Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6409|North Carolina

Red Forman wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

No no no.  Not talking about that.  I am talking how to win.......  Oh never mind.
To me, a victory in the War on Drugs is ending the marketability of drugs among illegal syndicates.  These are groups that are specifically designed to resist law enforcement and combative measures, but you can attack them with something much more powerful by legalizing what they sell.

Very few individuals would be interested in selling pot if it was legal because of the drop in value.

Controlling the border is a good thing, but defeating the cartels requires changing the market itself.
Turq...dude...bro.  listen for a second.  I know what you are saying.  We are (at least I thought we were) talking about the current war on drugs.  or at least when it started.  What you are saying was/is not part of their mindset.  You are taking what I am saying and twisting it into what should be.  I am simply saying to win the war they started, what we suggested would work.  Legalizing was/is not an option top them.
But if you're talking about winning the War on Drugs from a punishment outlook, you wouldn't want to increase punishment to the death penalty either because of the rise in value that the drugs would receive from the increased risk of distributing the product.

Getting tougher on the border makes sense given the scenario you presented.  You'd slowly cut off the supply of many illegal drugs that way.

Getting tougher on domestic cases of drug abuse wouldn't really help your cause though.  Keeping drug sentencing the same as it currently is would only result in more prison space being taken up by offenders, and increasing sentences would basically force every state to build a lot more prisons.

So, even if we go down the route of getting tougher on the War on Drugs, the majority of the changes would actually need to apply to the border.  Most of the internal changes would require easing of drug policy.

I guess what it comes down to is this.  Taking the authoritarian route might win, but the collateral involved goes well beyond ending drug use.  I understand that you're specifically limiting this to the "tougher" approach, but I think that even most people that support the War on Drugs would come to support ending mandatory drug sentencing because of rising law enforcement costs.  Unless of course, we're assuming that spending more is not a concern.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-25 15:12:11)

Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6710

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

So far, from what I've read, the pro-pot people have made much better cases than the anti-pot people.  I really couldn't care less either way, but it's an interesting read.  Carry on puppets, carry on
What points have they made that have not been adequately addressed???
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6110|eXtreme to the maX
But if you're talking about winning the War on Drugs from a punishment outlook, you wouldn't want to increase punishment to the death penalty either because of the rise in value that the drugs would receive from the increased risk of distributing the product.
Works fine for Singapore.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Monkey Spanker
Show it to the nice monkey.
+284|6256|England

Red Forman wrote:

OK.  My border policy and your policy of executing dealers.  Deal?  Sign it.
You know that most of the drugs that come into the USA are via sea freight yeah, so have an Army to protect the southern borders to look good but I'm afraid would do very little to stop the flow of drugs. Just think how many little coves & how long the US seaboard is it is an impossible task to stop the drugs plus all the time USA wants drugs someone from somewhere around the world will supply it.
Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
https://bf3s.com/sigs/f30415b2d1cff840176cce816dc76d89a7929bb0.png
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5405

smuder201 wrote:

You know that most of the drugs that come into the USA are via sea freight yeah
No I did not know that.  Have a link or something?
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6654

I've heard that as well, I think he's right. Seems logical as well, you can get a lot more drugs in a few crates on a freighter or a midget sub than you can on a truck.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6656|USA
responding to the title thread.

the war is not against drugs, drugs do not invade our lives. Drugs are invited in the lives of people too stupid and irresponsible to keep them out, as such I do not care, nor do I endorse spending billions fighting it. Legalize it, let the tax payers get their newly acquired deficit paid off, and let the people stupid enough to have drugs control their lives live it up until they die, and good riddance
JahManRed
wank
+646|6632|IRELAND

