# The costs of the 'War on Drugs'



## loboloco

www.justice.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm

According to the above link, the DEA form 1972 thru 2009 used $36,397,800,000.00.
Since this is just a fraction of what is actually spent on the drug war, if you count other agencies within the Fed, and add state and local costs, I have to wonder,  would it not make more sense to legalize those drugs that are not devastatingly harmful, tax the crap out of them(like we do alcohol) and spend our money on suppressing the truly dangerous stuff and treatment plans for those who want and need them?
I think we should legalize marijuana, cocaine, peyote and mushrooms.
Meth, PCP, LSD, and other manufactured and more dangerous drugs should have mandatory treatment requirements for users and carry a death sentence for dealers and manufacturers.
What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## joec

I've always wondered why they don't legalize it myself. To me it is like any other vice in that you can't protect people from themselves. I would of figured they understood that after prohibition was repealed but they don't seem to learn from history. Prohibition gave rise to the first real crime wave in this country though nothing as large as drugs now.


----------



## Greatest I am

A few facts as I know them.

The LeDain Royal Commission on Psychotropic Drugs and a Report by the same name for cannabis are considered by expertsthe world over as the Bible of drug reports. It came down on the side of legalization.
I agree with it after reading it and many other works by both Governments and NGO's.

In terms of cost to our countries for drug wars. I would not know how to measure as I see both the Mexican war and Afghanistan as pure drug wars. How much is the lives of our soldiers and DEA agents worth.

The 2 most dangerous and harmful drugs in general use today are nicotine, and alcohol.
They are both legal.
They kill and maim more per year that the combined harm done by all the other psychotropic drugs put together by a high factor.
From a marketing standpoint, my forte, I would suggest that even if all those other drugs doubled their market share something highly unlikely, what legislators point to as their excuse for not legalizing, the number of deaths from alcohol and nicotine would be reduced exponentially and the damage from the new legal drugs, if their use actually increases would be much less per capita than what exists today.

It is my view, since we almost never arrest the king pins of crime that are supposed to be running these cartels, is that the real king pins are within our various governments or as in  Mexico, are often protected from prosecution by the smae governments who fight at street level.

Government has never been able to justify it's position and cannabis, for instance, failed to be legalized in California the last time because politicians were bought out by alcohol and tobacco lobby groups and as I noted above, these two drugs combined kill and maim more that all the other drugs combined by a large factor.

If there is a hell, the fist there will be the politicians who are intentionally killing our peoples by waging a war against us and profiting from not only the drug trade but also from the drug war that they are waging against their own people.

Regards
DL


----------



## 300 H and H

I know some lawyers who say they would starve to death if alcohol were illegal, and cannibis was. Dope smokers don't cause nearly the trouble the wiskey drinkers do. If not for bars, young crimminal lawyers would find it hard to live.....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

I have no answer...

maybe as Americans, there's a "drive" that makes a majority take to the extreme (type A personalities ?)
Maybe as a country we couldn't handle it, maybe we could. i don't know


----------



## jpr62902

300 H and H said:


> I know some lawyers who say they would starve to death if alcohol were illegal, and cannibis was. Dope smokers don't cause nearly the trouble the wiskey drinkers do. If not for bars, young crimminal lawyers would find it hard to live.....
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
You are, of course, neglecting the notion that one cannot order up a doobie at a local tavern.


----------



## fogtender

jpr62902 said:


> You are, of course, neglecting the notion that one cannot order up a doobie at a local tavern.


 
I think you have to go out back for that....


----------



## Cowboy

loboloco said:


> www.justice.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm
> 
> According to the above link, the DEA form 1972 thru 2009 used $36,397,800,000.00.
> Since this is just a fraction of what is actually spent on the drug war, if you count other agencies within the Fed, and add state and local costs, I have to wonder, would it not make more sense to legalize those drugs that are not devastatingly harmful, tax the crap out of them(like we do alcohol) and spend our money on suppressing the truly dangerous stuff and treatment plans for those who want and need them?
> I think we should legalize marijuana, cocaine, peyote and mushrooms.
> Meth, PCP, LSD, and other manufactured and more dangerous drugs should have mandatory treatment requirements for users and carry a death sentence for dealers and manufacturers.
> What are your thoughts on this?


