Jump to content

Rethinking the drug war


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you understand that humans have been using 'drugs' like cannabis, alcohol, coca leaves, and willow bark for tens or hundreds of thousands of years?

The real problem is keeping drugs and alcohol out of the hands of minors until they get out of school and their brains are fully developed. I've read that the human brain is developing and growin

And are you aware that the interrnational anti-drug scheme that most first world countries operate under began with the US's first drug ban in San Francisco in 1870 something and evolved into the curr

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Lowly Crew said:

 having a neutral discussion. 

there is no such thing as a neutral discussion when the conversation includes people who were indoctrinated young with a bullshit narrative.   There is no drug war.  There is a century-plus-old money and power grab run by politicians and lobbyists who use the term drug war as justification because it scares and motivates the dummies.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

there is no such thing as a neutral discussion when the conversation includes people who were indoctrinated young with a bullshit narrative.   There is no drug war.  There is a century-plus-old money and power grab run by politicians and lobbyists who use the term drug war as justification because it scares and motivates the dummies.

 

The anti-drug war is lost. Has been for decades.

Fuckwits like nacra refuse to admit this and think bombing and killing people in foreign countries will 'win' it. Basically conduct an undeclared war on every place that's too weak to prevent them killing from the sky.

Time to admit failure and try something different. I'd basically legalise everything except things like meth. Yeah there are lots of consequences but IMO those are less than the current problems.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we really just legalise some? Seems that isn’t stopping the drug war, just modifying the targets.

Seems it is an all or nothing answer. Legalise it all or go full on brutal with the war, no other options that make sense. All we are doing is making lots of people rich, apart from those paying for the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gissie said:

Can we really just legalise some? Seems that isn’t stopping the drug war, just modifying the targets.

Seems it is an all or nothing answer. Legalise it all or go full on brutal with the war, no other options that make sense. All we are doing is making lots of people rich, apart from those paying for the war.

Probably not, realistically.

Interesting experiment though. If certain currently banned drugs were available legally (heroin, cocaine) and things like meth suppressed, would the demand go away because there was a legal and cheaper alternative?

Personally I'd legalise the lot with really draconian penalties for operating moving machinery while impaired. The Australian outback has a lot of places where weed species need to be removed, for example. No sitting in a jail getting high on smuggled drugs.

Of course then you need a measure of 'impaired' that actually makes sense. The current Australian ones for cannabis are a load of crap IMO and I'm not a user, just an observer.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Probably not, realistically.

Interesting experiment though. If certain currently banned drugs were available legally (heroin, cocaine) and things like meth suppressed, would the demand go away because there was a legal and cheaper alternative?

Personally I'd legalise the lot with really draconian penalties for operating moving machinery while impaired. The Australian outback has a lot of places where weed species need to be removed, for example. No sitting in a jail getting high on smuggled drugs.

Of course then you need a measure of 'impaired' that actually makes sense. The current Australian ones for cannabis are a load of crap IMO and I'm not a user, just an observer.

FKT

Would the legal ones really be cheaper? The are priced at the highest the market will bare. Add some cheaper, legal ones and the meth will just drop prices and those at the top will only make lots instead of shit loads. So I believe they should just legalise the lot.

Testing is the big problem. Cannibis stays in your body long after the hit has gone. Plus they would need to develop tests for all the other drugs. But none is impossible, chuck some of the wasted war money at it.

The real hurdle will be resistance from the, now, rich and powerful making good money from the bortomless war chest. Hard to pass up a good living, in a job that is never ending, even if it would be for the better.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gissie said:

Can we really just legalise some? Seems that isn’t stopping the drug war, just modifying the targets.

Seems it is an all or nothing answer. Legalise it all or go full on brutal with the war, no other options that make sense. All we are doing is making lots of people rich, apart from those paying for the war.

Legalizing hard drugs, like has been done with cannabis, is probably unworkable. De-criminalizing can somehow work. The war has been a failure. Here 50 years into it I can still get hard drugs delivered to my doorstep 24/7 with just a phone call. Try that with Tylenol. Stupidly hilarious. So disbanding the drug war machine should be easy...no discernible effect except fewer incarcerated minorities and a bunch of unemployed narcs.

No easy answer, but we could figure it out with some clear thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gissie said:

Would the legal ones really be cheaper? The are priced at the highest the market will bare. Add some cheaper, legal ones and the meth will just drop prices and those at the top will only make lots instead of shit loads. So I believe they should just legalise the lot.

Testing is the big problem. Cannibis stays in your body long after the hit has gone. Plus they would need to develop tests for all the other drugs. But none is impossible, chuck some of the wasted war money at it.

The real hurdle will be resistance from the, now, rich and powerful making good money from the bortomless war chest. Hard to pass up a good living, in a job that is never ending, even if it would be for the better.