I'm from a small town, about 5000 ppl. Young guys I took under my wing when I was playing hurling who I loved are now addicted to heroin. Meet one of them in the pub and went back to aparty in his house tonight.Old times sake. Try and talk some since into them took me there. What I seen disturbed me greatly. The heroin addicted blokes were sitting around. The house was full of 17-19n year old kids who obviously idolised the heroin addicts as the big guys. The drug was pushed on me all night. So I tried to think what will happen to those kids who hang there. Had some stern words with the "big guys" to the effect of my 5 year old is going to grow up in this town and if he was 15 instead of 5 I would burn this house down with you lot in it to protect him.
Anyway. Was at the DPP (DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP) meeting last week and pointed out to the police, quoting their stats that stop and search and house raids on pot houses was up 40% cannabis seizure was down 20%. Zero arrests for heroin. Zero house searches. And our town had its first and only heroin overdose death the same month the stats where gathered. Fucking silence in the room.

The police willfully ignore them as its seen as a sickness in UK society. While they criminalize kids who have a smoke and do fuck all else and get on with life with no strain on society.

Last edited by JahManRed (2009-07-25 18:19:07)

ATG
Banned
+5,233|6533|Global Command

Red Forman wrote:

smuder201 wrote:

You know that most of the drugs that come into the USA are via sea freight yeah
No I did not know that.  Have a link or something?
Yes. I call bullshit.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6504|so randum

ATG wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

smuder201 wrote:

You know that most of the drugs that come into the USA are via sea freight yeah
No I did not know that.  Have a link or something?
Yes. I call bullshit.
It wouldn't surprise me.

100% of drugs come into the British Isles by Air or Sea

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6658
Majority of heroin undoubtedly comes via sea freight.  Pot is mostly trafficked over the Mexican border (or is grown in the U.S.) via highways.  These are generalizations, but I think they're pretty accurate...
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6650

ATG wrote:

I would rather pay 1k per ounce than live in a chaotic failed country.
bleh yea the whole system is corrupt I watched this one thing once on discovery channel where this guy was importing like tons and tons of weed, like couple of tons, through his plane then he would land here in U.S. I think somewhere south, then he would load all the weed on to his pickup truck. Well he has been doing it couple of times, and got caught by the sheriff for smuggling weed into U.S. tons of it then, the Sheriff dept. received a call from some FBI agents and they had to let the guy go....
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5703
Where is FEOS?
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6676|UK
pointing at a mirror, winking and mouthing you're awesome.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
BVC
Member
+325|6700
All the cops I've spoken to on the subject would love to see marijuana legalised.  They say it wastes their time, and that stoners are pleasant to deal with, much more so than drunks and a lot of sober people also.
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|6748|Reality

smuder201 wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

OK.  My border policy and your policy of executing dealers.  Deal?  Sign it.
You know that most of the drugs that come into the USA are via sea freight yeah, so have an Army to protect the southern borders to look good but I'm afraid would do very little to stop the flow of drugs. Just think how many little coves & how long the US seaboard is it is an impossible task to stop the drugs plus all the time USA wants drugs someone from somewhere around the world will supply it.
This is EXACTLY why Prohibition didn't work. The criminals back then made SHIT LOADS of money just like the criminals now.

When did they stop making money? After it was decriminalized.

Last edited by Stubbee (2009-07-25 22:16:57)

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|6748|Reality
Most of the measures that some of you people advocate for the war on drugs sound eerily like the disaster of Prohibition.

Prohibition: The Noble Experiment

    * So convinced were they that alcohol was the cause of virtually all crime that, on the eve of Prohibition, some towns actually sold their jails. 1

    * During the early 1800's, temperance societies offered two pledge options: moderation in drinking or total abstinence. After those who  pledged the preferred total abstinence began writing "T.A." on their pledge cards, they became known as "teetotalers." 2

    * Although the temperance movement claimed Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745/46-1813) as one of its primary inspirations, he actually promoted moderation rather than prohibition. The temperance movement often had difficulty getting facts right. 3

    * Early temperance writers often insisted that because of their high blood alcohol content, "habitual drunkards" could spontaneously combust and burn to death from inside. 4

    * A temperance publication wrote of drinking parents who gave birth to small children with a "yen for alcohol so strong that the mere sight of a bottle shaped like a whiskey flask brought them whining for a nip." 5

