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 I would of figured they understood that after prohibition was repealed but they don't seem to learn from history.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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?