Mothers Against America's War on Drugs
Moms United to End
the War on Drugs gathered on the steps of the Los Angeles
Superior Courthouse to deliver a message yesterday on Mother's Day: No More Drug War War on Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily Choose To Use Intoxicants Not
Currently Approved of by the Government, Who Will Put Users in
Cages if Caught.
Reason.tv was on the scene to talk with mothers who'd had
their families torn apart by U.S. drug policy, watch the video above.
37 Comments:
Mothers for Drugs. The least plausible interest group. Sounds more like Mothers for Rehab Instead of Prison.
Social Justice is nothing more than Justice.
Makes sense. The war on drugs has caused more harm than the use of drugs.
vangel.
bingo.
the war on drugs is like using chemotherapy to treat the flu.
Except that chemotherapy might actually treat the flu despite the treatment's horrible side-effects.
Except that chemotherapy might actually treat the flu despite the treatment's horrible side-effects.
It will kill far more people than the flu would have. That is the problem with the drug war. It kills far more people directly and indirectly than drugs would have. Not to mention that it is immoral to initiate force against people who engage in voluntary activities that do not harm others.
and of course, it provides price supports for thugs, destabilizes numerous nation states around the world, and creates violence in every aspect of drug production and distribution all while costing a fortune and irrevocably harming millions of americans through incarceration and the loss of rights and opportunities associated with being a felon that remain even after you are freed.
There will always be a "lunatic fringe."
Obviously, the War on Drugs hasn't done enough to minimize crackpots (no pun intended :)).
Sorry professor and your readers who agree but you obviously don't have kids because if you did, you would not support legalizing drugs
PFCT, don't you know many people high on drugs believe they drive better at 100 MPH than 65 MPH, particularly with kids in the car?
"Sorry professor and your readers who agree but you obviously don't have kids because if you did, you would not support legalizing drugs"
what utter nonsense.
hell, if you want to keep drugs away from kids, the best way to do it is legalize them.
when i was 14, drugs were easy to get, beer was really hard. illegal drug dealers do not card.
the notion that the war on drugs somehow protects kids could not be more wrong.
it pushes them toward drugs, makes getting and using them far more dangerous and surrounded by potential violence, and makes kids less likely to see help.
if that's protection, i'd hate to see what you think harm looks like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
peak-
what a pile of baseless, reactionary nonsense.
if you took every child harmed by a driver on drugs since ww2, it would likely be fewer than are harmed every year by drunk drivers, yet i do not hear you proposing we reinstate prohibition.
drunks do not make great drivers and frequently exercise flawed judgment. perhaps you have heard that somewhere?
why the hypocrisy and the double standard? using the drugs you like is ok, but not if you disagree?
Morganovich says: "If you took every child harmed by a driver on drugs since ww2, it would likely be fewer than are harmed every year by drunk drivers."
You make an excellent case that the War on Drugs has been effective.
So, why legalize drugs like alcohol?
Sorry professor and your readers who agree but you obviously don't have kids because if you did, you would not support legalizing drugs
Some kids sniff glue, drink alcohol, use prescription drugs, and even drink hand sanitizers and antifreeze. Do we make all those illegal too? Your failure to teach your kids is not anyone else's problem. But when those kids rob grandma to support their fix thanks to the high prices and very high profits grandma has a big problem.
The bottom line is that there is no moral argument that can be made for the use of force against competent adults engaging in voluntary transactions that do not harm others. If you buy pot from your buddy and smoke it, it is not anyone else's business but your own. Where will this stop? Will governments ration health care on the basis of the BMI and habits? Will it try to ban fatty foods, salt, pop, chocolate bars, and whatever else some busybody wants to regulate?
PFCT, don't you know many people high on drugs believe they drive better at 100 MPH than 65 MPH, particularly with kids in the car?
How many people do that? Isn't that a problem with people who don't get enough sleep, drink alcohol, or are simply young and stupid?
I don't know about you but I don't see many potheads getting in car accidents because they were impaired and drove too fast.
You make an excellent case that the War on Drugs has been effective.
So, why legalize drugs like alcohol?
Are you being sarcastic? Or just stupid?
People who are high have no interest in getting in a car and getting somewhere. They don't want to take their kids for a ride and drive fast. That is why they take drugs; to get away from reality and withdraw in their own little world. Given that your postings show that you are in another world of your own I take it that you must be on something too.
VangelV says: "I don't see many potheads getting in car accidents because they were impaired and drove too fast."
Maybe they're in prison getting in work accidents :)
VangelV says: "People who are high have no interest in getting in a car...That is why they take drugs; to get away from reality."
Maybe, that's why you don't see many "potheads" in traffic accidents, because they're getting into spaceships.
Sorry professor and your readers who agree but you obviously don't have kids because if you did, you would not support legalizing drugs.
My dear, keeping kids off drugs and keeping drugs illegal are two entirely unrelated things.
When you decriminalize something, you get more of it:
National survey shows a rise in illicit drug use from 2008 to 2010
SAMHSA
9/8/2011
"Emerging research reveals potential links between state laws permitting access to smoked medical marijuana and higher rates of marijuana use," said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy.
In 2010, 17.4 million Americans were current users of marijuana - compared to 14.4 million in 2007.
SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde: "...we must do everything we can to effectively promote prevention, treatment and recovery programs across our country."
