Efforts to combat the recreational use of narcotics have failed to get rid of them.
It is said that from the United Nation’s 10-year commitment to eradicate all narcotics by using law enforcement to target traffickers and producers to end drug use worldwide, to the United States’ efforts to do the same, any and all attempts have failed to put any drugs dealers out of business and failed to keep any drugs out of anyone’s hands.
With such an assessment one can only conclude that we must reverse course.
Despite efforts to teach generations that drugs are wrong we must embrace the use of narcotics that have dangerous personal and societal effects.
Our nation and world has invested too much time and money in a cause that instead of spending money on, we could actually be profiting from.
If our nation is willing to step up and shift gears, we could create a whole new private sector and expand government.
By increasing the size of the Food and Drug Administration, we can hire more bureaucrats to insure that newly legalized forms of crack cocaine and other narcotics are pure and safe and pack enough punch.
Then, as we do with liquor licenses, for a large fee, we can issue drug dealers, narcotic licenses. This is a must.
Like any good dealer, the federal government must get a cut. But being the bureaucratic boondoggle that government is, we will insure that we don’t just get a cut from dealers, we will also get a cut from users. A federal, per ounce, tax that far exceeds the federal tax on cigarettes shall be instituted. This excessive fee, or sin tax, will be designed to discourage using these once illegal drugs but it will not simply boost levels of federal income. The money raised through this narcotics sin tax will be needed to support the rehabilitation of those, who through the use of drugs, have become dangerous and useless to society.
The increased volume of drug use will create a need to address the growing problem of opioid related addictions. As such, the federal government is going to fund the Addiction Solution Service program.
A.S.S. will finance the creation of methadone clinics in every county of the United States. We will also finance the staffs and inventory that these facilities will require in order to operate effectively and efficiently.
Many communities do not like the idea of having methadone clinics in their midst because of the type of drug addicted element they attract. But sentiments that would deny a person access to detoxification and the chance to break their drug addiction will not be tolerated. If any community seeks to prevent an A.S.S. clinic, in their area, to serve the addicts in their county, then the federal government will use eminent domain policies to insure that such facilities are established.
The United States’ reversal on its drug policies, and our preparations to deal with the resulting influx of addiction, signifies a new era in American politics.
No longer will we distinguish right from wrong. Who are we, to make such determinations?
No longer will we waste time on uphill battles. Who are we, to put our energies into a cause for the well being of society?
We, as a nation, have finally come to understand the value of narcotics and with the failure of prohibition in our nation‘s past, we can understand that the same applies to drugs.
Liquor can be detrimental if consumed in excess, yet today, it is legal
So even though ANY level of consumption of narcotics can be detrimental, it too must be made legal. The fact that liquor, when drunk responsibility and in moderation has never been a problem, needs to be applied in regards to amphetamines, barbiturates, and drugs like crack and heroin.
If one can drink a mug of beer in a bar, why should they be denied the right to snort a line of coke or shoot up a shot of heroin in moderation in a bar?
So today a new dawn brightens America. Today the fog of our drug intolerance is lifted so that we can usher in the haze of a good doobie and stop distinguishing dangerous narcotics for recreational use from useful medicines for medical use. What were once underground, under-the counter drugs will now be on par with over the counter drugs. Today we make all drugs legal regardless of their potency, addictive qualities or dangerous side effects.
This move will not just make narcotics accessible to the masses, it will revolutionize the medical and pharmaceutical industries. With the legalization of drugs, no longer will doctor prescriptions be needed. So in addition to being a budget booster, drug legalization is a sound green policy that will spare countless trees which were previously chopped down to make the paper that such prescriptions were written on.
Yes, legalizing drugs will solve many problems.
It benefit’s the environment, it insures that drug dealers and cartels will regulate themselves and run their heretofore underground businesses in the open as they allow their product to be scrutinized and tested by the FDA. Their dealers will be licensed after taking mandatory government sponsored drug distribution courses. These licensing classes will insure that dealers provide respectful customer service and the proper instructions pertaining to how one uses the drug they purchase and how they store it.
Legalizing drugs will put an end to drug violence and smuggling. Cartels will willingly become corporations that pay their fair share of fees and corporate taxes, invest in 401k’s, and follow OSHA regulations for the safety of their employees.