 

Tasmania has a lot of opium poppies so yeah, heroin could be cheaper. No reason why it would be more expensive than medical grade morphine. Coca doesn't seem all that difficult to grow either.

Illegal price drop - sure, but then you get the risk/reward equation. If the big profits aren't there but unlicensed dealing carries decent prison sentences, the game might not be worth the candle. Esp when the end user has alternative sources of supply with guaranteed levels of strength and purity.

We have an example in reverse here in Oz WRT tobacco. The govts keep on jacking up the tax on tobacco. 20+ years ago I predicted that this would lead to a growing black market as the cost of production was way lower than the price to the end user, the govt being the man in the middle. Amazingly enough we have a thriving black market in smuggled and illictly grown tobacco.

Testing for impairment is a big issue I'd agree. Got no good answer to that one and I admit it.

Getting the snouts out of the trough is a worse problem. You have a nasty coincidence of POV between the moralistic arseholes whose take on morality says it's bad to get high on anything but *their* sources, and the arseholes making major money from supplying the illegal market. Then of course you have the stupids like nacra who think we can get people to stop getting high if only we start enough small scale wars and mass scale assassinations in foreign countries.

Legalisation, social disapprobation and good funding for programs to help people break addictions is how I'd prefer things to go.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Legalizing hard drugs, like has been done with cannabis, is probably unworkable

Experiment was done years ago, please don't ask me to find it, read a report on it and remember the general story, pretty sure it was in England maybe 40 years ago.

Basically anyone in some area could sign up as a junkie and be given the heroin they wanted at no cost. Long story short:

Crime plummeted in the area to become all but extinct. None or fuck all new users - no one pushing the drugs.

Most of the existing users slowly stopped using, apparently without the crime and underworld most users end up giving it up in due course. 

Some carried on as long term users but were pretty harmless to society...The study also implied that most users were actually pretty functional members of society while they were using the drug recreationally when it was freely available.

There didn't seem to be any downside, but politics is another thing and guess why you all haven't heard of this study.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BOI Guy said:

Experiment was done years ago, please don't ask me to find it, read a report on it and remember the general story, pretty sure it was in England maybe 40 years ago.

Basically anyone in some area could sign up as a junkie and be given the heroin they wanted at no cost. Long story short:

Crime plummeted in the area to become all but extinct. None or fuck all new users - no one pushing the drugs.

Most of the existing users slowly stopped using, apparently without the crime and underworld most users end up giving it up in due course. 

Some carried on as long term users but were pretty harmless to society...The study also implied that most users were actually pretty functional members of society while they were using the drug recreationally when it was freely available.

There didn't seem to be any downside, but politics is another thing and guess why you all haven't heard of this study.

Yeah I remember reading that as well. It demonstrated that heroin addicts didn't have to scam and steal if they could get their drugs legally and didn't get anywhere near as ill if they got clean drugs & needles et al. They could in a lot of cases hold jobs. A lot eventually managed to break their addiction and the rest weren't much of a problem.

It's the fucking idiots who insist on shoving their morality down everyone else's throats that kill off initiatives like this. All in pursuit of a world free from mind-altering drugs that in fact has never actually existed.

Be interesting to gather the drug warrior types and insist that they give a definitive list of what absolutely HAD to be done to win the drug war once and for all. Then have a B team analyse the proposals WRT civil liberties and foreign relations, then decide if it was worth the cost. Even if so, give them a deadline for achieving success, after which if their self-proposed goals are not met, they're totally disbanded and barred from all law enforcement jobs.

And the overriding goal would have to be the elimination of drug use in society, NOT the number of people locked up or the tonnage of drugs seized. Those metrics are like the body counts in Vietnam and we all know how that turned out...

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

 Legalisation, social disapprobation and good funding for programs to help people break addictions is how I'd prefer things to go.

FKT

This is the only way forward that has any sort of possible successful outcome. But it is a long term thing and there will always be failures. An example for me is drink driving. As a teenager it was standard that the driver was pissed as a parrot. It was fortunate that cars were fairly slow, although the old crossply tyres meant they fell over occasionally. Still, enough in the car and it could be pushed back up again.

My kids have grown up to now think it is totally wrong to drink/drug and drive. There are other options and they take them. Drugs need to go the same way. Make consumption legal, but with ramifications if you do stupid shit. Help for those with a problem.

Of course there will always be the dickheads, much like there still is with alcohol. Maybe it is these wankers that need Nacra to unleash his shit on. But then again that was me long ago and I grew out of it. In the long term, help and education will be more effective and cheaper than a war.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The drug war has been almost entirely political since the mid 90s

Mid 90's? Obviously, you missed opposition to Nixon's drug war in the 70's. Not to mention Joe Biden writing asset forfeiture laws in the 80's. Or the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

But whichever starting point you pick, I agree that this thread should have been in PA to start with and should be moved.

