We have LOST the "War on Drugs."
The Mafia was dying out at the turn of the last century. Prohibition brought them back from the dead.
The street gangs were dying out in the 1970s. The start of the "War on Drugs" in the 1980s brought THEM back from the dead.
Isn't it time we stopped spending so much more money on drug-related police and prison operations than on poverty programs, cancer research, and the space program COMBINED? Shouldn't we be spending that money on treatment and rehab instead?
If drugs were legal, wouldn't people with drug problems be more likely to seek help from a doctor or a psychiatrist, because they wouldn't be worried about prosecution?
Are politicians more interested in sounding "tough" than in actually helping to REDUCE the drug problem?
Is that why a "war on drugs" and not rehab and treatment?
2007-12-07 05:40:10 · 6 answers · asked by Dont Call Me Dude 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't think we can stop drugs without losing some our 'freedoms'...
2007-12-07 05:43:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you're the two mendacity approximately being a liberal or you do not save up with what maximum all human beings is suggesting. some nutcases are asserting ban all weapons and that they get all the media interest and are quoted by potential of the gods on pretend information. maximum persons say the mentally ill and criminals and babies should not be allowed to purchase particular varieties of weapons and ammunition on the community wally international or gun shows the place there at the instant are not any history tests to determine if someone is a violent criminal.
2016-12-17 10:28:03 · answer #2 · answered by mcintire 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difference I see is that the non pharmaceutical drugs are produced by small local operators and have no lobby in Washington, like Seagram's and other large alcohol, producers do. They have a well established lobby group. The pharmaceutical manufacturers like Phiser do as well. No one represents the marijuana or cocaine producers.
2007-12-07 05:49:52 · answer #3 · answered by booman17 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what you dont understand is that the gov. makes more money off drugs being illegal, if they where legal no dea, half the cia and fbi would be cut not mention the prison system and the dirty money the feds get is crazy!!!! they dont want you to stop gettin high, this country runs off drug money, look at iran contra, they are gettin rich off people dying and blame street dealers
2007-12-07 05:46:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Interesting question! Alcohol can and is used by most people (not all) in moderation without risk of addiction and without terrible consequences. Putting aside pot (which I think is on the same level as alcohol), most drugs, like crack, can be devastating, quickly addictive, and ruin most lives that they touch. So I think it is different.
2007-12-07 05:46:44 · answer #5 · answered by mikegreenwich 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because almost all politicians are drunk anyway.
2007-12-07 05:47:09 · answer #6 · answered by Joshot 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