But most of all, the legalization of narcotics will benefit society.
If things are not going your way, you will now be able to experience the joy and comfort of drugs.
Having a tough time making your car payment or those SAT exams have you stressed out? Smoke some crack.
Kids out of control and running you ragged? Sniff a line.
Stuck in traffic on your way home from work again? Shoot up.
From this point on, Americans of every walk of life will have the freedom to get away from it all.
We should have only done it sooner but a lesson learned later is better than a lesson never learned. That is why we are taking this revelation and applying it in other areas of government.
Combating terrorism is as expensive or even more expensive and difficult than combating illegal drugs. So here too we will not wage another uphill battle. America will embrace terrorists and we will cut our defense budget, stop detaining enemy combatants and simply increase our emergency services capabilities throughout the nation. This will allow us to cope with the ensuing results of an increased number of devastating terrorist acts.
Our willingness to reverse course on drugs has opened up a whole new approach for our government. This direction will forever more be known as the If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em Doctrine.
It is a doctrine that is economically encouraging and if applied correctly, it can revitalize America’s role in the world and the way the world view us. Instead of seeing us as belligerent defenders of freedom, they will come to realize that Americans are an easy going people who are willing to bend their policies and even their laws in order to suit’s the desires of everyone.
|
|
| |
|
|
You too Smash Have fun with that little un!
Pull the federal records in the US as opposed to the federal record in Amsterdam where drugs are legal. You should find it interesting. I respect your opinion as always MM. Just don't agree. Have a good one.
I question sources that disagree with State records. Court records, and the cases dealt with by rehab centers. If you don't like it too bad smash I am sorry, but I'll stick with Kempite on this one.
I have to go eat dinner and get my kid in the bathtub. If you'll be back on tomorrow i would like to continue the debate.
Let me give you an example smash, domestic disputes for a law officer are the most dangerous of all. In the vast majority of cases (87)% there is some kind of chemical substance involved, whether it be alcohol, mary jane, coke, whatever. In most of those cases it's alchol (72%) due to the fact alchol is legal there are no exteranious charges. In the remaining cases where illegal substances are involved the perp and victim are both charged for the illegal use of the drug. When questioned most respondents in rehab were asked would you have used another drug if it had been legal the answer was (yes 92%) Can you imagine the escalation of violence when the drug of choice is crank?or meth?
My sources are public records Ravalli and Missoula countys, Drug rehabilitation centers such as new hope and poverillo centers, and the interviws I did with ex- law officers who are retired.
Did you not read my post below? I have done personal research as well. What you are giving are personal opinions that you supposedly got from someone else. I can post law enforcement statistics comparing the US to countries where drugs are legalized. If you think law enforcement stats aren't credible as opposed to simply asking a cop then I take it your answer is you cant back it up.
So despite the fact that drug rehab folks (who would actually be in great demand) and professional law enforcement people (who would also be in great demand) say differently, You would rather trust organizations who have millons in lobby money backing them? Since when have stats ever been the be all and say all of truth?
I can back any position I want with internet stats. Thats why when you do research for a thesis your sources have to be professional, practical experiance sources.
One of my old college roommates is a prosecutor and the other a Sherrif deputy. They say the opposite of what you say. Whats your point? It is thier opinion. Show me a hard statistic to back up your claim.
I have no issue woth you either mm, I am just asking for something to back up your claims. If you don't have it fine. What I do have a problem with is giving someone a hard time for doing something that is backing up thier point on an issue. I have talked to people in Nebraska today, it doesn't mean the heroin use rate will rise there. And the rehab centers and law enforcement will say the opposite, if they agree they would be out of a job.
Thats mighty interesting Smash why don't you call a drug consellor, or a Hwy patrolman?
Alright mm here are some stats for you. Now i'm going to copy and paste so if it doesn't fit your argument you have fair warning to attack me for
it...............................................G
eneral
Drug Facts And Statistics
From The Drug Project.
Deaths in the United States in a typical year are as follows:
Tobacco kills about 400,000
Alcohol kills about 80,000
Workplace accidents kill 60,000
Automobiles kill 40,000
Cocaine kills about 2,500
Heroin kills about 2,000
Aspirin kills about 2,000
Marijuana kills 0
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.
All illegal drugs combined kill under 20,000 per year, or a small percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco.
Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last one hundred
years.............................................
Ok, so if I get your logic, we should outlaw tobbacco, alcohol, workplaces, automobiles and asprin as well?????
Smashey, I have no issues with you first. second I have found doing (ACTUAL RESEARCH) Not just internet cut and paste, that most law enforcement personell and most rehab centers say exactly the opposite. I have talked to people in Ca , NM, AZ, MT, WY, VA etc In my research for psych, and they all say the same things.
I find it funny that erock has been posting stats all week long showing where the legaization stance does none of what you claim it will and all you and your cromies can do is give him a hard time for cut and pasting. Give me some facts to back up your claims. If you can't who is truly pathetic?
MM, show me one statistic where abuse went up when a country has legalized. You can't because it doesn't happen. People that do drugs will do it regardless. Did more people drink when prohibition was repealed....NO. Get an argument better than your personal opinion and back it up with something. Then maybe you'll hold some water.
It will save millons in law enforcement, help solidify the nation as a hedonistic society, help redefine wrong from right, and eliminate the need for laws.........why didn't I embrace this before? Hell, it's a perfict world now right?
Course the heathcare would skyrocket, crack babies would be far more common, car accidents 100fold or more, but wait you all who want this to pass say you CAN use heroine in moderation right? Makes me wonder what planet you live on.
You state noone would abuse drugs if they were legal. Wrong. Abuse would skyrocket. Production rates would go down and quality would go down. Any resposibly would go hand in hand with government control. The Children would suffer the worst abuses of all but HEY SAVE THAT MONEY.
Pathetic.
It will save millons in law enforcement, help solidify the nation as a hedonistic society, help redefine wrong from right, and eliminate the need for laws.........why didn't I embrace this before? Hell, it's a perfict world now right?
Course the heathcare would skyrocket, crack babies would be far more common, car accidents 100fold or more, but wait you all who want this to pass say you CAN use heroine in moderation right? Makes me wonder what planet you live on.
You state noone would abuse drugs if they were legal. Wrong. Abuse would skyrocket. Production rates would go down and quality would go down. Any resposibly would go hand in hand with government control. The Children would suffer the worst abuses of all but HEY SAVE THAT MONEY.
Pathetic.
Hmm? 75,000 deaths per year related to alcohol. 3,000 deaths related to cocaine. Which is the bigger threat?
Lets outlaw hamburgers because overeating leads to millions of deaths each year. Big brother can make the world safe for everyone.
I agree that we need to adjust the laws. I just want those who argue in favor of legalization to get their heads out of the clouds thinking it will solve anything.
How do we do that besides educating? We have programs such as just say no and DARE that are doing that already yet the problem goes on. I see your point with the problems from drug use still existing. As they do with alcohol. Problem is we are paying for those problems outlined below on top of what we are paying to fight the dealers etc. Cutting that part of the cost, in my opinion, is still better than spending it to no avail. During prohibition, you could get arrested for even going into a speak easy or possesing alcohol. After it's repeal, those who wanted a drink chose the legal means over the illegal ones to avoid being arrested. The same premise can be applied with drugs. Will they still buy illegally, yes, but as with alcohol the illegal means will be a much smaller percentage. Users will look to avoid getting busted by going through the legal means to get the drugs. Will we still be paying police to police it and dr's to treat it, the answer is yes. Difference is we won't be spending as much to fight it and incarcerate the users.
My point is that most of the cost of the war on drugs would still exist even if drugs were legal as drug related crimes and costs would continue. We'd still have to police for illegal smuggling since we would only want legally licensed and tax paying dealers/importers. We'd still have to pay for high levels of neighborhood police because of all the associated crimes of theft, violence, etc. We'd still have to pay all the medical costs of junkies. It goes on and on. None of that changes because we make it legal. If we can't get to the root of the problem and stop the drug use, nothing else matters.
So do you suggest we continue to waste billions on fighting the war on drugs? Your position here is a bit unclear to me. I realize there are other issues that are caused by drugs but what are you proposing we do to stop them? The repeal of prohibition didn't stop the effects of alcohol on individuals and families but it did take away a major source of income from the gangsters and give it to where it could be put back into the communities. People still make and distribute alcohol illegally but not as the sole source anymore. That is a bright point of legalization. I cannot see even one bright point of the war on drugs.
My point is that much of the cost to society and government from drug related problems would not be solved by legalization. We'd have about as much crime. We'd have about as much addiction problems. We'd have about as much domestic abuse issues. Where is the savings? Sure we may get tax money if all the private dealers decide to suddenly follow the law and get licensed and pay taxes. But, I doubt that will happen quickly. There is still a very active black market in most major cities that exists because it is cheaper to buy bootleg DVDs, stolen cigarettes, etc. than to pay retail prices and sales tax. Drugs will likely continue to be an underground business to avoid regulations, taxes, etc. So, the big pile of money from tax revenue may not even materialize just as it failed to materialize when they added legalized gambling in PA. I'm not advocating either continuing the war on drugs or legalization. I find both to be side issues to the real problem and I don't see either saving us any money or making us any money so long as the main problems caused by drug use continue to be the most expensive.
That point is very valid and very true. The issues will exist regardless. My point is, we can spend billions on attacking a problem we cannot stop or we can tax it and use the funds for schools, public transportation, etc. True the war on drugs has not stopped drug issues and legalizing it will not stop the issues either. But at least with legalizing it we can take in funds to do some good rather than spend funds on fighting an unwinnable fight.
What the legalization and war on drugs arguments both fail to address are the problems of drugs use. Making drugs illegal has not stopped the problems. Making drugs legal will not stop them either. If the drug war can't stop drug trafficking and dealing, why would a bunch of regulations and licenses for legal drug use have any success? If we're talking just about marijuana, then perhaps legalization would work as it is not physically addictive and not much worse for a person than alcohol or tobacco. But what about any of the addictive drugs? You can make them legal and people who are addicted to them will still rob others to get the money to buy them. It doesn't matter if they are sold in a back alley or in Wal-Mart. The problem is the secondary crime associated with drug use to get the money to buy them and the neglect of children and/or domestic violence that comes with some drug use. This argument over legalize or not fails to address those issues. It entirely misses the point of the "drug problem" which isn't the drugs, but their effects. The war on drugs is failing because it attacks the drugs and not the things that drive drug use and the consequences of that usage. The legalization of drugs will fail for similar reasons. Sure, it will get rid of all the criminals in prison for possession and dealing, but still see most of them back in for theft, abuse, neglect, etc. You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money and you can't stop the drug problem by simply legalizing drugs.
I once again see a blog (and a very good satirical one) advocating the war on drugs. I used to be on that side of the fence until I came to realize it hasn't worked. Once again I ask.....where has the war on drugs been successful? As with prohibition, the war on drugs has pushed the trade underground. Had the public ever heard of Al Capone before prohibition? Had we heard of Pablo Escobar before the war on drugs? The government figured it out with prohibition. The didn't stop a problem, they created a larger one. The war on drugs is the same situation. As Kemp so satirically wrote "If things are not going your way, you will now be able to experience the joy and comfort of drugs." My question is, can you not do that already? Does the illegality of it make it right? Most definitley not. But what has the war on drugs done to stop drug use? What good have the billions of dollars spent done? When these questions get answered outside of a satirical realm then some creedence may be lent to the argument.
Also why overlly tax them? Keep the tax low. And for the drug dealers they would be out of business who would buy from them in addition they would still to answer for murder, money laundering etc. etc. And many people who need re-hab today are scared to come forward because of crimminal prosecution. To suggest that all of a sudden responsable adults would suddenly run to drugs is absured. As for comparing the war on drugs to the war on terror at least with the war on terror you can see results. All one can see from the war on drugs is gangs fighting over where they can sell their drugs.
The bigest reason why alcohol and tobacco are legal and drugs are not is because alcohol and tobacco have more money to lobby Congress. As for "right and wrong", it is not the government's role to modify behavior. Government's sole role should be to protect our rights and to make sure nobody kills each other, hurts each other, or steal from each other.
Someone's been nipping at my satire bottle.
|
|
<< Home