For the "enforce more" crowd, I'd just point out that we can't keep drugs out of our prisons, so "winning" the stupid drug war must involve being less free than our prisoners.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all things policy, if you remove politics, stupidity, and $$$ from the equation, it's pretty simple. If engineers ran the place:

1. Define the problem (Drugs bad... mmmkay... Crime Bad....) Identify metrics for positive/negative outcomes. (Crime rate, mortality, etc...)

2. Look around at the current solutions (There's lots of different solutions around the planet) 

3. Pick the one with the best metrics. 

Lather, rinse, repeat. Portugal (decriminalization) seems to have a decent success rate. U.S. of A, where a bunch of puritanical nitwits pretend to want to control other's lives so they get richer? Doesn't seem to be winning to me. Well, unless you're on the receiving end of prison money, law enforcement money, and of course, the wonders of asset forfeiture - where law enforcement can just take any cash they find on you, for any reason, but it's a civil matter (i.e. $$$) for you to get it back. Robbery used to be a crime... So when a problem gets interlaced with $$$ and politics, actually solving the problem is the last thing that's going to happen. Law enforcement doesn't want to 'win' the war on drugs, then they couldn't take all that money. They are incentivized quite heavily to allow the drug trade to be healthy enough to keep generating assets to be forfeited. 

Besides, Nixon didn't really want a war on drugs, he wanted an excuse to throw (those kinds of) people into prison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gptyk said:

Like all things policy, if you remove politics, stupidity, and $$$ from the equation, it's pretty simple. If engineers ran the place:

1. Define the problem (Drugs bad... mmmkay... Crime Bad....) Identify metrics for positive/negative outcomes. (Crime rate, mortality, etc...)

2. Look around at the current solutions (There's lots of different solutions around the planet) 

3. Pick the one with the best metrics. 

Lather, rinse, repeat. Portugal (decriminalization) seems to have a decent success rate. U.S. of A, where a bunch of puritanical nitwits pretend to want to control other's lives so they get richer? Doesn't seem to be winning to me. Well, unless you're on the receiving end of prison money, law enforcement money, and of course, the wonders of asset forfeiture - where law enforcement can just take any cash they find on you, for any reason, but it's a civil matter (i.e. $$$) for you to get it back. Robbery used to be a crime... So when a problem gets interlaced with $$$ and politics, actually solving the problem is the last thing that's going to happen. Law enforcement doesn't want to 'win' the war on drugs, then they couldn't take all that money. They are incentivized quite heavily to allow the drug trade to be healthy enough to keep generating assets to be forfeited. 

Besides, Nixon didn't really want a war on drugs, he wanted an excuse to throw (those kinds of) people into prison. 

Nixon was just one in a long line of people who should have been shot for treason against americans.

The first anti-drug law in the world was passed in 1875.  Jim crow was not just in the south.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there is demand the suppliers will find a way to supply it whether or not they have to cross borders.  As to zero tolerance rhetoric, if the country had any real interest in that then a few presidents and their families (and most folks with a good lawyer and some social status) would be in the slammer instead of rehab followed by a talk show appearance.  When the war paradigm would have you napalm your own house, it's time to declare victory and close the book.

Drug abuse in the US is a self inflicted wound.  And we are in a poor position to complain, having helped the British force opium into China.  Karma is a real bitch sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gptyk said:

Like all things policy, if you remove politics, stupidity, and $$$ from the equation, it's pretty simple. If engineers ran the place:

 

Engineers running the place? It would be redesigned every year. and need lots of lubricant.

 

8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Nixon was just one in a long line of people who should have been shot for treason against Americans.

 

Kind like Obama and Lois Lerner weaponizing the IRS against citizens based on their political leanings.

Treason at it's best.

 

But really, if we end the war on drugs because it does not work, lets end the war on poverty because that does not work either.

People will be people and do whatever they want. Unless we become draconian like the CCP

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

Engineers running the place? It would be redesigned every year. and need lots of lubricant.

 

Kind like Obama and Lois Lerner weaponizing the IRS against citizens based on their political leanings.

Treason at it's best.

 

But really, if we end the war on drugs because it does not work, lets end the war on poverty because that does not work either.

People will be people and do whatever they want. Unless we become draconian like the CCP

wars haven't solved problems since 1945.  They kill lots of people and occasionally shift borders or leadership.  Doesn't matter what kind of war it is, outcome always the same.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an understanding of intoxicants is helpful, so propose this model.  As you get farther from the source, drugs become more concentrated, contaminated, dangerous and misunderstood. Organizations such as governments, religions and cartels abuse this for profit and growth. I know functional alcoholics and users of all types of drugs, including meth.
Educate, decriminalize and take away the profits. The bill of rights should have included:  Government shall not prohibit consumption of any substance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 5:11 PM, nacradriver said:

and that there is a Global Hawk fluttering about that can take you out at any time..

