War on Drugs over! Drugs win!
Gil Kerlikowske Surrenders the War on Drugs
A momentous day has come. Gil Kerlikowske, Obama’s brand new drug czar has ended the war on drugs. In his first ever interview after his appointment he explained to the Wall Street Journal, “Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them. We’re not at war with people in this country.” He is trying to bring an end to the drug war that Nixon started. Where were the final shots do you ask? Clearly if we haven’t cleaned up Afghanistan, Baltimore, and the narco war in Mexico the drugs must still be winning. This can mean only one thing, America is surrendering to drugs. Well, it is about time.
The War on Drugs was ridiculous from the start. How can you declare a war on very broadly used noun. Imagine a War on Bugs or a War on Mountains. Preposterous. You can’t wage war against a collection of things. Humans have been using drugs far longer than we have had laws. There are lots of people who enjoy using drugs, and that will never be changed by law enforcement. By ending the war on drugs Kerlikowske will come at the problem from a totally new direction. The hope is to treat the addicted users to lower the demand for drugs. Of course they will continue to go after violent criminals and major dealers. Frankly it is a relief to see a more nuanced approach to he problem.
Think of it this way. According to the numbers in that WSJ article 10% of people in America said they smoked pot in the last year. That’s 31 million people who should be in jail right now under federal drug law. Imagine how catastrophic putting that many people in jail would be. Lets not forget that the biggest cash crop in California, which has the biggest economy in America, is weed. Just like Kerlikowske said we cannot attack so many of our citizens. We have to change our language and laws to better reflect reality, because the Dude abides here!
The War on Terror is equally un-winnable. You might as well declare a War on Horror, or a War on Glee. You can’t ever win a war against an emotional state, or a method of attack, or an non-unified force of local guerrillas. War has proven a costly and ineffective solution for so many problems. It is time we re-brand this country firmly away from it. We have to stop saying a war on this word or a war on that thing. Peace is the only path to victory.
Make peace with drugs. They have always been here, will always be here, and should not result in 15-20 year in federal prison. Instead non-violent offenders need to be treated. Think of how good that A&E tv show Intervention is at stopping drug use. Why shouldn’t our government support a less expensive and more effective tactics like this? It really goes to the root of the problem and helps the unfortunate people who become deeply addicted to drugs. Take a mans crack away, and he won’t do crack today. Teach him not to do crack, and you will cure him for a lifetime.
Many people state they want to legalize pot because they don’t think that someone should go to jail for possession. Others who want legalize it toss out taxing pot as an enticement. A more logical approach to the penalty argument is to change the penalty, not the law from which the penalty comes from. If you want to change the law, the penalty argument should be a secondary argument (but still included). If you make 1st-X possession offenses with increasing monetary penalties you can keep the jails free for violent criminals and the money can be used for treatment programs including if the offender wants to enter into a program his money can go directly to that so he can feel that he has some skin in the game. Taking that approach you keep the pot smoker out of prison, the person thinks it should still be illegal and who wants to see some penalty for violating the law will get some satisfaction, and you can get some cash out of the deal.
Many people state they want to legalize pot because they don’t think that someone should go to jail for possession. Others who want legalize it toss out taxing pot as an enticement. A more logical approach to the penalty argument is to change the penalty, not the law from which the penalty comes from. If you want to change the law, the penalty argument should be a secondary argument (but still included). If you make 1st-X possession offenses with increasing monetary penalties you can keep the jails free for violent criminals and the money can be used for treatment programs including if the offender wants to enter into a program his money can go directly to that so he can feel that he has some skin in the game. Taking that approach you keep the pot smoker out of prison, the person thinks it should still be illegal and who wants to see some penalty for violating the law will get some satisfaction, and you can get some cash out of the deal.
It isn’t logical at all the pot is illegal and alcohol is legal. Alcohol is deadly both in the long and short term. Its effects have been well shown to lead to violence, car crashes, and severe addiction. None of that is true about pot. It simply isn’t logical to make the significantly more dangerous substance legal. Tax pot like cigarettes make some honest revenue.
It isn’t logical at all the pot is illegal and alcohol is legal. Alcohol is deadly both in the long and short term. Its effects have been well shown to lead to violence, car crashes, and severe addiction. None of that is true about pot. It simply isn’t logical to make the significantly more dangerous substance legal. Tax pot like cigarettes make some honest revenue.
David Brander talks like a cop; only someone rooted in prohibitionist policy would take about infringements on liberty in terms of switching to drug courts and continuing to line cop pockets. In my hometown cops are the highest paid “public servants” and frequently rake in $130,000 a year plus overtime. Those who speak favorably of prohibition are generally those who stand to benefit from war: soldiers. Cops are soldiers fighting brutally to suppress a non-violent movement. They make fat salalries off the war and it ensures they have lots of jobs to offer with very little oversight. When I lived in Worcester the police ran brothels and heroin dens, they capped competing dealers and dumped them in the Quabbin reservoir(or just arrested them, depends on the case). I reiterate, cops are soldiers fighting a war of aggression unprovoked.
David Brander talks like a cop; only someone rooted in prohibitionist policy would take about infringements on liberty in terms of switching to drug courts and continuing to line cop pockets. In my hometown cops are the highest paid “public servants” and frequently rake in $130,000 a year plus overtime. Those who speak favorably of prohibition are generally those who stand to benefit from war: soldiers. Cops are soldiers fighting brutally to suppress a non-violent movement. They make fat salalries off the war and it ensures they have lots of jobs to offer with very little oversight. When I lived in Worcester the police ran brothels and heroin dens, they capped competing dealers and dumped them in the Quabbin reservoir(or just arrested them, depends on the case). I reiterate, cops are soldiers fighting a war of aggression unprovoked.
yes i think you should legalise drugs most of them anyway at least that way it will make them much more safer plus let people have a much better understanding about them,the blackmarket is a ruthless untrustly and unpredictable i think its time we legalise most drugs and just let people decide for themselves whether they want to take them or not,plus it will give good funding