Uncle Sam is Breaking Bad

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Even things like heroin and speed could be decriminalized, I think. Each has relatives that are used pharmaceutically already, which suggests neither are always going to ruin your life. Many users of harder drugs do so recreationally and continue to live a product life.

If someone decides every once in a while they want to use heroin on a Saturday night to have a different experience, are they really a criminal?

I think most here are aware of the consequences of prohibition laws. Attempts to control or eliminate actions of others, actions deemed to be undesirable can result in huge distortions in the nature of human interaction as attempts at control are met with resistance. These distortions are not generally unexpected and there is no shortage of those who would exploit these distortions for profit or gain.

I think it an important mistake to link the presence or creation of the prohibitive policy to those who presently benefit so handsomely. The distortions are the result of the bad policy and should be presented on a cost, benefit basis. To give the profiteers the role of initiators and manipulators of prohibition obscures the real argument of cost benefit as it relates to the experience of the average individual.

I believe, to leave any legitimation of a causative effort, on the part of the profiteers, off the table, makes for a cleaner argument. Those who might be open to accepting the failure of the policy or law may well be sympathetic to certain enforcement efforts, and through a renewed faith, become more committed to the possibility of behavioral change in those believed to engage in the undesirable behavior.

However you look at it, the intensified enforcement efforts that began with the announcement of this war is proving to be at it's most obvious level, ineffective, and on a more practical level unsustainable in it's cost, both economically and on a human level in the way of persecution and segregation.

Time for a treaty.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

let me say that i speak from experience (at least observed from experience):

speed and heroin are not good and shouldn't be allowed. they are extremely addictive and can cause health problems.

select pharmaceuticals get a small pass in my book because strong painkillers are necessary, and medications like ritalin have their place.

if the war on drugs is ended, and people wish to use something for a spiritual experience, or to get to know themselves, i would support that. it would have to be regulated to an extent, but that is my opinion.

i am in no way advocating for the use of illegal substances. many are incredibly dangerous and will ruin your life, best to avoid them all if you know what's good for you.

According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S.

The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners’ work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce.

The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Granite
If all above is true, then why have anything to do with drugs?

Did you laugh and snicker when they showed the movie "Scaried Straight" in high school?

As Nancy Reagon said "Just say no!" Millions listened...wisely.

I never said that I did, nor even that I support the idea of drug use. In fact my premise, as stated, I think lends more to the notion that I am arguing that addiction is a disease and not a crime and that labeling it as a crime is nothing more than a means of control and corruption - allowing for the illegal removal of property and freedoms from American citizens in absolute contradiction to Constitutional principle.

I completely 100% agree with you, very good post. We should put addicts in Rehab, not Prison.

We will slowly all get locked away, there are your concentration camps. A new Nazi Regime taking form before your very eyes.

The coming Economic Collapse will boost the prison population ten times higher then it already is now.

I think Society would really take a strong hit if these drugs were not regulated

When there is more bad then good, then I would be more concerned with how we are conducting the war.

reply to post by Bicent76


With all due respect you miss the big picture. How many are walking the streets medicated for depression or anxiety. Just because they're not lying on the ground doesnt mean they are any more or less "acceptable". You also fail to see how prohibition ( I am not advocating unrestricted personal use of opiates ) creates a monopoly. Most US law abiding citizens fail to see how the War in afganistan is all about controlling through the military how drugs and "black cash" are transported back into the US to finance off book various projects. There is enough evidence that through the confiscation and the amounts of money involved it is easier to take the high moral ground based through a slanted view that the confiscations will somehow teach them a lesson and "besides we could put that drug money towards rehab problems"
Here in Australia a certain percentage of tobacco taxes are fed into anti smoking campaigns where we are subjected to prime time viewing of emphysema sufferers or "bald men in hospitals attached to drip feed pain killers" telling us not to smoke. Why dont I see a new "expensive" tax raised on weapons manufacturers showing me "limbless" mine victims or gun accident victims showing me war is bad for my health?

Its all about perception and conditioning of the pliant majority but in the end the amounts of cash involved leads one to suspect that the banks through special "accounts" and the politicians who ostensibly hold the moral ground and legislate somehow get their snouts in the fat troughs. To beleive otherwise is to be living in denial and delusion.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

let me say that i speak from experience (at least observed from experience):

speed and heroin are not good and shouldn't be allowed. they are extremely addictive and can cause health problems.

select pharmaceuticals get a small pass in my book because strong painkillers are necessary, and medications like ritalin have their place.

if the war on drugs is ended, and people wish to use something for a spiritual experience, or to get to know themselves, i would support that. it would have to be regulated to an extent, but that is my opinion.

i am in no way advocating for the use of illegal substances. many are incredibly dangerous and will ruin your life, best to avoid them all if you know what's good for you.

I would agree with you for the most part but am thinking more and more that generic low-cost opiates should be dispensed rather freely to seniors with chronic debilitating and painful illnesses. Pharma industry knows people will shell out the bucks when the hurt is on them. It is not fair to profiteer off someones pains. On the other hand healthy younger folks need to steer clear of those things, perhaps with our regulatory help. For the elderly though, why not let them die with dignity and little suffering in their final days? Let them decide when it is time to fade into oblivion.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

then you have a simpleton, Inaccurate definition of war..