Not to be pedantic, but the global chicken doesn't carry weapons.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 1:21 PM, Lowly Crew said:
On 10/23/2020 at 1:01 PM, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

in mexico and probably a number of other countries,   cartels have their own cellular system..    going to war against the cartels means also going to war against most of their militaries and governments too since they seem to be intertwined..

Are you proposing going to war with sovereign nation states to solve the problem of internal domestic demand for drugs.

There is an argument to be made that sovereign nations who do nothing or worse look the other way wrt to the drug trade is a national security threat to the other nations have that product brought across their borders.  And therefore, taking action in that sovereign's territory is allowable if all other diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.  It's not a hugely compelling argument, but it is a valid argument.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

There is an argument to be made that sovereign nations who do nothing or worse look the other way wrt to the drug trade is a national security threat to the other nations have that product brought across their borders.  And therefore, taking action in that sovereign's territory is allowable if all other diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.  It's not a hugely compelling argument, but it is a valid argument.  

Somebody should write a book or make a movie about that... Wait I guess they did already 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

There is an argument to be made that sovereign nations who do nothing or worse look the other way wrt to the drug trade is a national security threat to the other nations have that product brought across their borders.  And therefore, taking action in that sovereign's territory is allowable if all other diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.  It's not a hugely compelling argument, but it is a valid argument.  

No, it's not.

The reason is, those countries are merely supplying a demand in YOUR country. And mine, but we don't go killing people by remote control in foreign countries AFAIK.

Are the drug users in your country a national security threat? If not why not? If so does that mean you can kill them without recourse?

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:
20 hours ago, Burning Man said:

CCP?  Concealed Carry Permit?  

I believe he meant the Chinese communist party.

Oh, I assumed he was going for the CCCP

 

CCCP (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

 

СССР (Союз Советских Социалистических Республик) is a Russian abbreviation for the Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). CCCP ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 11:34 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Last I heard, about 2/3 have come around to the libertarian view on cannabis, but we're nowhere near that "vast" a majority on other drugs.

I am afraid you are a little confused.  

Liberal views about cannabis existed long before that phony philosophy was invented.  

Libertarian view my ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 2:20 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Ironic that you want to commit criminal acts.  

I just figured out that you must have been a cop.  

 

I do believe he is of German ancestry.  

Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:
On 10/22/2020 at 5:34 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Last I heard, about 2/3 have come around to the libertarian view on cannabis, but we're nowhere near that "vast" a majority on other drugs.

I am afraid you are a little confused.  

Liberal views about cannabis existed long before that phony philosophy was invented.  

Libertarian view my ass.

No, I remember being in a small minority back when people like Joe Biden were busy passing mandatory minimums and writing our screwed up asset forfeiture laws. The stupid drug war has been a Duopoly project most of my life and I'm glad to see the fervor somewhat fading, at least with respect to cannabis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

No, I remember being in a small minority back when people like Joe Biden were busy passing mandatory minimums and writing our screwed up asset forfeiture laws. 

When was that?  I sure don't remember a lot of Reason readers in our group of hundreds who demonstrated and advocated for the first medical marijuana laws back when I lived in san diego in the 90s.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a libertarian or liberal view.  Conservative William F Buckley's National Review published an issue devoted to the drug war back in 95 or 96.  Although he was against drug use, the war's impact on a free society outweighed the risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

When was that?  I sure don't remember a lot of Reason readers in our group of hundreds who demonstrated and advocated for the first medical marijuana laws back when I lived in san diego in the 90s.   

As we discussed previously, Biden was writing asset forfeiture laws back in the 80's. The seizure of a friend's boat at that time was part of what started my opposition to the stupid drug war. I was over a decade after the original libertarians. Glad you came aboard in the 90's. Two decades late is better than not at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RedTuna said:

It's not just a libertarian or liberal view.  Conservative William F Buckley's National Review published an issue devoted to the drug war back in 95 or 96.  Although he was against drug use, the war's impact on a free society outweighed the risk.

And he was right. You should have seen the reactions from conservatives when I'd point that out in the 90's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RedTuna said:

It's not just a libertarian or liberal view.  Conservative William F Buckley's National Review published an issue devoted to the drug war back in 95 or 96.  Although he was against drug use, the war's impact on a free society outweighed the risk.

Buckley characterized some of his views as libertarian. His changed opinion  on legalization dates back to the early 70s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

As we discussed previously, Biden was writing asset forfeiture laws back in the 80's. The seizure of a friend's boat at that time was part of what started my opposition to the stupid drug war. I was over a decade after the original libertarians. Glad you came aboard in the 90's. Two decades late is better than not at all.

