in the alcholol market after it became legal...

This is not difficult. Prohibition causes crime. If the government were to outlaw safety pins, I promise you, there will be a black market in safety pins, and they won't be cheap. Sure, you'll have to buy them from the guy on the corner instead of the store. Or do you think making safety pins illegal will make them disappear?

excon

Prohibition causes crime? I thought it was criminals that caused crime.


By your reasoning, if we don't prohibit anything there will be no crime? Let us not prohibit rape/murder/robery[?] therefore there is no rape/murder/robery ?


Alcohol is now legal - but DUI occurs ? A crime still happens though alcohol is legal.





G&P

Prohibition causes crime ?! I thought it was criminals that caused crime. Hello again, in:

You're getting a little bonkers on me. Try to stay focused.

excon

I think you'll find excons argument hinges around the profits made from prohibition and illegal activity. Since when did someone profit from rape or murder in?

Your argument is completely out of context.

Hello again, in:

Prohibition causes crime. Drugs do not.... Prohibition causes crime. If the government were to outlaw safety pins, I promise you, there will be a black market in safety pins, and they won't be cheap. Sure, you'll have to buy them from the guy on the corner instead of the store. Or do you think making safety pins illegal will make them disappear?

excon


Bonkers? I'm only quoting you verbatim :D:eek:




G&P

I think you'll find excons argument hinges around the profits made from prohibition and illegal activity. Since when did someone profit from rape or murder in??

Your argument is completely out of context.

The profit is not necessarily monetary.

EX's fantasy is thinking that decriminilizing drugs will make the problems that drugs cause go away.

Even legal, regulated drugs like oxycontin cause problems and people still profit from it's inappropriate and illegal use.







G&P

I agree with In
We are in unchartered waters here when considering the social costs of such a move.

I agree with In
we are in unchartered waters here when considering the social costs of such a move.Hello tom:

Unchartered?? UNCHARTERED??

You talk like drugs AREN'T readily available in any schoolyard, or on any corner in this great country of ours...

Silly, is too good a word for you guys.

excon

I don't think for one second that legalizing it will reduce demand.When talking price on the street ,taxing it as you propose cannot compete against the price the consumer pays for the expense the cartels transfer to the consumer for their counter extaditiction efforts. Yes ;they still get their product to the street ,but at a reduced supply and at a greater cost.

Easier availability at lower prices and losing the stigma of it being illegal means increased drug abuse and addiction rates .
Long-term recovery rates for addicts are between a 16% and 20% rate of success .

Taxing to death products like tobacco has created a black market for that product ;so your theory is flawed from the outset. Cartels have been created throughout Europe to exploit the taxation of tobacco by smugglers who use the proceeds to fund jihadist activity. The same is beginning to happen here. Smugglers regularly run the I95 corridor bringing lower taxed product to the north-east.

For years there has been a black market for knock-off regulated perscription drugs ,and even if there wasn't there is still a demand for them by those who would abuse them . That is In's point. Should perscriptions become regularly available off the shelf just because there is an illegal market for them ?

Alcohol and tobacco are but 2 drugs. What is being proposed are whole categories of illegal products being introduced legally into the system including stimulants, hallucinogens, opiates, tranquilizers ,and all types of combos of the toxic brew.

Yes indeed it would be uncharted territory . The one thing I'm sure of is that it would create a bigger demand on law enforcement and social services... not less. I will not even deal with the other social issues like productivity .

I don't think for one second that legalizing it will reduce demand.When talking price on the street ,taxing it as you propose cannot compete against the price the consumer pays for the expense the cartels transfer to the consumer for their counter extaditiction efforts. Yes ;they still get their product to the street ,but at a reduced supply and at a greater cost.

Easier availability at lower prices and losing the stigma of it being illegal means increased drug abuse and addiction rates .
Long-term recovery rates for addicts are between a 16% and 20% rate of success .

Taxing to death products like tobacco has created a black market for that product ;so your theory is flawed from the outset. Cartels have been created throughout Europe to exploit the taxation of tobacco by smugglers who use the proceeds to fund jihadist activity. The same is beginning to happen here. Smugglers regularily run the I95 corridor bringing lower taxed product to the north-east.

For years there has been a black market for knock-off regulated perscription drugs ,and even if there wasn't there is still a demand for them by those who would abuse them . That is In's point. Should perscriptions become regularily available off the shelf just because there is an illegal market for them ?