 I would perty much agree with your thoughts Lobo if it wasn't for the fact that much of the marijuana, cocaine and a few other "recreational drugs" are cut with so much other crap for extra kick, effects or to make a little bit go a long way it makes it dangerous not knowing whats actually in it . 

  The only way I see of controling that, would be having some kind of control of how it is produced to know the actual ingredients, and we all know how expensive and what a waste of time that would be cuz it would have to involve the government IMO.


----------



## Cowboy

jpr62902 said:


> You are, of course, neglecting the notion that one cannot order up a doobie at a local tavern.


You just dont go to the right local taverns JP .


----------



## Greatest I am

SShepherd said:


> I have no answer...
> 
> maybe as Americans, there's a "drive" that makes a majority take to the extreme (type A personalities ?)
> Maybe as a country we couldn't handle it, maybe we could. i don't know


 
The, what is it, 10 states where it is legal seem to be doing ok.

If you know the history of Alaska a bit, you will know that it was legalized and the offences of abuse at home dropped like a rock.

They then made it illegal again thanks to the alcohol lobby and three guesses what happened to those nice low stats.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am

A quick question.

You are driving down a two lane highway. Posted limit 100.

Who would you like to see in an oncoming car?
Only two choices now for those who cannot dither out an answer or do not know the difference. 

A drunk going 120 who thinks he is going 100,
or,
A toker who is doing 80 and thinks he is doing 100.


Regards
DL


----------



## Cowboy

Greatest I am said:


> A quick question.
> 
> You are driving down a two lane highway. Posted limit 100.
> 
> Who would you like to see in an oncoming car?
> Only two choices now for those who cannot dither out an answer or do not know the difference.
> 
> A drunk going 120 who thinks he is going 100,
> or,
> A toker who is doing 80 and thinks he is doing 100.
> 
> 
> Regards
> DL


Since there is only two choices ( not fair BTW ) I would rather face the toker, because first off your speeds are far off unless someone they are running from the police / scene of a crime or they have passed out from either substance .

  Facts are more drunks and dope smokers cause more problems from driving far below the speed limits then above . A large percent of vehicle accidents that are claimed to be alcahol or drug related are ussually caused by the unatentive other driver that is ussually considered the victim . 

Once again your asking to simple of a question demanding an answer to either or IMO . Life just aint that simple I would think you would know that by now .


----------



## Greatest I am

Cowboy said:


> Since there is only two choices ( not fair BTW ) I would rather face the toker, because first off your speeds are far off unless someone they are running from the police / scene of a crime or they have passed out from either substance .
> 
> Facts are more drunks and dope smokers cause more problems from driving far below the speed limits then above . A large percent of vehicle accidents that are claimed to be alcahol or drug related are ussually caused by the unatentive other driver that is ussually considered the victim .
> 
> Once again your asking to simple of a question demanding an answer to either or IMO . Life just aint that simple I would think you would know that by now .


 
Drunks I believe, tokers, I would have to see some information on.

I have read quite a few reports as I said above and the benefits outweigh any negatives that I have seen.

Again I plead morals.
We criminalized opium to discriminate against the Chinese and pot to discriminate against the Jamacan's and others. 

That is history.

As a matter of fact, in Canada when opium was criminalized, the Vancouver police where against it because their problems were from the bars and whore houses. They had no problems with the Chinese who had a puff and went to sleep.

Regards
DL


----------



## Cowboy

Greatest I am said:


> Drunks I believe, tokers, I would have to see some information on.
> 
> I have read quite a few reports as I said above and the benefits outweigh any negatives that I have seen.
> 
> Again I plead morals.
> We criminalized opium to discriminate against the Chinese and pot to discriminate against the Jamacan's and others.
> 
> That is history.
> 
> As a matter of fact, in Canada when opium was criminalized, the Vancouver police where against it because their problems were from the bars and whore houses. They had no problems with the Chinese who had a puff and went to sleep.
> 
> Regards
> DL


 Once again there are plenty of skewed stastistics and studies done by those that have a particular agenda to steer them in the direction that serves ones purpose. I base my opinions on facts from true life experiences as well as the opinions many folks I personally have known in services that deal with accidents on a daily basis with hands on experience. 

