When do we stop f**king around, and declare thsis to be a war?

[n8tive97]

Just to be clear about the whole California bit, not offended, but some of us don't always define conservative - "GOP party member." There are a lot of things the Republicans do that are a very "liberal" use of government and its powers. For example, don't forget who signed the law functionally taking away our machine guns by never allowing them to be built for US citizens again! Just a hint, he had an R after his name, and he didn't understand the 2nd Amendment. Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act! Also, I'm from the crappy state, Arizona.[/quote]


Sorry for the California comment, didn't mean to offend anyone, just referring to their over the top medaling in everyone’s lives, crappy tax laws etc. etc. etc., my apologizes. I'm also from AZ.

No idea what the right answer is, but I can’t help but wondering if we as American's legalize drugs, what other numerous problems we would be creating. Maybe our approach isn't working but I do truly believe it is the lesser of two evils.

[CrufflerSteve]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

We've had this war on drugs for decades and the end result is that prices are down and quality is up. I would favor legalizing it all, taxing the crap out of it and using some of those taxes to pay for rehabs.

Unfortunately it won't happen. In our government small groups with a strong stake in a policy will always trump the general set of voters who don't care that deeply. The anti-drug people have been very effective at preventing any kind of debate from happening so many people aren't even aware of other options.

There's also the special interests. All the lawyers who make their money prosecuting and defending druggies. There's all the law enforcement types who make their living fighting this crazy war. Will the DEA become the ?EA. Then there's are all the people who keep them locked up. Not to mention the drug dealers who could give lots of money to fight legalization. When drug cartels, lawyers & cops are united on an issue what is going to happen?

This thread seemed to be wanting to regard this as a war.Personally, I'd rather keep illegals out of this country. Do we really want to take over Mexico?

Something does have to happen. The spectacular failure of the anti-drug fight in Mexico is dangerous to us. There is so much money involved that it can't be controlled and is likely to spread into the US. I don't want to see our LEO's having to face gangs with RPG's and machine guns and a fondness for bloody massacres. Our civil liberties would probably not survive that.

A well known writer, William S. Burroughs, wrote in the 1950's about what he called 'The algebra of need'. No matter how many drug dealers were busted there would be more since the money was so good. He said the only way to stop it was to get rid of drug users. (He was a junkie at the time.) Either way of solving it simply won't be accepted. Legalize it or execute all drug users. Our half-assed way just makes it worse.

Steve

[waxthis]

Didn't proponents of prohibition say they same things?

They were on crack. You dont mess with a mans booze.

[Ronin13]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

This thread seemed to be wanting to regard this as a war.Personally, I'd rather keep illegals out of this country. Do we really want to take over Mexico?

Something does have to happen. The spectacular failure of the anti-drug fight in Mexico is dangerous to us. There is so much money involved that it can't be controlled and is likely to spread into the US. I don't want to see our LEO's having to face gangs with RPG's and machine guns and a fondness for bloody massacres. Our civil liberties would probably not survive that.

A well known writer, William S. Burroughs, wrote in the 1950's about what he called 'The algebra of need'. No matter how many drug dealers were busted there would be more since the money was so good. He said the only way to stop it was to get rid of drug users. (He was a junkie at the time.) Either way of solving it simply won't be accepted. Legalize it or execute all drug users. Our half-assed way just makes it worse.

Steve

Steve +1, well said. I hate to say it but the best way to solve the issue is to eliminate the demand. The supply is not very greatly affected by our Gov't's efforts and it has taken quite the toll on our pockets and patience. I wouldn't advocate an all out war with Mexico in the same regard as we've done in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots, but more a specialized war where if the Mexican Govt isn't going to do anything about the corruption in their police and military, who in turn aren't doing a thing about the cartels, then we are forced, out of our own need for security and safety, to engage without their permission. I'm not saying cut off the head and leave the country in shambles with no infrastructure, because nation building is expensive. I would argue that we eliminate their corrupt forces and cartels in one clean operation and use US Army Special Forces to aid in recruiting and training new police and military to help maintain that the void not be filled by new cartels. Striking at the source of the influx of drugs before they cross the border would lessen, not eliminate, the drugs that flood our nation on a DAILY basis.
Perhaps Mexico does need a regime change that will crack down on corruption and aid to cartels, then do something about changing from within so the country is actually livable and all the people don't want to illegally immigrate here. "Sorry folks, country's full and you burden our economy and healthcare system too much! Go home!"

[Irving]

We've had a lot of discussion about this issue, but haven't really gotten to the heart of the issue yet. First of all, I call it an issue because it is only as large of a problem as we are willing to make of it. If we didn't MAKE it a problem, it wouldn't be one, so I call it an issue.

Now, some people have been talking about eliminating the demand, while others talk of decreasing the supply. I feel that those are futile arguments altogether. Like almost anything, we can easily break down the economics of the illegal drug market. All this intimate knowledge of the how's and who's and where's of the market is great, but it won't and can't lead to any kind of sustainable solution.

I'd like to present this situation by using an analogy of student grading, A,B,C,D,F and the bell curve. In every classroom, there will always be a some what predictable distribution of students that fall into each grade level. For simplicity sake, lets call it 5% A students
25% B students
40% C students
25% D students
5% F students

No matter how great the teacher is, no matter what kind of standards, rubrics, lesson plan, lunch breaks, nap times, homework levels, etc are present in the class room, the statistics of the class will always roughly follow a standard bell curve. Whether the students are adults or children, whether the subject is math, social studies, or English. The fact of the matter is that there is no one teaching style, test standard, or tutor program that can allow for all students to be in the A, B, and even C categories. It is a logical, statistical, and factual impossibility. It is the exact same way with society.

**Let me take a moment here to address something that is bugging me. I am NOT trying to make one of those It's not their fault, they can't help being an "F" student, arguments. It is just a fact of life that all babies won't be perfect, all plants won't grow to the same size, all steaks will taste equal, and all bats will be home runs.**

Now, back on topic. Many of us have had teachers that thought themselves "progressive," and that they would some how shatter the bell curve, either by lowering test standards, strictly grading students into submission, etc. It never works. Students either drop the class or have false grades.

The "War on Drugs" is essentially just attempting to manipulate the bell curve of society. There will always be A, B, C, D, and F members of society. There is nothing to be done about it. If you used a magic lamp to wish away all the heroine, mescaline, opium, methamphetamine, exstacy, and cocaine out of the world, all those "D" and "F" members of society would start huffing paint and drinking Nyquill. If you got rid of modern technology, people would lick toads, get bit by venomous snakes, and choke each other out until they temporarily lost consciousness and and woke up dizzy. There will ALWAYS be "D" and "F" members of society, and there is no law, anti-drug program, rehab facility, or non-profit organization that can change that.

The war on drugs is just shifting the threshold of acceptability up the bell curve, and as a result, instead of "F" members killing themselves and "D" members going into comas or homelessness, we are paying to keep "F" members alive, put "D" members into rehab, and imprisoning "C" and even "B" members of society.

When I talk about legalizing hard drugs, it is not because I think drugs are good, or that they are not harmful. I make that suggestion because I understand the reality of the population. Fighting this kind of indisputable, unchangeable fact of life, only causes far worse problems than we had to start with. How many articles have we about teachers changing test scores to meet one size fits all test standardizations? What about decent teachers being fired because they couldn't over come statistical impossibilities just because some one told them that they had to?

California has been purging their jails of offenders that realistically should never have been there in the first place. There is corruption rampant from the top politicians, down to the most lowly police officers. At the end of the day, we're always right back where we started, only now, our pockets are billions of dollars lighter because people can not understand that their most clever political campaigns, billboard slogans, and non-profit organization protests will not, and can not, change or remove the ugly side of human existence.

+3 points to anyone who reads this whole post.

[Zundfolge]

On a side note, does anyone else find it funny that when this thread is on the top of the forum the title from the main forum page looks like this: "When do we stop f**king..."?

[Irving]

And do I even need to elaborate on what will happen if we just start killing all of our "D" and "F" members of society? I'm looking at you "C" and "B" members. There must ALWAYS be a bottom, and after all the "D" and "F" members are executed, the "C" and "B" guys and gals are next in line.

[TFOGGER]

And do I even need to elaborate on what will happen if we just start killing all of our "D" and "F" members of society? I'm looking at you "C" and "B" members. There must ALWAYS be a bottom, and after all the "D" and "F" members are executed, the "C" and "B" guys and gals are next in line.

I read you complete other post, and mostly agree. Put another way, all parents are certain that their child is above average intelligence. 50% of them are wrong.

Statistically, there is always going to be a 5th percentile and a 95th percentile. Average will always be the 50th percentile. I am of the opinion that an adult should have the right to pretty much do anything they want to, as long as they accept the personal responsibility for those actions, and those actions do not compromise the rights of others. The "war on drugs" has been a political ploy from the beginning, to allow the expansion of federal powers and reward certain favored industries(graft is a nasty, if appropriate word). The nature of the original post wasn't to start a debate on the war on drugs, but to point out that the Powers That Be seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that we are subject to an armed invasion by a foreign aggressor. When do the citizens finally say "enough" and start to form militias in the traditional sense? That is to say, defending their country against a foreign invasion, with armed force if necessary?

[Irving]

When do the citizens finally say "enough" and start to form militias in the traditional sense? That is to say, defending their country against a foreign invasion, with armed force if necessary?

When they fear the invaders more than they fear their own government; and when our government is more likely to deal with the invaders over dealing with the citizens. Those people down there are trapped between a rock and a dead place.

[Ronin13]

When they fear the invadors more than they fear their own government; and when our government is more likely to deal with the invaders over dealing with the citizens. Those people down there are trapped between a rock and a dead place.

That is so true. One would hope that no jury of my "peers" would ever convict me of shooting and killing 15 "invaders" of my sovereign nation in a court of law, but then why would I be punished for doing a job that my government had failed to do in the beginning. We need to make it so that the government fears it's people more than the people fear their government- sadly with all these flimsy sheeple that will never happen.

BTW, Irving, your analogy about grades to classes of society is spot on. Well said, especially since we can't kill off the "D's" and "F's" because we would drag down a large portion of C's and B's into their place. I consider myself a B.