    * One temperance "scientific authority" implied that inhaling alcohol vapors might lead to defective offspring for at least three generations. 6

Because the temperance movement taught that alcohol was a poison, it insisted that school books never mention the contradictory fact that alcohol was commonly prescribed by physicians for medicinal and health purposes. 7

Temperance Leader Lucius Manlius Sargent tried to get secondary schools, colleges and universities to eliminate all references to alcoholic beverages in ancient Greek and Latin texts. 7a

Because the temperance movement taught that drinking alcohol was sinful, it was forced to confront the contrary fact that Jesus drank wine. Its solution was to insist that Jesus drank grape juice rather than wine. 8

In this Currier and Ives print of 1848, George Washington bids farewell to his officers with a toast in his hand and a supply of liquor on the table.

Reflecting the power of the temperance movement, a re-engraved version in 1876 removes all evidence of alcohol. Gone is the glass from Washington's hand and the liquor supply is replaced with a hat.

During Prohibition, temperance activists hired a scholar to rewrite the Bible by removing all references to alcohol beverage. 8.a

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) strongly supported Prohibition and its strict enforcement. 8.b

The Bible says to "use a little wine for thy stomach's sake" (1 Timothy 5:23). This admonition caused serioius problems for temperance writers, who argued that alcohol was a poison and that drinking it was a sin. So they insisted that the Bible was actually advising people to rub alcohol on their abdomens. 8.c

Prohibitionists often advocated strong measures against those who did not comply with Prohibition (1920-1933). One suggested that the government distribute poisoned alcohol beverages through bootleggers (sellers of illegal alcohol) and acknowledged that several hundred thousand Americans would die as a result, but thought the cost well worth the enforcement of Prohibition. Others suggested that those who drank should be:

    * hung by the tongue beneath an airplane and flown over the country
    * exiled to concentration camps in the Aleutian Islands
    * excluded from any and all churches
    * forbidden to marry
    * tortured
    * branded
    * whipped
    * sterilized
    * tattooed
    * placed in bottle-shaped cages in public squares
    * forced to swallow two ounces of caster oil
    * executed, as well as their progeny to the fourth generation. 9


The Real McCoy

Bill McCoy was a bootlegger well known for selling quality imported goods: the original "real McCoy." 10
Women's Christian Temperance Union

A major prohibitionist group, the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) taught as "scientific fact" that the majority of beer drinkers die from dropsie. 11

The WCTU suggested that school teachers put half of a calf’s brain in an empty jar into which alcohol should be poured. As the color of the brain turned from pink to gray, pupils were to be warned that a drink of alcohol would do the same to their brains. 12

The president of the WCTU, upon learning that government agents had clubbed a suspected bootlegger then shot down his unarmed wife as she ran to his aid, responded "Well, she was evading the law, wasn't she?" 13

The WCTU is far from dead or inactive; it currently boasts a membership of 25,000 and is very active politically. 15

Prohibition agents routinely broke the law themselves. They shot innocent people and regularly destroyed citizens' vehicles, homes, businesses, and other valuable property. They even illegally sank a large Canadian ship. 14

The Anti-Saloon League still exists; it is now (combined with the American Temperance League) known as the American Council on Alcohol Problems and actively attempts to influence public policy. 6
The Speakeasy

"Bathtub gin" got its name from the fact that alcohol, glycerin and juniper juice was mixed in bottles or jugs too tall to be filled with water from a sink tap so they were commonly filled under a bathtub tap. 17

The speakeasy got its name because one had to whisper a code word or name through a slot in a locked door to gain admittance. 18

Prohibition led to widespread disrespect for law. New York City alone had about thirty thousand (yes, 30,000) speakeasies. And even public leaders flaunted their disregard for the law. They included the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, who owned and operated an illegal still. 19

Some desperate and unfortunate people during Prohibition falsely believed that the undrinkable alcohol in antifreeze could be made safe and drinkable by filtering it through a loaf of bread. It couldn't and many were seriously injured or killed as a result. 20

