The goofiest argument for the drug war is that not having drug laws implies somehow that the government condones their use. If there isn’t a ‘War On Umbrella Eating’ does that mean they condone eating umbrellas? Does the fact that millions of other things for which there isn’t a ‘War on ___’ — much less laws against — imply the government is in favor them? I think not. And why is providing treatment (which works) seen as supporting drugs when supporting law enforcement handling it (which doesn’t work) is seen as being the way to go?
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom: War On Drugs Is A Failure
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the nation’s war on drugs a total failure and insisted the crime rate would go down if the government spent money on treatment as opposed to jailing people with drug problems.
“If you want to get serious, if you want to reduce crime by 70% in this country overnight, end this war on drugs,” he told reporters at City Hall on Thursday. “You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs.”
The mayor maintained local jails are overcrowded with people incarcerated for drug offenses, taking up room that could be used to hold more violent criminal offenders. He said violent criminals with lengthy felony records are being turned loose, too often.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who has run the county jail for 28 years, told CBS 5 that 60 to 75 percent of the 2,000 inmates currently held are there for drug crimes or have underlying substance abuse problems.
He also agreed with Newsom.
“No, the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment,” Hennessey said.
Mayor Newsom
Consider the source – both are from San Francisco – land of the fruit and nuts. The city should just secede. California and the nation would gladly help pay for the transition..
Examples?
http://www.zombietime.com
Fusion –
Kids in the Netherlands are not propagandized with lies like American kids are – and reefer and hash are de facto legal and socially acceptable.
Yet American kids smoke more dope, and start smoking it at a younger age than kids in the Netherlands.
There goes your argument, down the toilet…
And how come EVERYBODY in the Netherlands doesn’t smoke? Hmmm? I mean, it’s legal, so everybody wants to do it, right?
Greg Allen – Tomorrow, crack will be legal. Are you going to smoke some? Your mom and dad? Your boss? Your friends, are they gonna make tracks to the nearest head shop and get crack pipes?
Didn’t think so.
Frank, I don’t understand your liquor store analogy. Liquor ‘trafficking’ is legal.
It’s the illegality that causes the crime. As others point out, you DID have shootouts between bootleggers during Prohibition, and once Prohibition was repealed, all the crime associated with the distribution of liquor disappeared overnight. The same would happen if you re-legalized drugs.
I say “re-legalize” because drugs used to be legal.
In the 25 years since Ecstasy was outlawed, has the situation WRT to Ecstasy improved?
In the 40 years since LSD was banned, has the situation WRT LSD improved?
In the 42 years since Amphetamines were banned, has the situation WRT Amphetamines improved?
In the 70 years since Marijuana was banned, has the situation WRT Marijuana improved?
In the 93 years since Opiates were banned/very heavily regulated, has the situation WRT to Opiates improved, even one iota?
Correction – 20 years for Ecstasy.
#30 – Lauren,
Certainly there are laws against victimless acts. My statement was intended to be interpreted as “I do not believe in victimless crimes and would support legislation to make all victimless acts legal.” There is no such thing as victimless crime. It is our laws that are incorrect on the subject. Creating silly laws that prohibit acts that do not hurt anyone weakens people’s respect for the law.
We keep runniing into your disregard for semantic precision, Scott.
Your statement can only be read as either “no such thing as a victimless crime exists” or alternatively, “there is no crime which does not have a victim.”
Although I understand – and agree – with your underlying point, there IS such a thing as victimless crime.
What constitutes a crime is not contingent upon whether or not someone is harmed – it’s what our legislatures declare to be a crime.
Sure the law is flawed. That’s a given. And as long as legislators are drawn from a pool of persons schooled in law but not in logic – and who create legislation with the intention of currying favor with voters and not to improve society, look forward for more bad law, for the foreseeable future and beyond.
Few of the stupid bastards in our state and Federal legislatures actually believe that marijuana harms anyone other than (possibly) the person using it, but they are uniformly scared shitless of a certain bloc of voters – some of the stupidest and least qualified to vote, indeed – but they are so corrupt, cynical and jaded that they will see their fellow citizens lives ruined for doing no one any harm, rather than stand up and do what’s right, and risk losing their positions by doing so…
The way that people in the developed world are steadily becoming less intelligent and more egocentric, this problem of self-serving scum creating bad laws is only going to get worse. Face it.
#35, Lauren,
Again, I ask you for some evidence. You didn’t give any about availability v. usage and now you throw out another piece of crap suggesting Americans smoke more pot than the Dutch.
Your contentions both defy logic and reason. Please, cite something to back up your point. Otherwise, it becomes just another piece of bullshit.
The facts are there and widely available. I’m not doing your research for you.
You can walk into any ‘coffee shop’ in Amsterdam and buy it. It is ubiquitous.
But it ubiquity does not translate into increased usage. Any adult in America can easily, cheaply, legally buy alcohol.
But does everyone drink? No. Your argument has been thoroughly blown out of the water long ago. If you think you have any new, previously unseen evidence that suggests that availability increases usage, instead of merely your emotional reactions, then trot it out. Otherwise, can it.
How’s about a l’il recap?
People who want to use, or abuse, certain psychoactive substances will do so, despite any law. They will get them, and they will take them. Therefore, legalizing those substances will cause no change in the behavior of those who want to use them. And those who don’t want to use them have much the same access to them; they choose to not use them for reasons of health, safety or morality. These concerns will not disappear with legalization. Nonusers will still abstain from use.
As I asked Greg Allen, supra, are you going to smoke crack – or ice – or snort coke, or shoot H, or drop acid, if they were legalized tomorrow?
No, you won’t. And if you’re not a egocentrc fool, you will also realize that everyone else who has no desire or inclination to do those things currently are any more likely than you to suddenly change their minds. If you are of a mind to do those things, you have already done so in the past, and either a) have quit for reasons other than legality, or b) are still doing them, despite their illegality.
And kids don’t buy gov’t propaganda about drugs. They hear “Drugs Kill!” and go to school and see their contemporaries who do drugs, who are not dead. They then conclude that “Drugs Kill” is a lie, which it is, and thereafter close their minds to any further propagandizing from the gov’t.
Look, for a perfect example, at the wonderfully effective D.A.R.E.
scamprogram. A pathetic joke.