Brainwashed? Confused? or Retarded? you decide.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Heroin use has been reported to have dropped somewhat or at least stabalised, but use of smokables like methamphetamine has surged enormously. Your "war on drugs" worked that one pretty well huh.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by pablos]

reply to post by pablos


Who said it was "my" war on drugs? Sorry, but your comment does not really address my post.

The "war on drugs" occurred when IV drug use became rampant. It's rather commonplace now, apparently. At the time, it was quite a new behavior which had not been witnessed in the country to the degree it was. People were contracting all sorts of diseases and infections, using "dirty needles", hepatitis, etc,. and there was a rise in sexually transmitted diseases as well. Syphilis was again on the scene.

As I stated earlier, the crime associated with heroin addiction skyrocketed.
If you prefer to believe it was all wasted effort, and big governmental plots, you just go right ahead!!

It was actually an effort to save lives. Think what you will.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Sorry I think it does address your post just fine. You seem to have taken offence that I construed your support of the war on drugs based on your post. I will reiterate. The thieves thieve for meth now. The whores whore for meth now. This shouldn't be so confusing.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by pablos

 

It was actually an effort to save lives. Think what you will.

No, it actually wasn't, but I'll address your point assuming that actually is the case.

People have a right to destroy their lives in whatever manner they see fit. Ever consider that maybe some people don't want to be saved? Those people have the right to be left to their own devices, to pursue happiness in their own way.

If they break the law in their pursuit of happiness, they should be prosecuted for the law broken, not the circumstances that led them to break the law.

Furthermore, the War on Drugs does not reduce the number of casualties of drug abuse. In fact, it increases the amount of deaths related to drugs. The epic black market created due to the War on Drugs is directly responsible for untold violence and death, and drugs are still easily obtained.

In short, even if it was an attempt at saving lives, (which it wasn't) it's a massive failure that has ended up defeating the purpose.

While I'm at it: you want to keep kids away from drugs, right? Sure, we all do. What's the best way to go about that? Legalization: store clerks check ID's, drug dealers don't.

$0.02


TheAssoc.

reply to post by TheAssociate


Cheers buddy you summed it up a bit better than I am able.

so the war on drugs was just bull or just not that important?

so the war on drugs was just bull or just not that important?

reply to post by chaseninja


Too be honest mate I would say it is unimportant bullcrap. It is just another way to cause division and stop people exercising free will.

I watched a great movie the other day called Cocaine Cowboys. It was about the Columbian take over of Miami in the Cocaine trade. The levels of violencewere higher than in prohibition era Chicago.
Brilliant documentary.

Originally posted by damwel
Ron Paul didn't say that... Ben Franklin said it. Actually Ron Paul may have said it too, I don't know but Ben Franklin said it before Ron Paul. Also it's usually misquoted the real quote was...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Off topic I know... but as far as I can tell, they are 2 completely different quotes. Ron Paul's quote may have been inspired by Ben's... but not only are they worded completely different, the meaning is quite different too.

One suggests that those who will sacrifice liberty to obtain safety/security deserve neither.

The other states quite simply, if you give up liberty for some security, you will lose both.

I think there's a big enough difference and as well validity in both quotes to allow them both to exist individually.

As for the topic: The war on drugs is a BS scam, no questions about it.
Even if they were so genuinely concerned about the sudden emergence and impacts that HEROIN had.... why the "war on drugs" and not the "war on heroin"?

I certainly don't see the devastatingly negative impacts of hallucinogens or marijuana. They took the situation (maybe even created it?) and used it to unnecessarily take away more potential for freedom and good in this world than many are likely to ever be aware of.

A crime of epic proportions.

The war on drugs was also an effort to make heroin addiction a medical problem instead of an exclusively legal one.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
The war on drugs was also an effort to make heroin addiction a medical problem instead of an exclusively legal one.

Again, no, it wasn't, but again I'll argue the point as it's presented.

If the purpose of the War on Drugs was to treat addiction as a medical condition, then criminal penalties would never have been involved. You don't encourage people to seek treatment for a medical condition by threatening them with fines, jail time and property forfeiture for having the condition in question.