 

fair point.  woulda been tough to join at 8 years old

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 11:00 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

When was that?  I sure don't remember a lot of Reason readers in our group of hundreds who demonstrated and advocated for the first medical marijuana laws back when I lived in san diego in the 90s.   

What did you think in 2005 when the Supreme Court

Quote

Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

I agreed with this take on it:

Quote

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 3:15 AM, floating dutchman said:

For what it is worth.  53.1 percent of voters have said NO to legalising Marijuana here in New Zealand.

Yeah, but you don't have a stupid drug war going on either.  If you had the violence, the poverty, the incarceration rates, the shattered homes and families and all the rest of the fallout from our WODs...... you'd be singing a different tune.  I would bet the vast majority of your other 47% just want to light up a joint and get high.  In the US, the people wo are likely voting or would vote for legalization, like me, have zero desire to use drugs - but see this is an utterly failed policy and want something different finally.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, but you don't have a stupid drug war going on either.  If you had the violence, the poverty, the incarceration rates, the shattered homes and families and all the rest of the fallout from our WODs...... you'd be singing a different tune.  I would bet the vast majority of your other 47% just want to light up a joint and get high.  In the US, the people wo are likely voting or would vote for legalization, like me, have zero desire to use drugs - but see this is an utterly failed policy and want something different finally.  

Maybe not the violence, but we sure as shit have the other bits. Our war may not be as big, but it is big enough for our little place. Not sure who the big group was that was against it, most that I know were in the same camp as you. Not a user, but the damage done by it being illegal is just bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Maybe not the violence, but we sure as shit have the other bits. Our war may not be as big, but it is big enough for our little place. Not sure who the big group was that was against it, most that I know were in the same camp as you. Not a user, but the damage done by it being illegal is just bullshit.

If you legalize it nothing is really going to change, just took at states that legalized pot, the black market still thrives and in some cases probably doing better.  The infrastructure and mechanisms for the black/illicit market are deeply embedded in the way corruption, payoffs, and everyone else getting their grubby hands dirty creating misery.  

I said before and I'll say it again...  declare a real phucking war or shut the fuck up with your blue ribbon panels and power point decks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 30, 2020 at 6:16 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

What did you think in 2005 when the Supreme Court

I agreed with this take on it:

 

Just a guess, the clarity of thought leads me to think Clarence Thomas in dissent. 

His dissent in Kelo is a wonderful piece of thinking and writing. 

Gary Johnson (fmr libertarian cand for prez) once asked me "if heroin were legal would you and the wife start using it?  Anyone who wants it can already find it."

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

If you legalize it nothing is really going to change, just took at states that legalized pot, the black market still thrives and in some cases probably doing better.

Is there anyplace where pot has truly been legalized?  Don't think so. The regulations are more numerous than ever before. Thus the thriving Black Market. The penalty for an infraction is perhaps somewhat less while enforcement is so much more difficult. The popular fear and stigma of conservatives could only be overcome by promises of revenues thru draconian taxation and regulation. An utter failure. The politicians might try again. Make it legal like fruits and vegetables. Be happy collecting the sales tax. I propose that the current complete decay of US civilization cannot be blamed on the ready availability of pot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Is there anyplace where pot has truly been legalized?  Don't think so. The regulations are more numerous than ever before. Thus the thriving Black Market. The penalty for an infraction is perhaps somewhat less while enforcement is so much more difficult. The popular fear and stigma of conservatives could only be overcome by promises of revenues thru draconian taxation and regulation. An utter failure. The politicians might try again. Make it legal like fruits and vegetables. Be happy collecting the sales tax. I propose that the current complete decay of US civilization cannot be blamed on the ready availability of pot.

Mr. Boracho,

If you go look at Prop 64 and who wrote the prop, the laws to govern the prop,  and who was against it, this will shoot many a hole in this statement.  Jerry Brown and the democrats held Sacramento at the time,  there were no conservatives to appease.  They were looking at the revenues to be pumped into the general fund so they could pull the end around by shoring up the underfunded state employee pension and the Browndogle otherwise known as high sped rail, hence the draconian taxation, fees etc.....

Allowing a pot store is a local ordinance issue... the same way they issue a liquor license.  But here is something for you, it would be easier for me to open a pot store than to open a bar in may municipalities.

Regarding your last sentence, I am with you 100%.

Have a good day sir,

Nacra

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Go ask Sweden how that's is working out for them

Why not look closer to home. Like north of your border.

Safe injection sites spreading to all major cities because of demonstrable harm reduction that is data driven not idealogical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

If you legalize it nothing is really going to change, just took at states that legalized pot, the black market still thrives and in some cases probably doing better.  The infrastructure and mechanisms for the black/illicit market are deeply embedded in the way corruption, payoffs, and everyone else getting their grubby hands dirty creating misery.  

I said before and I'll say it again...  declare a real phucking war or shut the fuck up with your blue ribbon panels and power point decks.

The war will never work. No matter how badass, there will always be someone will to take the risk. Only a full on totalitarian society would have the slightest chance. 

So it is surely time to look at a different solution. The referendum held here was a piss poor , vaguely useful, compromise by politicians that are scared of annoying a voter. Scared of committing to an issue they might need to show some backbone over. 

So we carry on the same shit, locking up the poor, especially if brown. Turning a blind eye to the middle class users. Pretending it is all good. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lowly Crew said:

Why not look closer to home. Like north of your border.

Safe injection sites spreading to all major cities because of demonstrable harm reduction that is data driven not idealogical. 

 

Point taken... there was actually a SIS project in Philadelphia and I think Seattle...  The one in Philadelphia got resistance from the DA and the NIMBYs' I can't speak to the Seattle project haven''t heard much about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

 

Point taken... there was actually a SIS project in Philadelphia and I think Seattle...  The one in Philadelphia got resistance from the DA and the NIMBYs' I can't speak to the Seattle project haven''t heard much about it.

Are we in agreement about something? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gissie said:

The war will never work. No matter how badass, there will always be someone will to take the risk. Only a full on totalitarian society would have the slightest chance. 

So it is surely time to look at a different solution. The referendum held here was a piss poor , vaguely useful, compromise by politicians that are scared of annoying a voter. Scared of committing to an issue they might need to show some backbone over. 

So we carry on the same shit, locking up the poor, especially if brown. Turning a blind eye to the middle class users. Pretending it is all good. 

The issue why it will not work can be summed up in one word... corruption.  In many of the countries that are hip deep in the shit those that oppose the drug trade end up with their head on stick (literaly).

Funny thing, you go into Columbia, Pueru, etc... to clean house on the narcotic business I would venture to say 95% of the population would be behind you if they know there was no retaliation in the future..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lowly Crew said:

Are we in agreement about something? :D

Yeah... but that doesn't mean we're going to take long walks on the beach.  :)

Keep in mind, these are safe injection sites... the drug is still illegal.  I don't foresee the legislation making heroin or any other DEA  Schedule I or II drug that has no current accepted medical use legal.  

My question to you, would you support a SIS down the street, or in your backyard? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

I said before and I'll say it again...  declare a real phucking war or shut the fuck up with your blue ribbon panels and power point decks.

How about you dot-point list all the things you want to do, both inside and outside the USA, to 'declare a real phucking war'' as you put it?

IOW, just what exactly do you want to do if it's going to be a real war on drugs?

Then you can tell us how you know if/when you've won?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. In fact I think I'll just go off sailing for a couple days.

Alternatively you can STFU with your 'drug war' nonsense.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Yeah... but that doesn't mean we're going to take long walks on the beach.  :)

Keep in mind, these are safe injection sites... the drug is still illegal.  I don't foresee the legislation making heroin or any other DEA  Schedule I or II drug that has no current accepted medical use legal.  

My question to you, would you support a SIS down the street, or in your backyard? 

 

Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Truthfully, you would want this right down the street form you?   It is easy to say yes, because we both know it will not happen? 

Yes. Harm reduction also means removing the stigma associated with it. Perfectly normal high functioning drug addicts already surround us. Doctors, nurses, lawyers etc can all have an addiction to illegal street drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

If you go look at Prop 64 and who...Jerry Brown and the democrats held Sacramento at the time,  there were no conservatives to appease.

I disagree. As progressive as California is at times, in the best of times the state walks a delicate balance around the center or center-right. No matter the player's personal politics and comparisons to other states center politics is the best we progressives can hope for. Every initiative is shot thru with holes to please the vast middle. But I agree with the greedy money grab you describe. The majority in the USA is scared of every shadow of everything. Very conservative even if democrat.

Progressive legalization would have consisted of repeal of the criminal laws, period. The regular tax, safety and agricultural laws would cover all the details. As for apples and broccoli.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lowly Crew said:

Yes. Harm reduction also means removing the stigma associated with it. Perfectly normal high functioning drug addicts already surround us. Doctors, nurses, lawyers etc can all have an addiction to illegal street drugs.

Yes, but you don't see them shooting up on the street, they are not the one that are going to break into your house, car, etc..  point a knife/gun in your face, rob your favorite deli, and so forth.

There is a reason why the NIMBYs' fight this..   If you're okay in that, then enjoy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

I disagree. As progressive as California is at times, in the best of times the state walks a delicate balance around the center or center-right. No matter the player's personal politics and comparisons to other states center politics is the best we progressives can hope for. Every initiative is shot thru with holes to please the vast middle. But I agree with the greedy money grab you describe. The majority in the USA is scared of every shadow of everything. Very conservative even if democrat.

Progressive legalization would have consisted of repeal of the criminal laws, period. The regular tax, safety and agricultural laws would cover all the details. As for apples and broccoli.

As they say, take the Bay Area and Los Angels out of California, and you have a red state..

But again, you really need to read the proposition. Under 64 you can have a conviction expunged...  Legislators did not get this on the ballot, signatures did. When you have Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newson, California Democratic Party,  Democrats United for a Progressive California , etc.... support the measure as written, there is really nothing to complain about with the law being what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Yes, but you don't see them shooting up on the street, they are not the one that are going to break into your house, car, etc..  point a knife/gun in your face, rob your favorite deli, and so forth.

There is a reason why the NIMBYs' fight this..   If you're okay in that, then enjoy.

 

I don't want anyone shooting up in the streets hence my support for SIS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nacradriver said:

The issue why it will not work can be summed up in one word... corruption.  In many of the countries that are hip deep in the shit those that oppose the drug trade end up with their head on stick (literaly).

Funny thing, you go into Columbia, Pueru, etc... to clean house on the narcotic business I would venture to say 95% of the population would be behind you if they know there was no retaliation in the future..

 

There is also the small fact that you feel it is okay to kill and maim in a foreign country just because they allow things you both don’t like and can’t control in your own country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:
On 10/30/2020 at 7:16 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

What did you think in 2005 when the Supreme Court

Quote

Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

 

 

Just a guess, the clarity of thought leads me to think Clarence Thomas in dissent. 

Yes, but you really didn't have to guess. The word "held" in my post is a link to Justice Thomas' dissent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Yes, but you really didn't have to guess. The word "held" in my post is a link to Justice Thomas' dissent.

I'll know in the future. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gissie said:

There is also the small fact that you feel it is okay to kill and maim in a foreign country just because they allow things you both don’t like and can’t control in your own country. 

No, they don't allow it, they are too afraid or the system is too corrupt to fight it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nacradriver said:

That is still going to happen...  look at the homeless problem, we have the beds for them, they chose otherwise.

At least homelessness is not illegal or harming me.

Not to wander into the weeds too far but providing shelter beds does not equal desire to use them. Curfews, no alcohol, theft of meagre  possessions etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lowly Crew said:

At least homelessness is not illegal or harming me.

I am pretty certain that if you look at the municipal codes from some of the homeless hotbeds such as Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles et al^ you'll find such a code that prevents "camping" does exist.  The issue is that law enforcement chooses or have been told not to deal with it as it takes too many resources and it is a revolving door.

As for harming you, debatable.. maybe not directly..  it does. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

I am pretty certain that if you look at the municipal codes from some of the homeless hotbeds such as Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles et al^ you'll find such a code that prevents "camping" does exist.  The issue is that law enforcement chooses or have been told not to deal with it as it takes too many resources and it is a revolving door.

As for harming you, debatable.. maybe not directly..  it does. 

At least there is currently not a war on homelessness. :mellow:

As much fun as debating that societal ill would be let's stick to the current topic ie. WOD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

I am pretty certain that if you look at the municipal codes from some of the homeless hotbeds such as Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles et al^ you'll find such a code that prevents "camping" does exist.  The issue is that law enforcement chooses or have been told not to deal with it as it takes too many resources and it is a revolving door.

As for harming you, debatable.. maybe not directly..  it does. 

More read-y less write-y
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2019-12-16/supreme-court-lets-stand-ruling-that-protects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk%3f_amp=true

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

This is the issue that stemmed from Orange County wanting to bus the homeless out of the middle upper class area (Newport, Corona del Mar. etc...) They can not move them or cite them if there are no alliterative beds available..  in may cases there are... they choose not to use them.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nacradriver said:

No, they don't allow it, they are too afraid or the system is too corrupt to fight it.

Whatever the reason a country does allow drug manufacturer and distribution, there is no excuse to go in and shoot people. The reason the trade is there is because there is a big market in the US, plus other parts of the world. So you want to go all badass, do it in your own country, not someone else's.

As an aside, I do think there are only two basic answers to the problem. Legalise and spend money saved on trying to help those with a problem, or go full on nasty shit. Unfortunately the full on answer would most likely give short term gains until the bad guys amped up in return. Plus going badass still doesn't mean going into other countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Whatever the reason a country does allow drug manufacturer and distribution, there is no excuse to go in and shoot people. The reason the trade is there is because there is a big market in the US, plus other parts of the world. So you want to go all badass, do it in your own country, not someone else's.

As an aside, I do think there are only two basic answers to the problem. Legalise and spend money saved on trying to help those with a problem, or go full on nasty shit. Unfortunately the full on answer would most likely give short term gains until the bad guys amped up in return. Plus going badass still doesn't mean going into other countries.