  Almost all will lead to the conclusion that while an accident or fatality may be claimed to be alcohol or drug related, the biggest percent are caused by inatentive driving, and in recent days due to the new technology such as cell phones , texting, onboard gps units, dvds . The exeption to these would be just plain falling asleep from exhaustion mostly with truckdrivers.  And or faulty equipment that are of no fault of any of the drivers involved. 

 This is just my opinion due to the fact I will not waste my time to provide links or utube videos that prove my point because once again they have little to do with facts these days. 

 As far as the Chinese or opium problems, I know little about as well as the way things work in Canada other then what I read on the internet which is also mostlly BS, IMHO .


----------



## loboloco

As a one time professional driver I would much rather be on the same road with a toker than a drunk.  A toker is paranoid when driving and is usually hyper alert.  A drunk just thinks he is invincible.


----------



## SShepherd

loboloco said:


> As a one time professional driver I would much rather be on the same road with a toker than a drunk. A toker is paranoid when driving and is usually hyper alert. A drunk just thinks he is invincible.


 i've actually seen the opposite, people stoned- stopped in the middle of the road or intersection ( or waiting for a flashing yellow to turn red)
Discussing what's better while driving is a silly arguement, as both impare your ability to operate any complex task. Doing so shows a lack of good judgement.


----------



## Greatest I am

loboloco said:


> As a one time professional driver I would much rather be on the same road with a toker than a drunk. A toker is paranoid when driving and is usually hyper alert. A drunk just thinks he is invincible.


 
A straight answer. Nice.
Any who do not see the correctness of this answer on pure logic and reason alone need coaching in logic.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am

SShepherd said:


> i've actually seen the opposite, people stoned- stopped in the middle of the road or intersection ( or waiting for a flashing yellow to turn red)
> Discussing what's better while driving is a silly arguement, as both impare your ability to operate any complex task. Doing so shows a lack of good judgement.


 
Sure both impair. Since alcohol impacts us negatively more than cannabis, I think the discussion is quite worthwhile.

We might find out why we are being stupid enough to make the more dangerous drug legal, while making the more benign and less harmful illegal.

No no. Let's not try to improve on what we are doing.
That would be silly of us.

Regards
DL


----------



## waybomb

I'd rather be on the road with people between the ages of 27 and 65. The rest are just plain too dangerous. Facts prove me out. Drunk, toking, high on acid, whatever - age groups are worse. 

What a dumb argument.

Thanks God for the internet, where we can have stupid arguments.

I'D RATHER BE ON THE ROAD WITH ONLY SAFE DRIVERS! Who the hell wants to be on the road with drunks or tokers!


----------



## SShepherd

waybomb said:


> I'd rather be on the road with people between the ages of 27 and 65. The rest are just plain too dangerous. Facts prove me out. Drunk, toking, high on acid, whatever - age groups are worse.
> 
> What a dumb argument.
> 
> Thanks God for the internet, where we can have stupid arguments.
> 
> I'D RATHER BE ON THE ROAD WITH ONLY SAFE DRIVERS! Who the hell wants to be on the road with drunks or tokers!


 
exactly.

OUIL or OUID, you go to jail.

anything that impares judgement or reasoning ability should not be used where it puts others at risk.
listen, you wanna smoke it up at home I could give a crap less-don't get behind the damn wheel.
This starts to remind me of the SOS I hear from the legalize pot crowd- every justification under the sun, some so retarded in their thinking it boggles the mind. "Oh, it comes from the earth so it can't be bad for you"- you don't know how many times I've herd that one


----------



## Cowboy

SShepherd said:


> This starts to remind me of the SOS I hear from the legalize pot crowd- every justification under the sun, some so retarded in their thinking it boggles the mind. "Oh, it comes from the earth so it can't be bad for you"- you don't know how many times I've herd that one


Yea well look who was asking the question . 

He only liked one very short answer cuz it was the right answer to fit his agenda anything other discussion is jibberish it seems.