Criminalizing substance abuse only serves to discourage people from seeking treatment.

And just so you know, prior to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, heroin was perfectly legal in the United States. It was then made a prescription-only substance by the government so sales of it could be taxed. (link)



TheAssoc.

reply to post by TheAssociate


It's fine to express your opinions, but please don't present an opinion as though it is fact.

1971
(June 17) Nixon declares war on drugs.
At a press conference Nixon names drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States." He announces the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), to be headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, a leading methadone treatment specialist. During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement.

Taken from "Thirty Years of American's Drug War; Drug History".
(Bold area mine.)

www.pbs.org...

It's a very simple thing for me to back up all the comments I've made, if i so chose. Because they are facts, although opinions are important, they are not facts.




[edit on 5/10/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by silo13

 

Actually, his use of the word "retarded" was fine, and even apt:

Adj. 1. retarded - unintelligent, stupid - lacking intelligence;
source

The War on Drugs is very retarded.


TheAssoc.

lol. Why don't you tell us what you really think about it? lol.

Let's just say..the use of this word in this context is....uncouth. How about that?

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by TheAssociate

 

It's fine to express your opinions, but please don't present an opinion as though it is fact.

During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement.

Taken from "Thirty Years of American's Drug War; Drug History".
(Bold area mine.)

www.pbs.org...

So why not dedicate all of the money being wasted on this ridiculous drug war to treatment?

Legalize the currently illegal substances, return the choice of what one can put into his or her body to the people, and give them the option of seeking treatment for their addiction, if and when they choose.

There's no need to waste exorbitant sums of money trying to stop people from doing something they're going to do anyway.

And for the record, I wasn't presenting opinion as fact. The War on Drugs began well before the Nixon era, even though it wasn't officially called that, and the reason for it was not to treat addiction.

Just one example of the convoluted reasoning behind drug prohibition:

1915:
Utah passed the first state anti-marijuana law. Mormons who had gone to Mexico in 1910 returned smoking marijuana. It was outlawed at a result of the Utah legislature enacting all Mormon religion prohibitions as criminal laws.
source

TheAssoc.








[edit on 10-5-2010 by TheAssociate]

Fear seems to motivate most of what humanity does these days.

Fear is the root of all evil.

Have you ever heard the 5-Percenter statistics.

85% of people are dumb, deaf & blind.
10% of people are consciously keeping the people dumb, deaf & blind
& 5% of people are trying to liberate all others.

Seems to fit pretty well with the statistics you brought up, so I would suggest perhaps all three, but the overriding factor being unconciously-fear driven.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

I believe you are mis-construing or mis-representing the Nixon administration's motivations.

The rise in heroin use in the US was highest among veterans returning from Vietnam. There was a lot of pressure to have these conscripted veterans looked after once they returned, hence the emphasis on treatment.

The criminalization which took place at the same time was aimed at attacking political dissidents as part of wider cointelpro activities. Essentially, it attempted to allow prosecution of people in the counter culture or those that threatened the status quo. This couldn't be done based on their political views or behavior so Nixon's government attempted to allow it based on another aspect of the culture, namely the use of MJ and other narcotics.

[edit on 11/5/10 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


I was going to enter some infommation to support the war on drugs....but this thread has an agenda other than what lady said, so I won't bother.

Originally posted by angeldoll
I was going to enter some infommation to support the war on drugs....but this thread has an agenda other than what lady said, so I won't bother.

What? Are you afraid we might further prove that your support for the war on drugs is a poor decision, using facts? ATS was created for this purpose -- to have debates on such matters and ultimately, to deny ignorance.

If you feel what's been said in this thread is far from the truth and is just some "agenda", then by all means step up and tell us why... for the sake of denying ignorance, show us your facts.

[edit on 11/5/10 by Navieko]

reply to post by angeldoll


I don't see where you get off suggesting that I'm pushing an agenda.

I stated my opinion very clearly and briefly outlined my basis. If you want to discuss my opinion, point out the flaws in it and I'll discuss them with you, but if you just want to vaguely suggest that "drugs are bad mmmkay", leave me the hell out of it, thanks.