Not really:

war   Use War in a sentence war 1 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. 3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812. 4. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business. 5. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words

dictionary.reference.com...

police action noun a relatively localized military action undertaken by regular armed forces, without a formal declaration of war, against guerrillas, insurgents, or other forces held to be violating international peace and order.

dictionary.reference.com...


People can call it what ever the hell they want but WAR is often usually fought between nation states.

War on drugs?

Is Police Action

I forgot everyone is suppose to join with the mob and call everything the same thing I wonder who are the 'simpletons'.

1. by a force or arms...check
2. period of armed hostility ... check
3. number 4.. did you even read the definitions you posted?

they are clearly not you described war as earlier on this thread which preceded my post of your lack of comprehension.

"people can call it whatever they want but war is often usually"

wow so now its "often usually"..

wow, what room you have wiggled into!! here let me get your original inaccurate description.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

here is what you stated on page 4.. clearly a different NEO96 huh?

Originally posted by neo96
People need to stop calling it a war call it what it is a 'police action'.

In a war its shock and awe,death from above, full, metal carnage.

Fight or Don't.

Just please stop calling it a WAR.

Hell make a Gitmo for Cartels, and such.the only way a war is won or lost is by the score kept.

X number of 'bad guys' died, and resources destroyed made combat ineffective

Versus Y.

Highest number is the winner.

reply to post by HanzHenry


Don't know what the attitude is all about,. and I really don't care.

1. No formal declaration made by congress for a WAR
2. Cartels are not recognized by any state in the world.
3/ Said cartels have signed no 'Geneva' conventions.
4. A WAR is exactly as described, and as such:

As per the definition:

1. No check as no nation or by land or sea or air
2. A STATE cartels are not a state they are a PARA-military organization.
3 No contest because it's all about money and all they are doing is killing off the people who get in their way.
4. Don't call Los Zeta' or their kind anything but 'armed' thugs far from soldiers.
5. They are shooting bullets not words.

I know what I previously which was followed up by another comment:

That sounded like this:

When B-52's,cruisle missiles,tanks,apcs. ground assaults witha couple hundred thousand boots on the ground, and daily White House press conferences. and missile cam footage THEN I will call it a war.

Which was followed up with another comment:

PEOPLE CAN CALL IT WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT but WAR is often usally fought between nation states.

That is true.

Instead of parroting some political phrase coined by a politician be nice if some COMPREHENDED that.

Not going to call the 'WAR on Drugs' a WAR. it is a police action because if it was a WAR if is in violation of the WAR POWERS ACT, and I see NOONE even mentioning ANYTHING what so ever about that.

reply to post by neo96


I'd agree that the "War On Drugs" moniker is a sensationalist label used to market a political agenda but if there is any aspect of our society that can not officially be deemed a war but carries with it a comparable level of violence and social deterioration at an international level it would probably be the conflicts and policing surrounding the drug trade.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

Don't know what the attitude is all about,. and I really don't care.

obviously you DO. or at least DID care.. yours was the rant about what a "war" is..

you are the one who blazed this ridiculous trail and you aren't gonna wiggle out of it.

your comments are clear, multiple strawmen have been foiled,

bounce around all you want... this is a waste,

you haven't the INTEGRITY to admit it

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by neo96

 

I'd agree that the "War On Drugs" moniker is a sensationalist label used to market a political agenda but if there is any aspect of our society that can not officially be deemed a war but carries with it a comparable level of violence and social deterioration at an international level it would probably be the conflicts and policing surrounding the drug trade.

I actually, as a US Marine was TAD to FIGHT the drug war. hundreds have gone south of the border to do such.

I guess all the ops carried out in south America by US MILITARY wouldn't be a war either then,
...
Operation Gatekeeper?

##snipped##

here this is general info few know.

Colonel Sabow

Brilliant thread.

I have nothing else to add.

reply to post by HanzHenry


Is there a point there?

Beyond all the 'blind chest bumping false patriotism' for the 'WAR on Drugs' excuse me Police Action on Drugs.

Tell me more about this courage and honor and 'integrity' I say this well because I haven't seen it thus far.

Military ops do not a WAR make.

reply to post by neo96


This thread has degraded into an argument of semantics? Is it a valid point? I think if you are looking to dramatize the operation, perhaps.

I agree with Neo that military operations do not necessarily constitute "war".

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by neo96

 

This thread has degraded into an argument of semantics? Is it a valid point? I think if you are looking to dramatize the operation, perhaps.

I agree with Neo that military operations do not necessarily constitute "war".

No doubt arguing over nothing especially a 30 year old police action.

Click here for more information.

These are all used in the drug war.

1. fighter jets, awacs, drones
2. tanks, apc's, assault vehicles (fav's)
3. machine guns, rockets, grenades,
4. operators from AF combat controller, Navy seals, USMC recon, Airborne and Delta, not only there in action, but also training and coordinating with foreign militaries

so, which of these weapons of war do you dispute as being used?

Or how about the US Coast Guard.. Or the Navy, Marines, and now DHS LEDET's

do you even know what the term is, or what the mission is?

It is an insult to all the soldiers that have fought in this war..

Aircraft Gunships, CIWS guns, cannons, etc..

helo -assault sqauds... firing on and sinking fast boats..


NEO.. what do you know?... on the DRUG WAR.... JACK SQUAT!!