----------



## Greatest I am

SShepherd said:


> exactly.
> 
> OUIL or OUID, you go to jail.
> 
> anything that impares judgement or reasoning ability should not be used where it puts others at risk.
> listen, you wanna smoke it up at home I could give a crap less-don't get behind the damn wheel.
> This starts to remind me of the SOS I hear from the legalize pot crowd- every justification under the sun, some so retarded in their thinking it boggles the mind. "Oh, it comes from the earth so it can't be bad for you"- you don't know how many times I've herd that one


 
No one said it did not have it's set of problems.
We did say that it's problems were less than the present drugs that are listed as legal.

Sounds like no one here has read an official report.

The thing about a law is that there is supposed to be some logic behind it.
In this case, the law is just there to discriminate without just cause.

Regards
DL


----------



## xsinawl

_t might be wise to check the progress of things in areas where "medical" drugs have been legalized.  The first parts of traffic problems are turning up and it appears that it is difficult to prove as there is no easy field test for intoxication.  The  next step will be employers who have employees who need and use their "medications" at work and don't even think that won't happen....._


----------



## waybomb

Greatest I am said:


> No one said it did not have it's set of problems.
> We did say that it's problems were less than the present drugs that are listed as legal.
> 
> Sounds like no one here has read an official report.
> 
> The thing about a law is that there is supposed to be some logic behind it.
> In this case, the law is just there to discriminate without just cause.
> 
> Regards
> DL



Sounds to me like you are a toker, and want an impairment drug legalized, on top of the legal ones. A logic failure at best, probably a result of blowing too much bad smoke.


----------



## SShepherd

waybomb said:


> Sounds to me like you are a toker, and want an impairment drug legalized, on top of the legal ones. A logic failure at best, probably a result of blowing too much bad smoke.


----------



## loboloco

waybomb said:


> Sounds to me like you are a toker, and want an impairment drug legalized, on top of the legal ones. A logic failure at best, probably a result of blowing too much bad smoke.


Or maybe he studies a situation and makes up his own mind instead of listening to the media and government and buying off on deliberate misinformation.


----------



## SShepherd

loboloco said:


> Or maybe he studies a situation and makes up his own mind instead of listening to the media and government and buying off on deliberate misinformation.


 
*"In this case, the law is just there to discriminate without just cause"*

no, that says "why can't i smoke pot...WAAAAaaa"

btw, he's posted no studies, nothing to back up his facts (as he sees them)


----------



## loboloco

SShepherd said:


> *"In this case, the law is just there to discriminate without just cause"*
> 
> no, that says "why can't i smoke pot...WAAAAaaa"
> 
> btw, he's posted no studies, nothing to back up his facts (as he sees them)


I don't smoke it, and I actually agree, because I have studied the history of it's banning.  
It is obvious you buy off on the lies.
There ae many studies about the affects, both good and bad, about marijuana and alcohol.  Alcohol has many more adverse affects, and fewer beneficial ones.  
There are currently ongoing investigations in states that have legalized marijuana, and they all show that there are both pros and cons to legalization.  The biggest 'con' being law enforcement agencies lose all that confiscated money as a revenue source.


----------



## SShepherd

loboloco said:


> I don't smoke it, and I actually agree, because I have studied the history of it's banning.
> It is obvious you buy off on the lies.
> There ae many studies about the affects, both good and bad, about marijuana and alcohol. Alcohol has many more adverse affects, and fewer beneficial ones.
> There are currently ongoing investigations in states that have legalized marijuana, and they all show that there are both pros and cons to legalization. The biggest 'con' being law enforcement agencies lose all that confiscated money as a revenue source.


 
lol, I buy into nothing but 1st hand knowledge.

I ve family members who are chronic, addicted pot smokers- unmotivated and under achievers.
I've also seen the effects from 1st hand encounters in law enforcement.
You can play the 'better or worse" game all you want, but when it comes to operating a vehicle or machenery there is none.


----------



## waybomb

Killing animals with guns is legal, so why not people? You could buy a license to kill the sunuvabitch that's bothering you, camouflage up, Load your weapon, and pop hiz azz full of lead. What the heck, you paid the tax. And it's only killing a mammal.

Same argument as alcohol is legal, so make marijuana legal. While at it, make LSD legal, make psilocibin legal. Yellow jackets too. We could legalize and tax all sorts of good fun drugs. We could charge more tax for hallucinogenics. 