In Los Angeles, a jury that had heard a bootlegging case was itself put on trial after it drank the evidence. The jurors argued in their defense that they had simply been sampling the evidence to determine whether or not it contained alcohol, which they determined it did. However, because they consumed the evidence, the defendant charged with bootlegging had to be acquitted. 21

When the ship, Washington, was launched, a bottle of water rather than Champagne, was ceremoniously broken across its bow. 22

National Prohibition not only failed to prevent the consumption of alcohol, but led to the extensive production of dangerous unregulated and untaxed alcohol, the development of organized crime, increased violence, and massive political corruption. Amazingly, some people today insist that Prohibition was a success! 23

Although Prohibition was repealed seven decades ago, there are still hundreds of dry counties across the United States today. 24

The human body produces its own supply of alcohol naturally on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Therefore, we always have alcohol in our bodies. . . and no one waits until the age of 21 before producing this alcohol. 25

Our current age-specific prohibition (age 21 minimum age legislation) has had numerous negative effects and at least one bizarre consequence: an 18 year old woman reported that she married a 21 year old man solely because he could legally purchase alcohol beverages! 26

Prohibition clearly benefited some people. Notorious bootlegger Al Capone made $60,000,000...that's sixty million dollars...per year (untaxed!) while the average industrial worker earned less than $1,000 per year. 27

But not everyone benefited. By the time Prohibition was repealed, nearly 800 gangsters in the City of Chicago alone had been killed in bootleg-related shootings. And, of course, thousands of citizens were killed, blinded, or paralyzed as a result of drinking contaminated bootleg alcohol. 28

The “Father of Prohibition,” Congressman Andrew J. Volstead, was defeated shortly after Prohibition was imposed. 30

Repeal occurred at 4:31 p.m. on December 5, 1933, ending 13 years, 10 months, 19 days, 17 hours and 32.5 minutes of Prohibition.

“What America needs now is a drink” declared President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the end of Prohibition. 31

Prohibitionists didn't give up easily. They even tried to enforce Prohibition for as long as ten years after its repeal by the Twenty-first Amendment. 29
Many source calls Prohibition 'The Noble Experiment'. It failed miserably. Did you know that Al Capone made over 60 million a year in liquor sales?
Sounds like the drug cartels today.

Last edited by Stubbee (2009-07-25 22:43:20)

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
PureFodder
Member
+225|6290

Part 1 of 6, a very interesting speech, go listen to them all.

Whether the war on drugs is a failure depends on what you think the actual aim for the war on drugs is.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6721
I have actually felt like this after a long night of drinking...     * hung by the tongue beneath an airplane and flown over the country

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-07-26 01:51:56)

Love is the answer
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

Red Forman wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Thailand?  Come on dude.  You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting.  Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
I'm guessing you have no clue as to how harsh Thailands drug crackdowns are. 2000 extra-judicial killings in in one month.

The place that has come the closest to winning the war on drugs is Singapore - through rehab schemes for users and executing dealers.

Lots of twisted dictators have tried schemes similar to what you suggest. It doesn't work.

The idea that it will work just because you think it should is extremely naive. Justify how it could work empirically, not just with some empty emotionally driven rhetoric.
Look.  Don't tell me that has been done before.  It has not.  Not to that extreme.  For example.  A border patrol agent was just killed the other day. (RIP)  So, what do you do if you really want to win the war, you line up troops on the border and tell people on the other side you will be shot if you try to cross.  No questions.  That was your warning.  That has NOT been done in this country.  Not even close.
It couldn't work (unless you did go so far as to kill virtually everyone (possibly as few as 30-40% of the population - then it probably would work)). The whole idea it would is ridiculous.

What has the border got to do with anything? Do you know how big the borders of the US are? It'd be totally impossible to monitor. Many drugs are smuggled in by air and sea. I know Howard Marks always used to do it by sea. Do you know how many ships dock in the US each day? How many planes land? How easy it is to grow/manufacture drugs domestically? You combine all these factors with an inflated price for drugs due to the added risk and you get added incentive for organised crime to invest more in drug supply and distribution.

