Yes, I did the introducing of Alcohol prohibition. Please tell me how the prohibition of drugs is in any way different than the prohibition of Alcohol. Is the idea not the same, to save individuals and society from themselves? To suggest that there is no parallel is self service to your argument at best.

And to clarify, I never once said all things would be great as you suggested I did. I said they are not likely to be any worse.

When prohibition was introduced it was to reduce use, crime, absenteeism from work, and cure a whole host other social ills. The prisons would be empty and productivity would skyrocket. None of that proved to be true, in fact it was the opposite for most of these stated goals. The fact is, absent some moral arguments against use, these is no sound argument that prohibition of anything people are driven to consume does anything but create the conditions for an underground economy and all of the associated crime that goes with it.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:



I've not said a word about alcohol, or prohibition, other than to predict, mistakenly it turned out, that someone would try to conflate the two.

quote:

Someone will post before page 2 about alcohol issues, and Prohibition, as if to conflate the two.

We made it onto page 2 this time.

In reviewing the thread it turns out I am wrong about being mistaken. TXJIM threw it out in post no. 16, page 1.

I don't know what the right answer is. I think the war on drugs as it is currently being fought is a waste, but I fear that we as a culture lack the stomach to take things seriously. One thought I have had is that perhaps our problem is that we are too indecisive. The bad dealer is the problem, but little Johnny is a good kid, why ruin his life? I sometimes think that we should either go all in (Drugs are really bad. First offense, any amount, 5 years hard labor; second offense, 15 years hard labor; third offense, life hard labor and see if that doesn't solve the problem.) or legalize, tax, and move on. I doubt either of those approaches (if we even had the stomach as a society for them) would work either. I dunno what the answer is, but I certainly wouldn't argue that we are doing now is working.

"Kill 'em" is the sentancing guideline that I would to be issued.

Duterte for Drug Czar.

Sheriff Joe for FBI Director.

Hillary for Prison.

There is a place for everyone in Trumpville.

Defending the "War on Drugs", as it's been done so far, is, IMHO, just plain insane. It's ruined countless lives, not really done anything to stop people from getting high, and has created a criminal empire/s. Make pot legal, totally, none of the BS "medical marijuana" crap, and take the tax money generated and use it for treatment of the drugs like meth and opiates that really do screw up people's lives. I know several people, including my former best friend, who have used pot daily for over 40 years, and are happy, employed, healthy, married, etc. My former best friend looks 10 years younger than his 7 year younger brother who is a vegan. He's been married almost 40 years with 3 kids and 3 grandkids and more coming.

But there is one thing that people have to realize when thinking about drug use, and that is:

Some people WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET HIGH! Booze, 'shrooms, licking toads, whatever, they will use it, and no laws will change that. It's always been that way, and it will never change.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
The one that grind my ass is this punks getting the gun charges dropped...
Like felony gun possession
stolen firearm
possession committing a crime with a firearm
Almost always plea bargained out!

I'm hoping the direction to prosecutors is this. Every time a felon is arrested in possession of a firearm, max out the charges related to that.

National level "Project Exile" - federal hard time for illegal possession (such as by a felon) or use of a firearm in a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by 2010Challenger:
Defending the "War on Drugs", as it's been done so far, is, IMHO, just plain insane. It's ruined countless lives, not really done anything to stop people from getting high, and has created a criminal empire/s.


But there is one thing that people have to realize when thinking about drug use, and that is:

Some people WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET HIGH! Booze, 'shrooms, licking toads, whatever, they will use it, and no laws will change that. It's always been that way, and it will never change.

Was it the war on drugs or the usage which has taken a higher toll? It would be illuminating to have a proper study on this.

Bank robbery has ruined lives. Rape has ruined lives, sometimes innocent lives as well. Both those ahhh, activities continue to occur, despite severe, near universal, societal disapproval. It has always been that way, and will never change. About the only conduct heretofore viewed as criminal that you hardly ever see committed anymore is shooting Indians from the street cars in Austin, Texas. Street cars are long gone, Indians not so much.

In olden times, your conduct and choices very seldom impacted anyone other than your immediate clan, tribe, family. If you got whacked out and incapacitated yourself, that was your problem, and those who depended on you, a very small number. Now, that is no longer true. Your irresponsible conduct has a significant risk to others. Drug users move around in machines, work for others and deprive their employers and immediate families of their productive capacities.

It is not true that Prohibition ended regulation and legal restraints on alcohol use and consumption. Alcoholic products are among the most heavily regulated and controlled products today. We have a "war on alcohol," as that term has come to be understood and used. Use, and over use, has ruined countless lives. Those efforts likely have had some impact in reducing the abuse of alcohol. I can't imagine a serious effort to eliminate alcohol related laws.

Maybe it is that people my age were raised with a higher level of emphasis on responsibilities, a better balance between rights and the corresponding responsibilities of living in relative freedom. Those older than me seem more aware of the balance, those younger less so, and increasingly less so the younger one is.

quote:

Please tell me how the prohibition of drugs is in any way different than the prohibition of Alcohol.

For one, during the Prohibition era alcohol consumption was not illegal.

Too many confuse that.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
His POV regarding drugs is as out of touch with reality as it gets, foolishly antiquated and full to the brim with nonsense.

I'm surprised he hasn't fucked things up worse already, given his predilections. One can only hope that President Trump will keep him tethered enough to avoid the nonsense.

We shall see.

Seriously? Sounds like you were in favor of the Obama/Holder era and the lack of respect for law and order in America. I imagine this is your mindset:

You want health care? No problem. Just label it a need, and you will get it, because you must have what you need, and the government must therefore give it to you. It doesn't matter if you can't afford your own health care. Modern liberals gladly promise it to you anyway -- at someone else's expense.

You want a college education but your grades aren't good enough? No problem. With affirmative action, liberals first label your desire a need, then see to it that you get unearned access to a college while someone more qualified than you gets bumped.

You want a job, but you have fewer skills than your competitors? No problem. With affirmative action, liberals declare your desire a need. The liberal agenda then gets you a job at the expense of someone with more skills than you have.

Can't get a mortgage loan because your credit is bad or your job doesn't pay enough? No problem. You need a mortgage, so liberal lawyers will tell any lender who refuses you he's redlining. You get your mortgage even if you can't afford it – because you need it.

Can't pay for your mortgage, now that you have it? No problem. Liberals promise to bail you out by putting a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures and a freeze on interest rates. You need relief.

Can't stop doing drugs and stealing to support YOUR habit? No problem. Label the law as racist and let all the drug-addicted-criminals out on the streets to continue their habits - because the laws are meaningless.

^ you've no idea what you're talking about. typical, ridiculous, drivel is what you spew.

I've no love for Obama, Holder, or the like. what I have is an immeasurably large intolerance for patently terrible ideas, bad and otherwise extraordinarily ineffective laws, and idiotic points of view, and the net damage they cause to America and Americans, of which the so called war on drugs being one of the worst examples, ever.

Jeff Sessions seems like a decent man in many regards, but many a decent men were wrong about something, and with respect to this something - he is a fool on this topic, a colossal, ill-informed, fool, or an evil miscreant hiding behind foolishness, and of truly epic proportions, but he otherwise seems a decent man, and my opinion on this topic ought not be confused with any notions of lawlessness, chaos, anarchy, or otherwise.

so stow your assumptions. they're all wrong, as is usually the case when these topics arise.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
^ you've no idea what you're talking about. typical, ridiculous, drivel is what you spew.

"snip"

so stow your assumptions. they're all wrong, as is usually the case when these topics arise.

My assumptions are wrong? You really need to get-up-to-speed with recent events in America. All of those things I wrote actually occurred. If you have a hard time with reality---I suggest you stay in the basement and foment a snowflake resistance.

I know the pro-dope crowd really doesn't want to hear this, but they are way off on what they think they know.
I am all for this. Completely in.
The thing that the offended pro-dope crowd is missing is how we get here. They get all spooled up on the WAR ON DRUGS BS. They get all spooled up on some perverted idea that this is anti-freedom. Spin, spin, spin.

In reality, how we get to this point is this. These criminals, gasp poor, poor first time offenders, aren't just college kids with two seeds and a stem that go to federal prison for eleventy billion years.
No AUSA will take a case unless the defendant has at least a couple of prior felonies in state court. Even with the ATF, DEA, or FBI. In the "non-violent" crimes, they won't take a referral unless there is a pretty substantial prior felony record.

What the WAR ON DRUGS criers see is poor Manny is a first time drug offender who got five years and din do nuffin. When in fact, Manny has five prior felonies, most violent, and was getting any time in state court. Or that Manny had a assault, and robbery charge in the case, to which were dismissed so he could get federal time on whatever charge the feds took up. AUSA's won't take cases unless there is bad stuff in the perps history.

You can argue whether something or other should be illegal. And I am good with varied opinions. But, many people speak in these threads like they know what they are talking about, when it is pretty clear they do not.

I agree with AG Sessions. Good to see this program coming back.

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
I agree 100% that it is the job of prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and penalties possible. When prosecutors and law enforcement systematically agree to ignore the law the system is weakened.

With that said, when are we as a country going to revisit this ridiculous "war on drugs" that has squandered billions of dollars and produced exactly zero of the stated goals? It's broken, it cost too much and it doesn't do a damn thing about the problem.

I agree with this.

The lege should change these laws, but the executive has to enforce the laws that exist.