So what you rather do, drive down the road with oncoming traffic possibly being boozed up, or a whole bunch of cars drivin by heads?


----------



## Greatest I am

xsinawl said:


> _t might be wise to check the progress of things in areas where "medical" drugs have been legalized. The first parts of traffic problems are turning up and it appears that it is difficult to prove as there is no easy field test for intoxication. The next step will be employers who have employees who need and use their "medications" at work and don't even think that won't happen....._


 
Thanks for the fear mongering. Anyone with half a brain will see your reply as the deflection that it is. 

You shy away from the many more instances where the status quo policies of governments create more problems than they solve as is exemplified in the drug issue. They legalize the most dangerous and make the more benign drugs illegal.

That insanity is part of the issue and as it is the main part of the O P in the sense that not being so foolish with our drug policies, the cost in $$$, and more importantly, lives. Not just of those who are killed by the use and abuse of all drugs, but also our soldiers that are dying for drug wars, without being told, that wars of prohibition have never worked, without curtailing the freedom that we are supposed to represent. 

Further, governments are the drug trade.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am

waybomb said:


> Sounds to me like you are a toker, and want an impairment drug legalized, on top of the legal ones. A logic failure at best, probably a result of blowing too much bad smoke.


 
You are directing that at every major report done in the last 110 years.
I have read them. Have you?

Thanks for your expert opinion.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am

SShepherd said:


> *"In this case, the law is just there to discriminate without just cause"*
> 
> no, that says "why can't i smoke pot...WAAAAaaa"
> 
> btw, he's posted no studies, nothing to back up his facts (as he sees them)


 
My views wil match the general direction referenced in the LeDain Royal Commission report. That particular study and todays reality are the same.

It's general stance was away from the policing and criminal aspects, and more into the medical aspects. We are moving that way but too slowly.

By the way, children will say WAAAAaaa.
You show your age.

Men will say something like-------

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)” 

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am

waybomb said:


> Killing animals with guns is legal, so why not people? You could buy a license to kill the sunuvabitch that's bothering you, camouflage up, Load your weapon, and pop hiz azz full of lead. What the heck, you paid the tax. And it's only killing a mammal.
> 
> Same argument as alcohol is legal, so make marijuana legal. While at it, make LSD legal, make psilocibin legal. Yellow jackets too. We could legalize and tax all sorts of good fun drugs. We could charge more tax for hallucinogenics.
> 
> So what you rather do, drive down the road with oncoming traffic possibly being boozed up, or a whole bunch of cars drivin by heads?


 
Heads.

You might have a point your way though.
If it were boozers they might not get as far as you are.
Ahh. If they just did not take out so many innocent lives with them.

Regards
DL


----------



## Catavenger

Wow the great one  quoting a pastor amazing! What is even more amazing is  that I  agree with him (at least in some areas)  re: medical marijuana. People with epilepsy who have  uncrontrolled seizures are not allowed to drive.  So  I would not worry about them using  marijuana and getting  behind the wheel. I think medical marijuana for some people with some conditions should be legal.


----------



## rback33

Catavenger said:


> Wow the great one  quoting a pastor amazing! What is even more amazing is  that I  agree with him (at least in some areas)  re: medical marijuana. People with epilepsy who have  uncrontrolled seizures are not allowed to drive.  So  I would not worry about them using  marijuana and getting  behind the wheel. I think medical marijuana for some people with some conditions should be legal.




I agree. I have never smoked pot. I have been around pot being smoked, but never tried it. That said.... people I know that do or have smoke it, say that it would be the BEST thing I could do for my anxiety. If it was legal, I would try. Keep in mind, I don't smoke period. I don't know how many of you have dealt with severe anxiety issues, but they are not fun. If I miss my meds for some reason, I feel it. It sucks. Sucks so bad I would try weed to counteract it. Until it's legalized I sit here and wait... who knows... it might not help me at all, but I would like the option to try it...


