Narco Terrorism - The attack on the soul of a nation.

I hope you understand what I was responding to
Your implication that prohibition did not work because of an amendment to the constitution
That when you read the amendments you realize it has nothing to do with enforcing an existing law

 

Prohibition cannot work under our form of government with its emphasis on Individual Liberty.

The amendment provided for Prohibition of some forms of Commerce among the several States. That social Power was repealed as a bad idea in modern times. There currently is no Delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States.

 

I'd be very happy to be able to grow/produce my own drugs and deprive criminals of their funds. Unfortunately, the indiscriminate abuse of criminalisation means the personal risk associated with production is too high. I regretfully acknowledge my contribution to the black market funds used by criminals and am open to discussion as to how that can be avoided whilst simultaneously respecting my belief that at it's core, the personal choice to use some drugs does not conflict with leading a happy healthy life.
Unfortunately, criminalisation is an extremist position that does not easily allow for debate and moreover polarises a topic to the extent that it is close to character suicide for any mainstream candidate of opinion to be associated with any frame of mind apart from 'business as usual'. I don't have an issue with the difficulty factor as any change that impacts society should be careful and considered, but the weighting of 'demonisation' associated with the vulnerability of a mindset that accepts exclusionary systems as a 'strategy' for long term social solutions in the real world, is an issue. Next thing we know, drug users will be being called terrorists.

 

In my opinion, yes.

 

At the end of the day, the question, as far as I'm concerned is this: Is it morally right that governments' be seen to be giving the green light to drug use which is what legalisation implies? I say, no responsible government worth their salt ought to be seen legitimizing drug use in this way.

 

It is too late now.

I think it would be challenge enough, without taking that on.

However, and I know people are not going to like it, but tough. There has been a lot of fuss (rightly) made in my city that experts estimated you cannot now be more than 300yrds without finding somewhere to sell drink.

I am not even counting pubs, I mean all those Asda Xpress places etc.

Now that IS insane, and you can clearly see the effects of it by visiting the A+E any night of the week, but esp weekends.

No room for decent patients, because we have to wait until all the drunken nutters have been patched up or had their stupid stomach pumped.

I would reduce the number of outlets selling drink in my city by at least 60% in the next two years.

And excessive public drunkenness would result in you having to do a community chore.

 

Again, we return to the contrasting (conditional/unconditional) conceptions relating to freedom. The philosopher Issiah Berlin was critical of the unconditional notion of freedom of the kind promoted by successive US governments' and indeed, integral to the US constitution. An understanding of Berlin's conception is critical in grasping that freedom is CONDITIONAL.

"One is free", Berlin said, "to swing ones fist in the direction of ones face. But that freedom ends at the point at which the fist in question, makes contact with ones nose."

This is the crux of the matter.

The consequences of drug misuse are not restricted to the individuals involved but, on the contrary, such misuse adversely impacts upon wider society. The role of any responsible government, in my view, is not to be seen legitimizing drugs by legalizing their use. Unfortunately, already legal and harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are by definition, legitimized.

The legalization of these drugs was a major error of social policy and we are now witnessing the tragic culmination of this error.

So the question is, knowing what we now know in terms of the devastating consequences relating to the alcohol and tobacco, would governments' give the green light to them by legalizing, and hence legitimizing their respective use, today?

The clear answer to that question is that any responsible government worth their salt would not.

We know that high THC-content weed has debilitating effects on the user in terms of de-motivation and passivity, so why, under the banner of "freedom", is it seemingly becoming increasingly socially acceptable amongst some governments' to push for legalization of high-strength cannabis?

The answer is that capitalists and their lobbyists in government, don't give a toss about the consequences on society of young people being too stoned to function, because they see that there is a vast swath of potential profits to be made. Alcoholic drinks used to be marketed and pushed at young kids like pepsi and we witnessing the devastating consequences of this policy on the streets of our towns and cities.

High strain cannabis is now being packaged in similar ways in states like Colorado, where it is being aimed specifically at young children. This is the start of the slippery slope. Today, it might be relatively harmless cannabis, but tomorrow it will be class A drugs. If people think that the capitalists and their paymasters would not - in the name of profit - stoop to such levels in the future, then they would be wise to think again.

The long-term aim, is to create a drug and debt-dependent apoltical, inactive and passive society that is "free" to pursue the destruction of the very foundation of society upon which a very different concept of freedom was built. All in the name of "democracy" of course.

 

I know in the US the government would rather the people did not have access to the kind of documentaries we have here in the UK. I suggest you watch it and become informed.

 

It all comes down to whether or not you are an individualist or a collectivist.

I am the latter. Therefore, what impacts badly on wider society is a natural nemisis to me.

 

I agree. I think in practice we are too far gone. I guess I was talking about the principle. I don't understand the argument that people like Snake make which seems to run along the lines of the following: "Alcohol and tobacco are far more harmful than most other (illegal) drugs and yet the former are legal. So these illegal (albeit less harmful) drugs ought to be legal too?" That kind of reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Couldn't agree more with that.

 

Why make a bad situation ever worse imo.

So I agree.

