Money should be directed to more proactive means of reaching the source of the problem; the Drug War funds should be used for state initiative health programs.
Do you agree with this? Any extra info?
2007-03-14 20:20:52 · 6 answers · asked by aos 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
First, can we be clear that there is not a war on drugs? There is a war on drug users, which is a little different. This is a war declared by our government on a minority of its own population. It is a war against people.
The laws against drugs were instituted as a result of moral fervor, in an effort to protect people from potential addiction. Churches supported prohibition on doctrinal grounds and business felt it would make for a lazy workforce, and so a years long campaign to ban drugs was eventually successful.
So, for a while, was the one on alcohol, but that was repealed.
Drug laws have created two industries that make an indecent profit from prohibition. The first is those who produce and distribute the illegal drugs for many times more what they could hope to get in a rational market.
The second is that of the legal profession. The lawyers, judges, clerks, guards, social workers, and police who depend on prohibition for their livelihood. Of the two, the most powerful is the latter.
An end to prohibition would result in an end to the drug trade, and the violent crimes that grow out of the turf wars. It would also reduce property crimes, because reducing drug prices would proportionately reduce the amount an addict might steal to get high.
It would enable drug users to seek medical help, and professionals to provide that help without fear of arrest, and allow us to treat the minority of recreational drug users who have problems for a fraction of the cost of enforcement.
It would restore the faith of otherwise law abiding citizens in the credibility of their justice system, their government and their society. How much would that be worth?
Without drug laws, there would of course be less for the legal professionals to do. The policemen can always detect real criminals, and the social workers can retrain as drug addiction counsellors, but I am afraid the judges, prosecutors and defenders will be forced to seek work elsewhere.
Now your average taxpayer might think that wasn't such a bad thing, but your average taxpayer doesn't make and enforce the rules. The judges and the lawyers make the rules.
So, to bring an end to the war on drugs all that we need is for the lawyers and judges to act for the common good, but against their own interests. I think I will roll another while I wait.
2007-03-14 21:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no "war" on drugs. If there was a "war" on drugs the two boarder patrol agents, Ramos and Compean, would be free and the drug dealer in prison.
How can anyone rationalize the fact that the United States, with only 4 percent of the world's population, consumes two-thirds of the world's illegal drugs?
The drugs comes in across the boarder. The boarder patrol agents try to defend the boarder. The boarder patrol agents go to prison.
If we can not defend our boarder no amount of "state initiative health programs" will change anything.
2007-03-15 03:50:33 · answer #2 · answered by gates_goins 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I definitely agree with david I. Big brother laws designed to protect people from themselves, are only effective in a police state that has absolutely no freedoms. Which is what this country is turning into, with drugs and terrorism as the excuse to take away peoples civil liberties.
2007-03-15 12:17:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. A war means killing....no pretty source of the problem BS PC stuff.
Blow stuff up.
2007-03-15 06:46:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No marijuana should be legalized and the revenue used to combat the real problem drugs.
2007-03-15 03:23:20 · answer #5 · answered by john c 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it would waist your money but drugs can sometimes kill peolpe
2007-03-15 03:25:37 · answer #6 · answered by xGoldScorpionx 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