----------



## NorthernRedneck

Since we're talking about the "war on drugs", what are your thoughts on prescription drugs being used for purposes other than what they were intended? (question directed at no one in particular)

As I've said before in other threads, I work in social services.  One of the reoccuring problems we see with allot of the families we work with is the use of prescription pills such as oxycontins, ritallin and percecets.  Working with the natives up here, it's clear that prescription drugs are a major problem because they are readily available.  The problem has gotten way out of hand to the point where the Chiefs and Elders I talk to identify that the problem is no longer alcohol or marijuana but is now prescription medications because they are so readily available.  The problem gets worse when you combine the prescription medications with alcohol or marijuana.  And this happens allot.  The use of marijuana by itself is bad enough alone but when you combine it with alcohol and prescription medications, now you've got a real problem on your hands. 

I'm not about to dig up scripture to prove my point.  I see it every day working with children who have been abandoned by their parents because of marijuana, alcohol, and prescription medications.  It sickens me to think that people want to legalize the stuff just so they can get a quick buzz every now and then.  I'm sorry but when I walk in and find a 1 yr old baby who hasn't been fed or changed in over 24 hrs because their parents are stoned out of their mind and passed out from drinking, there's no excuse in the world that would convince me that we should just legalize the stuff and all the worlds problems will go away.

People seem to always have a narrow mind when it comes to social services.  They think that we're only there to take the kids away if the parents try to discipline them.  That's far from the truth.  Reality is that the majority of the cases we deal with are because of inadequate supervision due to the parents being intoxicated by either drugs, alcohol, or prescription medications.


----------



## SShepherd

Greatest I am said:


> My views wil match the general direction referenced in the LeDain Royal Commission report. That particular study and todays reality are the same.
> 
> It's general stance was away from the policing and criminal aspects, and more into the medical aspects. We are moving that way but too slowly.
> 
> By the way, children will say WAAAAaaa.
> You show your age.
> 
> Men will say something like-------
> 
> "First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”
> 
> Regards
> DL


 ah, a condecending toker at that. Yet another poor attempt at an insult.
You sure like to use "we" and "us", but I see you're from another country- don't include me in a group of "you".

Funny, and as usuall you quote whatever suits your fancy- yet again you contradict yourself.
You really do seem like a person who spends alot of time alone-because you have a very odd sence of reality and facts. I knew a person from newfoundland that acted the same way.


----------



## SShepherd

Catavenger said:


> Wow the great one quoting a pastor amazing! What is even more amazing is that I agree with him (at least in some areas) re: medical marijuana. People with epilepsy who have uncrontrolled seizures are not allowed to drive. So I would not worry about them using marijuana and getting behind the wheel. I think medical marijuana for some people with some conditions should be legal.


 I've said it before, I have no problem with people who have a medical necessity for marijuana. I agree with your statements.


----------



## loboloco

groomerguyNWO said:


> Since we're talking about the "war on drugs", what are your thoughts on prescription drugs being used for purposes other than what they were intended? (question directed at no one in particular)
> 
> As I've said before in other threads, I work in social services.  One of the reoccuring problems we see with allot of the families we work with is the use of prescription pills such as oxycontins, ritallin and percecets.  Working with the natives up here, it's clear that prescription drugs are a major problem because they are readily available.  The problem has gotten way out of hand to the point where the Chiefs and Elders I talk to identify that the problem is no longer alcohol or marijuana but is now prescription medications because they are so readily available.  The problem gets worse when you combine the prescription medications with alcohol or marijuana.  And this happens allot.  The use of marijuana by itself is bad enough alone but when you combine it with alcohol and prescription medications, now you've got a real problem on your hands.
> 
> I'm not about to dig up scripture to prove my point.  I see it every day working with children who have been abandoned by their parents because of marijuana, alcohol, and prescription medications.  It sickens me to think that people want to legalize the stuff just so they can get a quick buzz every now and then.  I'm sorry but when I walk in and find a 1 yr old baby who hasn't been fed or changed in over 24 hrs because their parents are stoned out of their mind and passed out from drinking, there's no excuse in the world that would convince me that we should just legalize the stuff and all the worlds problems will go away.
> 
> People seem to always have a narrow mind when it comes to social services.  They think that we're only there to take the kids away if the parents try to discipline them.  That's far from the truth.  Reality is that the majority of the cases we deal with are because of inadequate supervision due to the parents being intoxicated by either drugs, alcohol, or prescription medications.