Alcohol and tobacco are but 2 drugs. What is being proposed are whole catagories of illegal products being introduced legally into the system including stimulants, hallucinogens, opiates, tranquilizers ,and all types of combos of the toxic brew.

Yes indeed it would be uncharted territory . The one thing I'm sure of is that it would create a bigger demand on law enforcement and social services...not less. I will not even deal with the other social issues like productivity .

People who can buy drugs freely and at something like free-market prices would no longer have to steal to afford cocaine or heroin; dealers would no longer have to use violence and corruption to maintain their market share. Though drugs may harm people, reducing this harm would be a medical problem, not a criminal-justice one. Crime would drop sharply.

Legalizing drugs would means letting the price fall to its competitive rate (plus taxes and advertising costs). That market price would probably be somewhere between one-third and one-twentieth of the illegal price. And more than that the market price would fall. As Harvard’s Mark Moore has pointed out, the "risk price"—that is, all the hazards associated with buying drugs, from being arrested to being ripped off—would also fall, and this decline might be more important than the lower purchase price. Under a legal regime, the consumption of low-priced, low-risk drugs would increase dramatically

Under a legal regime, the consumption of low-priced, low-risk drugs would increase dramatically

Indeed .

I think the positive externalities would outweigh the negative ones.

Externalities address the economics and not the social costs associated . But I'll stay on the economics for another try. There is a fallacy that is becoming standard script that in essence says 'legalize ;tax it to death ,and use the money for rehab." It is a fallacy for a couple of key points .
1. if taxes on legal drugs get high enough, they will completely negate the so called positive consequences of legalization. The California proposal about pot would add a $50/oz. tax.That's $800/lb for a crop that costs about $3/lb to grow. That's plenty reason for the cartels to stay in the business. At that level there would still be criminal distribution of the drug to circumvent the legal supply (see my tobacco example ) . At best the gvt. Puts itself in competition with the cartels in the market place.
(just for clarification... of all the drugs we are talking about ,I get the case for decriminalization of marijuana use... I use the California example for illustration)

2.Again ;using the tobacco example... show me where high taxes on this product have been diverted to resperatory illness care or anti-addiction efforts . It isn't happening . California is not even suggesting that in their proposal . They want to do this to bridge a budget gap .(which could be fixed if the government wasn't the largest employer )

Externalities address the economics and not the social costs associated . But I'll stay on the economics for another try. There is a fallacy that is becoming standard script that in essence says 'legalize ;tax it to death ,and use the money for rehab." It is a fallacy for a couple of key points .
1. if taxes on legal drugs get high enough, they will completely negate the so called positive consequences of legalization. The California proposal about pot would add a $50/oz. tax.That's $800/lb for a crop that costs about $3/lb to grow. That's plenty reason for the cartels to stay in the business. At that level there would still be criminal distribution of the drug to circumvent the legal supply (see my tobacco example ) . At best the gvt. puts itself in competition with the cartels in the market place.
(just for clarification ....of all the drugs we are talking about ,I get the case for decriminalization of marijuana use......I use the California example for illustration)

2.Again ;using the tobacco example ....show me where high taxes on this product have been diverted to resperatory illness care or anti-addiction efforts . It aint happening . California is not even suggesting that in their proposal . They want to do this to bridge a budget gap .(which could be fixed if the governement wasn't the largest employer )

I donot know who taught you economics but you should ask for a refund.Externalities are a big part of welfare economics, which is all about social costs.

Externalities exist is a situation in which the private costs or benefits to the producers or purchasers of a good or service differs from the total social costs or benefits entailed in its production and consumption.

I will defer to your knowledge of welfare economics.

I get the case for decriminalization of marijuana use

As long as it's illegal to possess, it's legal to steal, i.e. if somebody steals your stash, you can't call the cops.

Alaska got it right--legal to grow and possess for personal use, illegal to transport or sell. This insures that it remains a cottage industry instead of becoming big business with all the associated advertising and lobbying.

As for a dramatic increase in demand under a legal regime, in societies where it is legal (or was before the US pressured them into criminalizing it) only about 15% seem to care for it, so it remains a minority.

Everyone compares it to prohibition . In the United States roughly half the population use alcohol... a far greater percentage than did during the Prohibition era. Why would drug use differ ?