Are you enjoying your country losing the "war on drugs" (as in weed)?

Gay-paul wrote:

BlackBoi666 wrote:No. I wish there was a death penalty for being a drug dealer.

And for paedophiles and banksters
But seriously maybe is better to legalize it or at least some "drugs" the soft one like Marijuana or Hashish, if cigarettes are legal why not wed? At least economy would get money not gangsters.

I agree.

I think my country's loosing the battle against obeasity is a greater negative impact on society than it loosing the war on drugs.

I've even heard of studies on people using MDMA for those with PTSD.

BlackBoi666 wrote:No. I wish there was a death penalty for being a drug dealer.

That's so easy to say from the high ground...

The main obstacle to legalizing recreational marijuana where I live is that the politicians here will do the EXACT same thing they did in 1932 when they legalized alcohol.. We are SICK to death of politicians enriching themselves on backs of the tax payers.

im just saying, if i had weed, id have no issues taking my prescribed medication. (weed treats bipolar, to ertis point)

the war on drugs again is simply another ploy by politicians to maintain power by playing on the peoples fears. thank god some realize that rather than waste money on the faux war, they could boost their coffers instead.

LOL. I remember during high school, my History teacher used to tell us about the collapse/ downfall of mighty Qing Dynasty due to their opium addiction. They're addicted to opium, the Brits were addicted to tea, so the Brits traded opium for tea to the Chinese of Qing Dynasty. Opium war happened.

History might repeat itself though, but it wouldn't happen to modern China though, it could happen somewhere else

I don't think it would happen anywhere, it's not like the US would go to war with Mexico for cocaine and marijuana... Plus there are already countries that are super harsh with drug usage and dealers such as Indonesia (death sentence), so if any country was actually willing to wage war on another for drugs it should have already happened.

Earlier this month, the Mexican President’s cabinet released a plan to decriminalize all drugs, although I’m not sure how that plan would work without congressional approval, although his party does have a majority of the seats if I understand correctly.

Eryx wrote:I don't think it would happen anywhere, it's not like the US would go to war with Mexico for cocaine and marijuana... Plus there are already countries that are super harsh with drug usage and dealers such as Indonesia (death sentence), so if any country was actually willing to wage war on another for drugs it should have already happened.

We kinda are though. This has gotta be one of the biggest waste of money we've ever spent. And we've wasted lots of money that could have been used to actually help people.

To me it seems retarded to wage war against an opponent with an army that will never end.

All we did is increase the price of the drugs. Which only helps the suppliers

and vastly increase prison and probation costs. and vastly increase overpopulation of prisons. and vastly increase lawsuits.. (ad nauseum)

I agree with all of you. It's pointless, stupid, stubborn and a money-grab. We've got to figure out who's financing it and burn their houses. And I'm not being sarcastic.

the ones you are looking for for tend to either be tough-on-crime politicians, or those literaly invested in prisons. (private prisons, officer unions,etc.)

oh, and big pharm. happy hunting!

i am thinking governments should put limits on personal excess

for the one percent of the one percent who just can not handle them selves
-jeopardize the safety of others
-become a liability to society and to their family
-generate a situations requiring excessive social services


The US gun epidemic proves the average joe is not very smart.

The war against drugs is not working at all. However, people really need to stop taking silly recreational drugs.

Marijuana is already legalized and being sold where I'm located.
Apart from that, I think what really needs to be addressed is the criminal justice system which is and of itself another form of organized crime.
Making huge amounts of money by mass incarceration is a ruthless form of evil in my opinion; a system based off of care, compassion and help would render those in power who strive off of fear and punishment useless.
The focus needs be on poverty, education and affordable housing as well as mental health and appropriate, fair living wages for all.
No one should serve a term for 20+ years due to selling illicit drugs or even weed and than not ever have the chance to rehabilitate themselves and contribute back into society because they're branded a criminal for their lives which only adds to the swinging door and higher chances of recidivism and crime being committed for survival.
It's cruel and inhumane and does nothing to help the situation at hand save stuff more money into the pockets of the rich.

Yeah, locally we too have made recreational pot legal - I've got at least half a dozen shops within a few minutes of my home, some walkable, others easier to get to with some transportation. It's just that it's still criminalized on the federal level, but supposedly there are a number of bills in Congress aimed at changing that, but that doesn't account for the states that fear legalization and earn plenty of money off of the criminal justice industrial complex. Also, doesn't help that opposition to legalization finds favor on both sides of the political divide (as does support of legalization).

We have also taken the next step of decriminalizing personal possession of small amounts of drugs that are still illegal. I have been slow to warm to such ideas in the past since I have a hard time treating heroin like even hard liquor but see harm reduction as more important. People are going to use and the recent mini-war on prescription opiates only pushed a lot of people into the illicit market where there is no quality control (and we add problems with injecting to fend off the need). This is all so stupid. Yes, opiates were out of control, but a near prohibition was a ridiculous approach.

If we've learned anything from a war on (whatever), it's that winning never seems to be possible and it becomes a constant beast that needs to be fed with more money for more of this, more of that, and we'll finally get something that never comes. However, all it does is drive up prices thereby making the trade more attractive to people who aren't very risk-adverse.

I'm not certain I'd support decriminalizing possession with intent to distribute (dealing). That's probably the only part of the war on drugs I'd leave in place, but that's only because the business is so ugly and corrosive -- no one needs an endless series of gun battles be it in Colombia or the District of Columbia. But until we're willing to look for a more common sense, harm reducing approach, there will always be money to be made and thus there will always be people ready to shoulder the risk and making poor decisions in the meantime.

I'd much rather see people getting their heroin, oxy, molly, tina, whatever from someone who provides users with safe products that can be reliably dosed and always has counselors on hand, not to harangue users but to be available when folks want to talk about making a change in their life. We've been perfectly fine with getting people addicted to/dependent on all manner of legalized drugs, so this isn't exactly a new concept, it's just we're stuck in last century's thinking of moral failings, personal irresponsibility, and lots of punishment. If punishment worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion for the last forty plus years.

So your ideal is for addicts who are not criminal themselves to have to interact with criminals and a black market encompassing not only the substance they're already addicted to but also potentially more harmful substances… and you imagine this state of affairs is consistent with a principle of harm reduction?

Furthermore, “gun battles” are a consequence of a black market and criminality.

I consider that if the drug is legal or not
it does not increase or decrease consumption, if what is controlled is the maximum amount to carry, since it is dangerous that it can be carried in excessive quantities, when we know that if it is consumed too much it can be harmful to health

Brenden wrote:So your ideal is for addicts who are not criminal themselves to have to interact with criminals and a black market encompassing not only the substance they're already addicted to but also potentially more harmful substances… and you imagine this state of affairs is consistent with a principle of harm reduction?

Furthermore, “gun battles” are a consequence of a black market and criminality.

seems your response is rather disingenuous, Brenden. While I didn't go so far as to say that I'd support harm reduction that included government regulated distribution, it rather seems implied - after all, that's what we have with weed. So why try to start something by posting that I said something that I never said nor implied? You could have asked for clarification if you didn't get what I was advocating for. Geesh, what gives? I promise, I'm not the one who pissed on your corn flakes.