Groomer, you people have a rough job.  I disagree with the abuse of any substance.  Marijuana should be legal for use just like alcohol, with similar penalties for abuse.  Prescription meds, well, blame the docs, the politicians, the parents and the schools.  All toss drugs around like there are no consequences and then wonder why little Tommy is zoned out on Ridalin.


----------



## Greatest I am

Good points.

In a legalized system, all drugs would be doled out via a prescription method that is more of a monitoring tool than one of control. Only in this way can the proof by the numbers be ascertained as to the final profits and loses. It will be a medical decision. Not a legal one.

The overall system gains just by putting pot and coke in the legal mix. Death statistics plunge.

The drug war is lost because it should never have been fought.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am

SShepherd said:


> I've said it before, I have no problem with people who have a medical necessity for marijuana. I agree with your statements.


 
Can any name an instance where the prohibition of any drug has worked?

We cannot even enforce the laws against slavery and murder yet some think we can prohibit a substance that has more than a strong foot hold within our society. 

Get serious please.
The trend is to legalize and it will continue.
Especially as people realize that it is all already in the control of governments and their handlers. 

Regards
DL


----------



## NorthernRedneck

loboloco said:


> Groomer, you people have a rough job.  I disagree with the abuse of any substance.  Marijuana should be legal for use just like alcohol, with similar penalties for abuse.  Prescription meds, well, blame the docs, the politicians, the parents and the schools.  All toss drugs around like there are no consequences and then wonder why little Tommy is zoned out on Ridalin.



To clarify the issues that we are facing.  Yes, the docs prescribe the medications.  They are legal.  Then let's say John gets his LEGAL prescription and then sells the bottle of pills to Paul for say $100.  Paul opens up the bottle containing 30 pills and sells them at $20 a pill to George.  Now Peter down the street has a prescription for medical marijuana.  He gets his prescription filled then sells the pot to George who just dished out money for the prescription drugs.  Now, George has his legal prescription pills and his legal pot.  He goes to buy his legal bottle of alcohol.  He goes home and pops the pill, lights up a dubee, pours himself a glass, and drowns away his sorrows.  Now, his kids are in the next room.  His wife joins in on the fun.  Who is there to watch the kids while George and his wife get stoned, drugged up, and drunk all at the same time?

This is a situation that occurs all too often and I just don't see how making the stuff more readily available is gonna help the situation.


----------



## Greatest I am

groomerguyNWO said:


> To clarify the issues that we are facing. Yes, the docs prescribe the medications. They are legal. Then let's say John gets his LEGAL prescription and then sells the bottle of pills to Paul for say $100. Paul opens up the bottle containing 30 pills and sells them at $20 a pill to George. Now Peter down the street has a prescription for medical marijuana. He gets his prescription filled then sells the pot to George who just dished out money for the prescription drugs. Now, George has his legal prescription pills and his legal pot. He goes to buy his legal bottle of alcohol. He goes home and pops the pill, lights up a dubee, pours himself a glass, and drowns away his sorrows. Now, his kids are in the next room. His wife joins in on the fun. Who is there to watch the kids while George and his wife get stoned, drugged up, and drunk all at the same time?
> 
> This is a situation that occurs all too often and I just don't see how making the stuff more readily available is gonna help the situation.


 
Anecdotal renderings are always so interesting.
Your example of an person who wishes to be intoxicated is going to get in whatever condition he wants regardless of what you do.

Under a legal and controlled system, our friend will do as you wish and spend more time at home, thanks to the one stop shop for drugs world that we will eventually have.

Note the improvement of the medical method as opposed to the police method.

As to any increase in intoxication. No. Just more live people.

Regards
DL


----------



## SShepherd

Greatest I am said:


> Can any name an instance where the prohibition of any drug has worked?
> 
> We cannot even enforce the laws against slavery and murder yet some think we can prohibit a substance that has more than a strong foot hold within our society.
> 
> Get serious please.
> The trend is to legalize and it will continue.
> Especially as people realize that it is all already in the control of governments and their handlers.
> 
> Regards
> DL


 you talk about slavery and tell me to get serious? You're irrational.


----------