 

Yes, that's the nub of it. Why add to the mix? The problem is, that following legalization of these drugs, their use over time becomes normalised and it's difficult to then ban them. I think that tragically, Colorado is the sign of things to come. What discredited governments' within discredited systems' love more than anything else is a passive and demotivated population. The legalisation of high THC weed marketed to young kids in a similar way that alco-pops, for example, were marketed, ensures a steady supply of youth who meet those requirements. It's no coincidence, that the widespread growth in alcohol-related crime and health issues stem in part from these kinds of sustained marketing campaigns of a decade or so ago. They want the young to be slaves to debt and low paid dead-end jobs in hock to multinational drug companies.

 

This ignores the reality that many people who experiment with drugs do not get addicted, lead perfectly normal and productive lives and eventually stop taking them. I could immediately name at least five friends I knew at school and later, all of whom took drugs. One is now a retired multi-millionaire living in Australia, another a successful artist in Winnipeg and, last I heard, another guy was in upper management for a finance company in England. I, too, qualified in and practised cervical cytology at my local hospital.
Illicit drug use-and I include heroin, cocaine, meth in that category, is a problem, but to suggest, as the OP does, that this tiny minority of abusers are going to result in the downfall and destruction of society is, frankly, ludicrous. It's much more a problem for the user.

This plot you allude to could not possibly work. People have something called 'free will'.

 

I agree with you that as things currently stand drug use is not a problem for the vast majority of those who indulge. I also agree with you that as things stand this situation is not currently a significant enough problem to warrant alarmist references to societal breakdown - at least not yet. However, the increasing availability of cheap booze allied to extended opening hours of pubs and bars is, I believe, leading to a potential time bomb waiting to explode - the social and health-related impacts of which society in general will, in the absence of any radical policy shift, filter through big time in decades to come.

The legalization of yet more, albeit less harmful drugs, will merely add to the problems in terms of availability and access whereby the giant multinationals legally aim their addictive and potentially damaging products towards young people. That's not the kind of society I feel comfortable living in.

 

The so-called "War on (some) Drugs" has caused far more death and destruction than the drugs themselves ever could.

 

Proof?

Btw.

Here is a "productive cocaine user".

 

Using weapons of micro and mass destruction should be enough anecdotal evidence.

 

Our last 3 presidents have used cocaine.

Bush Jr., Obama, and Clinton.

 

And if addiction rates in Scotland are any indication, making drugs illegal doesn't work there.

The solution isn't being more draconian about drug laws, which is why I used the examples I did. All the countries I mentioned are much more severe in their punishments for drug trade, and yet, all of them still have drug problems.

By contrast, drug problems are considerably less of an issue in most countries that are more lenient about drug use.

The one exception to this is North Korea, but that's because they truly have a police state.

 

Addiction rates occur due to easy availability of said drugs.

Pouring petrol on a fire does not make the fire go out.

I really do not know what the heck that simple logic has to do with "North Korea".

It is not that the fight to remove drugs from society via legal means is wrong.

It is simply not being conducted efficiently, and I explained why.

- - - Updated - - -

Proof positive that it turns one into a moron then.

 

I respectfully disagree.

The War on Drugs has been an utter failure, and it took a failure even bigger than that to be repealed after less than a decade -- Prohibition.

Legalizing alcohol was the only option America had after witnessing how disastrous the ban was. Had Prohibition never occurred, the Mafia never would have had as much influence here as it did for many decades. Even today, we have remnants of that influence in certain cities (like Las Vegas and New York).

And with the prevalence of the marijuana trade here, Mexican cartels grow in influence. The only real counter to that is legalization.

Quite simply, government will never succeed at reducing demand for these items, so bans aren't the answer. The only real social change regarding substances you will see in society comes from private action.

To say that legalizing a substance legitimizes its use is like saying that allowing people to express hateful opinions legitimizes said opinions.

If we're saying that government must ban or restrict all behaviors deemed as negative by the majority, then that's endorsing mob rule and a police state, essentially. Unfortunately, there are aspects to some European societies that operate like this.

You can only reasonably criminalize actions that directly affect others, not substances themselves, because not every user will necessarily affect others.

We criminalize drunk driving, but that is a direct action. Criminalizing alcohol is ridiculous.

 

And if you think the state can meaningfully reduce demand short of a police state, then you are very mistaken.

 

Well I'm clearly not, else the problem would exist in all Western countries and to a proportionately equal level.

It doesn't.

It may well indeed be that all countries are blighted with this muck, but not all countries have the same level of addicts and drug related crime.

Perhaps the US has just lost all control of a decent and cohesive law enforcement? Perhaps the US isn't really interested in less drug dealers, because if there were no drug dealers, then this would mean less budgets needed, and zero to wage their fake "war on drugs".

Your own CIA have been complicit in international drug deals themselves, so it would be almost schizo to then think Fed agents would do any more than play the game, do the occasional high profile bust to make themselves look good and the budget coming in, but not making any sincere effort(you don't saw through the branch you are sitting on, right?).

 

And if you're aware of all this concerning the American government, why would you suggest expanding its efforts on the drug war?

As you said, not all countries are the same, and by extension, not all governments are.

Trusting the Norwegian government with more drug restrictions might work, because they have a more functional government. Trusting ours probably wouldn't.

I seriously doubt trusting the UK government with more power over drugs would work either.

But if you want to understand the US situation on this, look into the highly profitable private prison industry. There are corporate players in our system that benefit from more drug-related incarceration.

This is why the only solution for us means decriminalization and eventually legalization, because rehab is cheaper than prison.

It's also more effective than prison at reducing recidivism.