You don't seem to realise the scope or scale of such an operation or the consequences it would have.

7500 miles of land based border. Aircraft carrying billions of passengers each year. Tens of thousands of ships docking each day. Finding domestic grow rooms and labs. The resources required would be ludicrous. The cost almost limitless, indefinitely (because it's not like the rest of the world would adopt a stupid policy like that, so if by some miracle domestic production (which it couldn't be, all you need is one chemistry student who finds how to make some drugs online and decides to try and make some extra cash and then you've got domestic production again) was stopped it'd keep coming in over the borders). It would bankrupt the US government.

The war on drugs is even less winable than the war on terror.
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5405

FatherTed wrote:

ATG wrote:

Red Forman wrote:


No I did not know that.  Have a link or something?
Yes. I call bullshit.
It wouldn't surprise me.

100% of drugs come into the British Isles by Air or Sea

Still waiting for a link or something.  It would be an interesting read.
Monkey Spanker
Show it to the nice monkey.
+284|6256|England
Jeez I don't live on this site like you do Red, I have a family that take most of my time. The Info on Sea freight came from a book called Whitewash by Simon Strong it is an in depth study of the life & business of Pablo Escobar before he was killed in the early 90's,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/us/18smuggle.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_drugs … nto_the_US

http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ … ck_check=1

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/arch … king.shtml

This site has loads of useful info on the drugs trade   

Almanac of Policy Issues wrote:

Colombian drug trafficking organizations increasingly rely upon the eastern Pacific Ocean as a trafficking route to move cocaine to the United States. Law enforcement and intelligence community sources estimate 65 percent of the cocaine shipped to the United States moves through the Central America-Mexico corridor, primarily by vessels operating in the eastern Pacific.

Last edited by smuder201 (2009-07-26 06:13:11)

Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
https://bf3s.com/sigs/f30415b2d1cff840176cce816dc76d89a7929bb0.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6110|eXtreme to the maX

Turquoise wrote:

Getting tougher on domestic cases of drug abuse wouldn't really help your cause though.
Of course it would, supply and demand, Mexicans wouldn't be producing drugs in industrial quantities if there weren't such huge demand in the US.
Keeping drug sentencing the same as it currently is would only result in more prison space being taken up by offenders, and increasing sentences would basically force every state to build a lot more prisons.
Or maybe fewer people would use drugs and you wou;dn't have to build any more prison places at all.
You've said you don't smoke because you don't want your employer to catch you, just rack up the penalty until getting stoned ceases to be worth the risk for the average person.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6409|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

But if you're talking about winning the War on Drugs from a punishment outlook, you wouldn't want to increase punishment to the death penalty either because of the rise in value that the drugs would receive from the increased risk of distributing the product.
Works fine for Singapore.
Yes, but Singapore is a virtual police state.  Personal freedoms are very limited there.  For example, criticism of the government is prosecutable.

So basically, if you want to live in that kind of environment, be my guest, but that's not America, and it's also not a free society.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6409|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Getting tougher on domestic cases of drug abuse wouldn't really help your cause though.
Of course it would, supply and demand, Mexicans wouldn't be producing drugs in industrial quantities if there weren't such huge demand in the US.
As I said earlier, you're addressing something that requires better border security, not stricter domestic policy.  It is much easier to control supply routes than it is to control demand.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Keeping drug sentencing the same as it currently is would only result in more prison space being taken up by offenders, and increasing sentences would basically force every state to build a lot more prisons.
Or maybe fewer people would use drugs and you wou;dn't have to build any more prison places at all.
You've said you don't smoke because you don't want your employer to catch you, just rack up the penalty until getting stoned ceases to be worth the risk for the average person.
The 80s proved that wrong.  While I personally might be deterred from using drugs, the use of drugs has gone up ever since the implementation of mandatory drug sentencing.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard