Time to end the war on drugs.
We've already lost and it's costing us billions of dollars each year with no positive effect and is destroying our society. I'm not for drug abuse but the war on drugs won't prevent abuse either, it just means our society has less money to deal with the problem. We've gotten caught up in the mentality of 'having to win' the war on drugs when it's always going to be a chronic condition. The purpose of the war is to prevent drug abuse and addiction. Clearly a failed effort so now it's time to try another way of achieving that.
You and I are also being regularly treated as criminals due to the drug war. Laws created to "stop" drugs and abuse and to attack drug dealers are routinely used against people not involved in the drug scene. Our civil rights are threatened.
Most of the violence and murder in this country has it's origins in the illegal drug trade. By licensing some drug use we might be able to stop most of that. Imagine if the murder rate where you live dropped by 90% just by legalizing drugs.
Since the Gov't knows this and refuses to acknowledge defeat it's up to the common people of the country to outflank them. Firstly by writing our elected officials and by supporting this grass roots initiative.
What I propose is that some brave scientist use the knowledge of gene splicing to create a breed of common plant with a high level of THC, say Kentucky blue grass or tomatos. Once it's permeated our entire society they can't very well ban all lawns! It should be possible to splice other plant genes as well so that the coke heads can get a hit off their dandelions or ferns.
Who will step forward and do this service for their country?
Kids, stay off drugs and this adult website. (cue the more you know music)
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|
blackskyline4
|
Mar 30 @ 12:18PM
|
|
|
just legalize weed... coke and all those "angry" drugs can stay the way they are illegal.. sense when was the last time u saw somebody smoking a joint get angry at somebody unless they were hogging the doritos...
|
|
Thenewguy2957
|
Mar 30 @ 12:24PM
|
|
I don't know enough about drugs to know which are 'good' and which are 'bad', I'm just tired of 40 years or repression because of them.
At work they drug test people.
Those who do drugs and those who don't, because it 'has to be fair'. So a bunch of innocent people are forced to pee in a cup WHILE SOMEONE WATCHES THEM in order to keep their jobs while the drug users just quit and walk away. Even those responsible enough to do their drugs at home lose their jobs because they have to refuse to take the test. And we accept this as if it's ok to treat innocent people like pot heads.
|
|
redbronze
|
Mar 30 @ 12:29PM
|
|
|
the war on drugs has always been a joke... a money maker for some rich guy in the mean time our kids die and prisions are over crowded by minor drug offences.. stupid.. we should do it like alcohol and tobacco, hell we could probably be out of our current national debt in a couple of years if we taxed the shit out of it all...
|
|
TheAvenger
|
Mar 30 @ 12:40PM
|
|
A company has the right to require that its employees not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while in their employ. Drugs and alcohol are responsible, in large part, for absenteeism, and also for many work-related injuries. This translates not only to putting others at risk, as well as simply inconveniencing others, but also to passing on the exorbitant costs of health insurance to "totally innocent" people as well.
You can't determine whether or not someone is a "pothead" if you don't test them. So what's fair? Testing only those who look or act "suspect" and leaving the rest alone, or testing everyone and then making decisions based on the results of those tests that are good for the company and for its employees?
|
|
Thenewguy2957
|
Mar 30 @ 12:47PM
|
|
|
What I left out was that in fact ONE of them was suspected of using on the premises. I'm just upset that they treated all the employees as criminals. Some of these were older women and as I said before the actual drug user opted not to take the test and walked out while a dozen innocent people had to undergo the humiliation of proving they weren't on drugs. I personally wasn't subject to the pee test but I still thinks it's unfair.
|
|
Thenewguy2957
|
Mar 30 @ 12:53PM
|
|
|
So what's fair? Testing only those who look or act "suspect" and leaving the rest alone, Well yes. it's called probable cause and people have the presumption of innocence. I mean you don't have to prove you didn't rob the local bank do you just because you live near it? Or maybe someone where you work looks kind of like the suspect so the authorities just assume you must have been in on it until you can prove you didn't?
|
|
beefygoblin
|
Mar 30 @ 1:30PM
|
|
I believe that mandatory school drug testing is far worse... its paid for by your tax dollars and the students can't very well just say fuck it I quite and find another school- unless they can afford to go to a private institute. Its a fairly severe invasion of ones privacy. Also if one is incompetent then who cares what the reason may be, you should fire his ass. If he drinks at home then would you fire him? Ahh but you'd fire him for having a joint at home... and I have never seen anyone show up hungover and late becouse they smoked a joint (I used to work in a scrap yard and have therefore seen some pretty hard working stoners. One truck driver had to be fired to due federal regulation regarding the drug testing of interstate drivers... he was our best driver).
Stop pushing the nonesense. Drug testing does not save lives, firing generaly incompetent people does. Whatever the cause of theyre incompetence may be.
|
|
BananaBoy4u
|
Mar 30 @ 1:34PM
|
|
Until they come up with a way to tax it and roadside test your level of high it will remain illegal.
They will not end the war on drugs until the prison guards union lets you. The biggest lobbying is for more prisons and is always backed by the guard's union.
|
|
TheAvenger
|
Mar 30 @ 1:35PM
|
|
|
Well yes. it's called probable cause and people have the presumption of innocence.
So you think that because they test you they presume you're guilty???
I mean you don't have to prove you didn't rob the local bank do you just because you live near it?
Nope, but living near the bank is not the same thing as working for the bank. If money came up missing at the bank (not in a robbery, but just during an audit) and you had no reason to suspect anyone in particular, would it be fair to only subject certain employees, and not others, to a lie detector test??
Or maybe someone where you work looks kind of like the suspect so the authorities just assume you must have been in on it until you can prove you didn't?
Keep in mind that testing is also done to prove someone DIDN'T do it, too.
|
|
TheAvenger
|
Mar 30 @ 1:36PM
|
|
Stop pushing the nonesense. Drug testing does not save lives, firing generaly incompetent people does. Whatever the cause of theyre incompetence may be.
|
|
TheAvenger
|
Mar 30 @ 1:44PM
|
|
|
Stop pushing the nonesense. Drug testing does not save lives, firing generaly incompetent people does. Whatever the cause of theyre incompetence may be.
oops; hit "post" too soon.
How can you make the claim that drug testing does not (ultimately) potentially save lives? Someone under the influence of drugs can very well endanger lives. And of course the testing itself is not going to save lives, but firing someone who's under the influence of drugs can very potentially save them.
Stop pushing the nonsense? What's nonsense about it?
As for me, I would consider it and inconvenience and I wouldn't be happy about it, because I don't do drugs or smoke pot, but if it means getting rid of those who may be likely to put my life in danger, you bet I'm all for it.
|
|
radracer
|
Mar 30 @ 2:12PM
|
|
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
act."-George Orwell
Nice blog 
If the drug war was a basketball game we would be losing 99 to 2 though most people don't know this. The Government doesn't want you to know how futile the war is or there would be a huge revolt against it and the government wants more excuses to tax you and misuse the funds any way it wants.
It costs US $20 Billion a year and most of our rights to lose so badly  yet about half of all elementary kids can tell you someone who could get them drugs right now. Charles Manson was recently caught dealing drugs in prison so the government can't even keep drugs out of its prisons. 
The War on drugs is its own price support mechanism for ALL drugs. The more the government works to make a certain drug unobtainable the more the price goes up (this is called the Free market). The more the price goes up the more the criminals can pay to border guards and officials and the higher up the chain of officials they can afford to pay off. The more the price goes up the more junkies have to rob and kill people to buy the overpriced drugs. There are several books and news articles that indicate that both the Clinton and Bush administrations have been running drugs to finance their covert operations for decades.  Don't believe me? Google: CIA, DC9 plane, cocaine. Do the same search for Clinton; who used a private airstrip in Arkansas.
There is a group of Law enforcement professionals (cops) who want drugs legalized  See: www.Leap.cc
Here is the Washington DC lobbying group for legalization: http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/
They realize that the Drug War has harmed millions of non-violent people (a million of these are constantly rotating thru prison learning to be real criminals from those inside) and is stealing our rights in an ever increasing witch hunt.
Before 1917 ALL drugs were available cheaply over the counter and addicts functioned normally in society. Drugs were made illegal to combat competition from labor forces from various ethnic groups to eliminate their intrusion into the work force thus taking jobs from other groups.
Today, overpriced drugs cause at least 76% of urban crime and 71% of murders according to FBI statistics. If ALL drugs were legalized most crime would disappear IMMEDIATELY as costs dropped about 90%. This would eliminate the reason pushers target kids and deal drugs, PROFIT.
Dealers don't deal beer on playgrounds as the risks for a $10 profit on a 12 pack aren't worth it. A 3000% mark-up like on cocaine or crack is worth it to them and drug dealers don't check I.D.s to their clients so in fact it is easier for kids to get illegal drugs than legal ones like alcohol. 
|
|
radracer
|
Mar 30 @ 2:12PM
|
|
The biggest problem with the drug war is that Big Pharma and government would stand to lose billions in assets as pot would replace many legal drugs that companies like Pfizer have billions invested in and since George Bush owns lots of Pfizer stock that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Did anyone wonder why he wouldn’t let European flu vaccines into America a few years back when none was available here?  Competition would hurt Pfizer; but its okay to let old people die of the flu.
"When buying and selling are controlled by Washington, the first things to be bought and sold are politicians."
P.J. O'Rourke
Asset forfeiture is another reason the government likes the drug war as it can seize the assets of those even accused of having or dealing drugs. If those whose lives have been seized can borrow any money to hire a lawyer to sue the government (if they can prove they weren't dealers) they might be able to get their assets back.
Aside from those problems and market competition to current products that would be at risk from competition from legal Hemp is the fact that the government wants us involved in the legal system (partially constrained you might say).
Did you really think that we wanted those laws to be
observed? . . . We want them broken.... We're after power
and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The
only power any government has is the power to crack down on
criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's
there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively
interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and
then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's
the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier
to deal with.
~Dr. Ferris ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
The ONLY way to overturn the War on Drugs is to overturn the corrupt government which is up to its neck in competing big business that benefits from it. The ONLY way to do that is:
A) Vote for the ONLY party that is strictly constitutional and not corrupt (nor socialist), the Libertarians 
and
B) insure the vote is actually verifiable by eliminating electronic voting machines.
|
|
jcarolina
|
Mar 30 @ 2:27PM
|
|
Great blog and great comments. I think radracer pretty much has the angle on it.
However, your idea about gene splicing is of Nobel quality.
|
|
canuhelpme258
|
Mar 30 @ 2:37PM
|
|
We declared war on poverty yet never really did much... illiteracy too... kids still go through school not learning to read... drugs.. well you can still buy crack 24/7
Now we declared war on terror too... this is scary to me because poverty, illiteracy and drugs thrive even more now that they declared war on them... that is food for thought!
|
|
DarkDesires99
|
Mar 30 @ 2:39PM
|
|
I saw a truly fighting statistic a few weeks ago 1 out of 100 adults in America is in jail or prison. That is mind boggling do you know the cost involved in holding a prisoner for a year? The average annual cost per prisoner is $23,876 dollars. I live near the Super Max and the cost there is more like $75,000 on up per prisoner per year (I know that these are the really bad guys sort of a who’s who of bad guys). I guess the point I’m trying to make is an economic if this continues there will not be enough people on the outside earning a living to support the ones locked up.
New York Times LInk Here
|
|
TheAvenger
|
Mar 30 @ 2:46PM
|
|
No argument that government is corrupt, that's for sure. And I doubt the Libertarians are any exception. But I'm getting the general impression that some are saying here that we should just resign ourselves to the problem, and not do a hell of a lot to change it.
So on that note, why don't we just become a lawless society altogether? Abolish all government, abolish all laws and those enforcing the laws; let us all do whatever the hell we please, and just let the chips fall where they may?
|
|
MrNiceGuy46214
|
Mar 30 @ 3:31PM
|
|
|
Drug testing does not save lives
TheAvenger has it right. Those substances which are illegal or regulated are that way for good reasons. Personally, I am a fan of the Rule of Law. It is what keeps a society functional. That is not to say that I agree with all of our laws, but just ignoring them is infantile. If there are laws you don't agree with, voice your opinion to your elected officials. VOTE for ones who have beliefs & stances similar to yours.
Using a drug test to determine eligibility for employment is not only about safety, but about character. Remember that we are talking about ILLEGAL drugs here. The piss test does not show if you used illegal drugs 5 years ago. It shows if you are CURRENTLY breaking the law & using ILLEGAL drugs. If you are of such a dispicable character that you would ignore the law for your personal enjoyment, what reason would an employer have to trust you to follow the companies policies??
Personally, I think that any substance that is truly addictive should be avoided. That is just common sense. I also believe, in a GENERAL sense, that I should have the freedom to screw up AS LONG AS that screw-up is not going to have a substantial negative impact on other citizens of the society in which I live.
If I drive under the influence & total my car and rack up medical bills ... well, I got what I deserve, it is my problem. BUT my driving under the influence could also endanger others, so it is sensible for our society (via our elected officials) to regulate or prohibit it. If smoking weed makes me stupid & broke and gives me cancer, which *I* or my insurance will pay for ... that is on me and my fellow citizens should not have to pay a dime to help me. BUT most of the idiots who partake of illegal drugs do NOT have the means to pay for their medical care and/or wind up on welfare because they can't hold a job and THAT negatively impacts the rest of us!
Regulating / prohibiting certain substances and/or practices can be good for a society. Taking a piss test can be a nuisence, but I don't have any trouble with it. I only wish that *I* could choose which gender watched me piss. (If I had a gal watching me, maybe she'd start some OMG! rumours that would get me more dates! )
BTW: Malaysia (for example) no longer has an illegal drug problem. They won their war. How? Very simply by passing and enforcing one, uniform law pertaining to possession of illegal substances. If you are caught in possesion of an illegal substance with 2 or more witnesses (and the cops are never alone) you are guilty. If the amount you possess is lower than the threshhold, the sentence is life in prison. If it is at or above the threshhold for that substance, you are executed within 7 days.
(Far too extreme for me ... would never want to live in a society that is willing to handle things in that way ... but they have shown that it CAN be done ... winning that war, that is.)
Now, if someone can come up with a way to give people the high they seek without endangering others ... I'm all for it! We should have the freedom to be stupid.
|
|
beefygoblin
|
Mar 30 @ 4:37PM
|
|
The better question should be about mandatory drug testing thats regulated by the government. This applies to everything from teachers and students to truck drivers.
Do you know the arguement they used to make marijuana illegal? They said if you smoke it you will get raped by black people and not care. They claimed that it makes you violent, gives you super human streangth and makes you immune to pain. They claimed that it was a communist plot to take over america.All of this was said in (get this) senate hearings on the topic. They based theyre decision on those facts... yeah. Furthermore when Richard Nixons administration had research done on marijuana (in order to further what was the start of an escalation on the war on drugs) the american medical association and the American Psychological Association both ruled that it was a fairly benign substance with potential medical uses... to which he responded (on newly released audio tape) "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ." .
Yeah... I couldn't have made any of the above up if I tried. Its all true.
So do you still believe that marijuana is illegal for a "good reasons". Do you believe the reason not to do something should be based on legalities? I for one say that injust and stupid laws should be ignored by well informed citizens. I think we should have cancer patients taking to washington and smoking infront of the whitehouse... I lost a cousin to cancer. Believe me when I say that anything that helps ease suffering for cancer patients should be allowed for them. Especialy when so much scientific research points to its benefits.
|
|
beefygoblin
|
Mar 30 @ 5:01PM
|
|
Do any of you know who Anslinger was? He was the first drug czar back when it was called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Here is what he said about marijuana.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Ever heard of the Gore Files? Look them up, its the propaganda that Anslinger used... your not going to believe some of this sh-t if I say it.
Point is, sometimes the law isn't right. Sometimes theyre based on misinformation and predudice... this would be one of those times.
Oh and cigarettes are far more likely to give you cancer (I once rolled a joint in a cigarette roller... it took the whole bag... and the average smoker smokes what maybe 2 in a week.. the average heavy uses smokes like two per day... compare that to a pack of cigs). Alchohol makes you much more stupid, violent, and unpredictable.Yet it is now legal (becouse they figured out back then that prohabition didn't work).
“I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument."--Bill Hicks
|
|
buatbu
|
Mar 31 @ 4:53AM
|
|
|
Let's end the "War on Poverty" LBJ started that in the 1960's and it is costing us more then any other war. 40 years. Have Congress pass a law - no more poverty.
|
|
|