Thread: WHO SUPPORTS THE DRUG WAR?

WHO SUPPORTS THE DRUG WAR?



By Frosty Wooldridge
January 7, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

After the first five interviews with my brother Police Officer and Detective Howard Wooldridge of Lansing, Michigan (retired) concerning the “War on Drugs,â€

"Who supports the drug war?"

Not Ron Paul

I disagree--

People want to bann smoking because it's dangerous. The life of an addict is hidious, living hell. Legalizing drugs would turn us into a nation of drug addicts--how dangerous would our land become, more individuals committing crimes under the influence of drugs, overdoses, people without impulse control, others zombies? Legalizing drugs is as dangerous as legalizing nuclear weapons.

The major reason the war on drugs has failed is because the Mexican/US border remains open and the politicians who keep it open.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
- Thomas Jefferson

I support decriminalizing Marijuana-and regulating it in the same manner as alcohol or tobacco-and doing away with a lot of the federal crimes related to drug consumption-rather than distribution. The asset forfeiture laws have been abused by the government in this respect.

However, the people who think legalizing or decriminalizing hard narcotics is a panacea are utopian, in my estimation. Organized crime will still exist, it will just shift its resources into other areas. Plus, when you do serious interdiction coupled with border control AND enforcement, you can be successful in limiting the supply and access to illegal drugs.

The price of cocaine and heroin has shot through the roof over the past year, and the drug trade is being moved into Canada and Western Europe. Yes, some of that has to do with the dollar freefall, but a lot of it has to do with the stepped up enforcement-even if it's mostly superficial-of Customs and the BP. Plus, the greater cooperation Calderon has given with respect to drug kingpins in Mexico-this is probably the only area where that worthless hack has done anything positive.

Drug traffikers are realistic people. If the chances of getting caught-or more likely, your product being impounded-increases, then you're going to shift strategies. It's just that simple.

I don't think it would create more addicts - but if someone wants to destroy themselves, there's not a lot that can be done about it. We should protect the children and have some very, very harsh penalties for giving or selling drugs to children. We can, and must, remove the crime and the obscene profits from it.

No organized crime won't go away - but a huge chunk of it's income will be gone.

The article is right on - far too many people are making money from drugs and the so-called war on drugs. A lot of people who are deciding how the rest of us live, how our money is spent, and a lot of people sitting in the Amen corner on Sunday morning.

The fact is we are going to have to admit what we are doing IS NOT WORKING. So what do we do - pour billions and billions more into aiding and abetting the drug trade?

Why not make it legal, tax it, and have the money to enforce what restrictions are needed?

Or we can continue doing the same thing we are and watching the drug trade, the crime and the corrupt politicians grow and flourish.
I mean to continue to what is being done, knowing it isn't working and is detrimental, is a form of insanity.

We don't have a prohibition on smoking - other than underage people. There is a prohibition on smoking in certain places - but it's still legal.

Legalizing drugs and giving amnesty to illegals amounts to the same thing----both are wrong but it is easier to give in.

Legalizing drugs=no 'drug problem'
Amnesty=no 'illegal problem'

I see no difference between the two.

"Evil unchecked grows. Evil tolerated poisons the whole system."
Jawaharlal Nehru

Once again, what would you do - having to admit to ourselves, what we are doing isn't working?

I totally agree with you nntrixie that what is done at present is ineffective.

I lived in a small rural community and local law enforcement gets quite a bit of federal money for a drug task force--they bought bullet proof vests, a battering ram, various swat equipment and I believe some type of eavesdropping device. Officers are paid 'overtime' from the drug task force money while on drug assignments. They purchased a puppy from Europe for $10,000 to be trained as a drug sniffing dog due to its pedigree--well the dog was untrainable for the job so one officer got a $10,000 pet. The majority of the arrests were for possession of a small quanity of drugs. However right before the elections there was always a "big" drug bust and those running for election would campaign on the platform that illegal drugs were the major danger to the people. Small town police budgets benefit greatly from these federal grants and are highly sought but rarely is a big supplier caught. So the federal drug funding money yielded little return. In a weird way, small time law enforcement is rewarded money-wise for having a drug problem.

I believe we need to stop the supply and the number one priority is securing our borders. The second is going after the suppliers and gangs--concentrate federal funds and officers on those targets and quite throwing money away on small time operations. Even in prison, gang members and drug suppliers still run their networks--jail them in isolation without cell phones. We spend billions for health care of illegals and the money would be better served in long-term rehab units for those addicted to alcohol and/or drugs--30 days for rehab is too short a time --and introduce drug rehab units into prisons. Quit being a door-mat to the Mexican government.

Mexico's official stance on the US drug problem--it's an American problem caused by the demand for drugs. Supply and demand are dependant on each other so Mexico is responsible for this problem too.

"Evil unchecked grows. Evil tolerated poisons the whole system."
Jawaharlal Nehru

A story about some big drug busts.

This happened some time ago, maybe ten years ago in a small town. The sheriff wanted a new jail - a big, new, costly jail. The people were against it.

The county usually charged 1 maybe 2 a grand jury session with illegal possession - seldom a 'possession with intent' charge. There really wasn't that much activity - at least not heavy activity.

Suddenly one week, they indicted some 40 people in the county for drug dealing and drug possession. There were pictures all over that little home town paper (and it happened just in time to make the weekly paper) and everyone was patting themselves on the back.

The story included a paragraph that stated the present jail was inadequate to hold all the prisoners and they had to be taken to a jail in an adjoinging country - and when we didn't have enough jail space and had to take them out of the county - it costs the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money..

The sheriff got his jail, and later charges were reduced or dropped against almost all the arrestees, quietly.

We should all be able to see that what we are doing is less than nothing.

I do think we need to stop the border crossing of anything - be it drugs or people.

But I still think keeping it illegal is exactly what the drug dealers want. I don't think it will cause any more drug addicts - although it may, but I doubt it, in the long run. What it will do is save the lives of alot of innocent people who are caught in the crossfire - literally - of the drug wars.

It can be sold through drug stores, taxed and regulated just like alcohol or tobacco. Take the crime out of it and you take the criminals out.

But the article is right on that keeping it illegal drives the price up and it is making big profits for some very big people - here and abroad.

Prostitution is illegal, in most places - it hasn't gone away.

We are definately being manipulated like you wrote about the sheriff and the new jail. Housing prisoners in another county jail doesn't cost the tax-payers that much more except for the time it takes a jailer to transport the prisoner to the other jail.

Lou Dobbs is now reporting the increased violence along the border caused by the drug cartels and that Mexico is the largest supplier of meth to the US. Meth is very dangerous--people have become addicted to it after one experiment with it.

Meant to mention before--in the same rural state, members of congress got umteen thousands of dollars from Homeland Security for firefighting equipment. Well they needed the funds for the equipment but FROM Homeland Security!!! How likely will these rural towns have to deal with a terrorist act...........zero. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

Fences make good neighbors.