How much have we given Columbia, Peru, Bolivia etc... to eradicate the coco production, How much money and training have we given to those mentioned for their police/military forces to combat the problem.  How forth coming has Mexico been on helping combat the problem with our giving them over $3 Billion (with a B  ) what have they done....most recently

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-politics-dea/lopez-obrador-criticizes-dea-role-in-mexico-after-ex-army-chiefs-arrest-idUSKBN2730WR

Your serve!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

How much have we given Columbia, Peru, Bolivia etc... to eradicate the coco production, How much money and training have we given to those mentioned for their police/military forces to combat the problem.  How forth coming has Mexico been on helping combat the problem with our giving them over $3 Billion (with a B  ) what have they done....most recently

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-politics-dea/lopez-obrador-criticizes-dea-role-in-mexico-after-ex-army-chiefs-arrest-idUSKBN2730WR

Your serve!

 

 

Not sure the article is that useful for you. Points out that the DEA has been a big part of the problem and are never held to account. So, as part of the badass scenario, do they all get taken out? Or are they okay as they are Americans?

As for the billions given away with no real accountability, maybe just stop sending them and use them in America to help with the problems. Everyone knows that poor countries, like those supplying drugs for international consumption, are corrupt. So those that came up with the idea of sending the money in the first place should also go on your badass hit list. Or are they also okay as they are American.

You seem to have this idea that going into other countries and enforcing your idea of legal and societal norms can solve problems. I would be interested in a recent, or even old, example of such a successful venture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Not sure the article is that useful for you. Points out that the DEA has been a big part of the problem and are never held to account.

 

Of course they are going to point the finger elsewhere when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  I wonder how much drug money was funneled into Obrador's election fund.

How many people were murdered in Mexico in 2019 that relates to the drug trade?  Over 30K the last time I looked..  If you're okay with this and think we should sit by let it happen so be it.  Talk to any Mexican about this, get their point of view....  you'll be surprised...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

 

How many people were murdered in Mexico in 2019 that relates to the drug trade?  Over 30K the last time I looked..  If you're okay with this and think we should sit by let it happen so be it.  Talk to any Mexican about this, get their point of view....  you'll be surprised...

 

I am pretty sure nobody in any country finds that a tolerable death count.

The problem is that Mexico is just the latest death zone in the worldwide effort to get drugs to Americans and others who demand them.

Asian triads, Afghan warlords, Columbian cartels, BC bud producers.

Are there enough B-BILLIONS in your war chest to get them all.

Talk about Wack a mole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

Of course they are going to point the finger elsewhere when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  I wonder how much drug money was funneled into Obrador's election fund.

How many people were murdered in Mexico in 2019 that relates to the drug trade?  Over 30K the last time I looked..  If you're okay with this and think we should sit by let it happen so be it.  Talk to any Mexican about this, get their point of view....  you'll be surprised...

 

I see what you are saying, just don’t see how going all badass will change things. You are trying to solve American problems by killing people in other countries. If you are going to go badass do it on your own country folk. Caught importing, death on the spot. Caught looking like you probably made money from drugs, off you go. Dealing, death is great.

Lots of this shit you can get on with in America, without picking on those that are supplying something your people want. But it would be considered unacceptable and until you can change that perception, going after other countries is just wrong.

So as nice as all badass sounds, it will never work. Just create an ever escalating shitfight with an ever increasing number of civilians caught up in the middle. Plus I don't think many western people would have the stomach to fight the type of war you would need to gain any traction at all. You would need to step lower than the cartels, make them fear you. Not an easy job and certainly not one any American government could be involved in supporting. It would be possible to rent such people of course, but swim with sharks and expect to get bitten.

So the only real answer is to deal with the problem up front. Take the billions and use it to help people. Give a legal, cheap way to supply those that want to partake. Remove the incentive for the cartels to kill to protect a trade by removing the trade.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2020 at 1:37 PM, El Boracho said:

Is there anyplace where pot has truly been legalized?  Don't think so. The regulations are more numerous than ever before. Thus the thriving Black Market. The penalty for an infraction is perhaps somewhat less while enforcement is so much more difficult. The popular fear and stigma of conservatives could only be overcome by promises of revenues thru draconian taxation and regulation. An utter failure. The politicians might try again. Make it legal like fruits and vegetables. Be happy collecting the sales tax. I propose that the current complete decay of US civilization cannot be blamed on the ready availability of pot.

Cannabis is legal in Canada. The government gets the tax revenue from legal sales and we still have a thriving black market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Cannabis is legal in Canada. The government gets the tax revenue from legal sales and we still have a thriving black market.

Yes. All true and the world as we know it still continues. No cataclysms, no reefer madness,no bolts of lightening but yet Canada as we know still exists. And still saying sorry too.:lol:

What, in the  blink of an eye two years you expect a government administered roll out to eliminate a decades old black market. I admire your optimism.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites