whats your opinion on the drug war?is it working?

Question

Prohibition does not prevent cannabis use by children or the mentally ill, the vulnerable populations whom we supposedly want to protect. Instead, cannabis prohibition makes it more difficult for parents, patients, society, doctors and law enforcement to control cannabis use.

The Drug War makes honest education about cannabis impossible, and leaves cannabis users marginalized in ways that make their lives more stressful.
This stress is unhealthy for everyone, but it is certainly most damaging to people with schizophrenia.

Cannabis prohibition is not merely a failure; it is a counterproductive fraud that is harming those whom we claim we want to protect.
There are currently more teens in treatment centers for marijuana in comparison to those admitted for alcohol.
Only an idiot would have to ask why alcohol is not the no#1 problem
after all alcohol is perfectly legal ( If you are 21.)
That is due to responsible people handling alcohol by way of the carding and id system.


Contraband markets make no age disgression.
Since the crackdown on tobacco there are 75% fewer teens trying or using tobacco.
However when it comes to cannabis and other illicit substances it’s a whole
other ball game.
Control, regulation and better education work prohibition, dose not.
Or as John Walters of the ondcp (Office for national drug control policy) calls it “ a war on drugs” (Sorry John but it's true look at the Netherlands)

America loves a war even if it is on it’s own people.

One of several reason they don’t legalize drugs is not because of the harm of drugs,
But people would lose more money in the long run.
Some of the people behind the support of this irrational so called war are
The tobacco industry,
the alcohol and distilled spirit industry ( people simply don’t drink as much, or decide not to drink at all with cannabis meaning a decline in there sales.
The pharmaceutical corporations can not make money on whole or raw cannabis, but they can charge an arm and a leg for there synthetic Marinol (dronabinol) CIII.

The textile and paper industry would lose out from hemp production, sinse hemp dose not need to go through all the various processes that ordinary tree products would. Also it’s possible to get two harvest in one season.

However people don’t know the difference between industrial hemp and smokeable cannabis, yet they are able to distinguish between the two in other country’s like Germany, the UK , Netherlands and even Canada, but our `DEA agents are so dumb they cant tell the difference between a stalk and a bush.
Also people who have any knowledge of growing high quality cannabis will tell you that male plants should never be grown next to your high grade female plants,
(unless of course you want to pollinate for future seed production).
When it comes to farming hemp the males are left in tact to pollinate the females and produce as much seed as possible.

This would mean a seedy mess for the pot smoker to clean up and produce undesirable future generations of smokeable cannabis.

If anything, Hemp farming would be anti marijuana and would harm any outdoor pot farming within a one mile radius of any hemp farm.

The petroleum industry would also be affected, sinse almost everything that can be made from petroleum can be synthesized from hemp oil, everything from bio fuel to even plastics. If North America would use a third of it’s land for hemp production we could create enough bio fuel to supply an area the size of Canada.

Now also for a moment consider how many people are incarcerated over just cannabis who are currently in the prisons and jails.
If cannabis were legalized and all inmates serving time for cannabis were freed there would be an over abundance of empty cells, and millions of guards in this country would be no longer needed.
The prison building industry would almost be obsolete ( and if all drugs were legalized that would mean even more empty cells).

So the prison system must have some means of gaining more inmates.
Not to mention other areas such as treatment centers, probation.etc
or HIDTA high intensity drug traffic areas where money is fed in to law enforcement,
(they would miss there green $$$)

Drugs , not even alcohol are the cause of the fundamental ills of society, rather than checking people for the presence of drugs, they should first test people for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.

Check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at

Answer 1

Well to answer your initial question, no it is not working. What would you suggest? Legalization won't work either, as evidenced by the number of drunk driving deaths.

Answer 2

aerocentral01: It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to make a drug illegal. The Controlled Substances Act uses the Interstate Commerce Clause. This was the lesson learned from Prohibition.

The drug war is a complete failure and Prohibition era Congress knew it would be a failure, but Harry Anslinger was on a mission to demonize people of color and the drugs they used.

This war on some drugs has lasted 90 years. Hundreds of thousands have died from black market territory struggles, just as so many did during Prohibition. The end result has been a slight increase in addiction, lower wholesale prices and higher purity. While the Drug Czar bombards with "not your parent's marijuana" cocaine is the purist it's ever been. Under the law there's no such thing as a cannabis addict. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+379+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2821%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28802%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Giving control of harmful substances to unscrupulous individuals will always be bad policy and will never become a sound one.

The most deadly drugs are legal.

Answer 3

Can we stop calling it a war on drugs? It is a war on drug users.

As a veteran of this war I feel entitled to point out that the special interest groups that promote it are the same ones that urged alcohol prohibition on us, with the same results:

First, the substance in question remained in use, but the prices rose sharply.

Second, because of the ban on production quality fell and standards were impossible to enforce, as only lawbreakers were making any.

Third, the profits from sales went to organized crime rather than legitimate business, which made the lawless wealthy and deprived the government (that's us!) of the taxation income previously gained for use on public works.

Fourth, since the police were used to enforce prohibition they became identified in the eyes of previously law abiding citizens as untrustworthy oppressors, while organized crime gained in respectability as well as power and income. For a huge section of the population the government became an enemy. This has led to a complete breakdown in social values.

Which led to our fifth point, that the high profits and lack of regulation led to wars over market share. Innocent people have been killed as bystanders when violence broke out, but the survivors still distrust the police too much to assist them.

All of this because an inexpensive and easy to produce substance was made illegal. What social benefit is there in continuing this useless exercise?

Consider the number of marijuana smokers who have been or would be excluded from public life as a result of a criminal conviction. I can safely say that all but one of the cardiologists I worked with would have been in trouble had our employer adopted the mandatory drug testing proposed by the Reagan zealots. Since the only other was a drunk, I suspect he could not have kept up with the demand.

This issue is like stem cell research and abortion. A minority with fanatical views about how the world should be are trying to force their views on the world that is. In Iraq we call it terrorism. Here we call it "the war on drugs."

A fundamentalist by another name would sound as shrill. Death to extremists!

Answer 4

The war on drugs was fought and lost.

I think the penalties for driving under the influence of anything like marijuana or alcohol should be very severe, but if you want to get blasted out of your tree and stay put until it's safe for you to drive, fine with me.

Sell it legally at liquor stores and tax it like booze and tobacco, but let the cops work on murders and rapes and crimes like that.

Answer 5

no the us drug war is not working well. neither was it working internationally, which is why so many nations have since rejected laws brought about by trying to appease american lawmakers. internationally nations have found pot laws in particular tend to clog up the judiciary system, fill up the prison system with non criminal citizens, destroying families in the process and bringing about corruption in the enforcement community. bad, bad, bad.

Answer 6

Is this a question???
Personally, I think keeping it illegal gives law enforcement officials job security. I can think of thousands of examples of alcohol killing it's abusers as well as turning them into instant assholes. Pot is pretty harmless by comparison....it's illegality is pretty assinine, considering the revenue it could potentially generate.

Answer 7

It's simple, the greater the number of laws and enactments, the greater the number of thieves and robbers. It doesn't fail. But we are free... right? the question is for how long?

Answer 8

drug war? you mean war on the american people? we have never had a real war on drugs. if we did, the king pins in the government would have been locked up many years ago. watch these videos and then ask yourself how you feel about the war on drugs.

Answer 9

My assessment of the Drug War...

The Drugs Are Winning!!

Answer 10

Sounds like a familiar question. Same answer: it takes a constitutional amendment to "illegalize" any substance.

Answer 11

Man you're long winded - :)

There is way too much money in it to make it legal – it’s all about the all mighty dollar.