Emerging research reveals potential links between state laws permitting access to smoked medical marijuana and higher rates of marijuana use," said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy....
I bring your attention to the word POTENTIAL. What you have given is a reference to a narrative. There is no logic. There is no empirical evidence. All you have is noise and nonsense.
"The war on drugs has caused more harm than the use of drugs"...
According to what credible source vangeIV?
"if you took every child harmed by a driver on drugs since ww2, it would likely be fewer than are harmed every year by drunk drivers, yet i do not hear you proposing we reinstate prohibition"...
Well morgaanovich I don't believe we know that because even now many of the road side accident investigations make no differentiation in whether it was alcohol or drugs that caused the problem or so I've been told by someone in the Missouri Highway Patrol...
This particular captain has been lobbying long and hard (and its been a wasted effort so far) better ways to determine accident causes...
I don't know if that's the same in every state but...
Relying on self-reporting again, Peak? I don't know how you don't tire of it.
I don't care if we get more self-reported drug use if drugs are decriminalized. Hell, I don't care if we get more ACTUAL drug use.
Most of the country consumes alcohol and most drivers don't get DUIs or get into any trouble at all.
More drug use does not mean more drug addition. And even if there were more drug addiction, I'd prefer it to the aggressive impulses of an evil state.
Methinks, when people consume illegal drugs, they commit or contribute to crimes, including murders, and cost society billions of dollars.
They're causing the problems, not "an evil state."
According to what credible source vangeIV?
The US government. It tells us that it has spent billions a year on the War on Drugs. It has filled the prisons with people who have not done anything to anyone else. It has killed hundreds of innocent people in botched raids. It has promoted the growth of violent gangs that terrorize poor neighbourhoods. It has furnished Mexican drug gangs with automatic weapons that have been used to kill US border agents. It has ruined lives.
Do you actually expect anyone with a brain to believe that, Peak? Alcohol didn't cause crime until it was criminalized.
Drugs also didn't cost billions until they were criminalized.
This isn't a country of alcoholics and it's not a country of drug addicts despite drugs being widely available. And as Morganovich points out, mostly widely available to the under-aged.
I can't believe you believe your own BS, let alone expect anyone else to buy it. You're meant to have some training in economics. You should understand what happens when demand must be met in the black market and you ought to know a little something about how black markets operate.
Well morgaanovich I don't believe we know that because even now many of the road side accident investigations make no differentiation in whether it was alcohol or drugs that caused the problem or so I've been told by someone in the Missouri Highway Patrol...
You wrote a stupid statement that you cannot support and now you claim that the data is not available? This is what happens when you make up stuff and make emotional arguments instead of sticking with the facts.
Methinks, when people consume illegal drugs, they commit or contribute to crimes, including murders, and cost society billions of dollars.
True. When drugs are made illegal prices go up and those who are addicted commit crimes, including murders. The war against drugs does cost society billions of dollars.
But that mostly goes away when drugs are legal. Prices drop sharply and one can get a fix for very little cash. That means that one does not have to rob your grandma or that dealers will not be killing each other for market share. Drug gangs do not get rich and terrorists do not get a lot of money out of the drug trade.
They're causing the problems, not "an evil state."
Cops break down a door and kill a man in his home. There were no drugs. They got the wrong address from a snitch looking to cut a deal. That seems evil to me.
The ATF sells guns to Mexican gangs. Those same guns wind up killing hundreds of Mexican civilians, Mexian police, and American border agents. That seems evil to me.
A judge sentences a kid who is smoking pot to jail time. Kid gets abused in jail and gets AIDS. That seems evil to me.
A cop decides to rob a drug dealer. He kills the dealer, takes the money and the drugs. Later on he sells those drugs to another dealer. That seems evil to me.
Drugs provide a lot of cash to terrorists who plot against the US. They buy the equipment necessary to make bombs and set them off. Some US soldiers out on patrol die. Others suffer gruesome injuries. The lives of those soldiers are taken away or ruined. Families fail. That seems evil to me.
The drug war has empowered police. They use their guns often and in many cases in reckless fashion. Each year they kill or injure hundreds of civilians, most of them innocent. It is not always their fault. When you give a 19-year-old kid a badge and a gun and send him out at night in some very scary areas they are bound to make stupid decisions even if they have the best of intentions and the best of character. But guns and badges are also given to power hungry kids with big chips on their shoulders. They wind up abusing the power and sometimes kill or injure the innocent. That seems evil to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methinks, you're the one who has been brainwashed into BS.
People who don't use illegal drugs aren't the problem.
The government responded to a growing drug problem in the '70s, and has likely prevented millions of drug users.
It's foolish to assume the costs of drug legalization will be limited to private costs.
Legalization will most likely increase drug use, which will not only increase private costs, but may result in a net increase of external costs, i.e. on those who don't use drugs.
If drug users can afford their private costs and external costs were small, I'd be for drug legalization.
It's foolish to assume the costs of drug legalization will be limited to private costs.
Costs? You mean savings, don't you? After all, your government spends billions on the War on Drugs, billions on prisons holding people who used drugs but never did anything else, billions on fighting well funded terrorists. If drugs were legalized the government would take in massive amounts of new revenues from users who would still wind up paying far less than they do today. Without the high margins there would be fewer violent crimes and fewer property crimes. The terrorists would find their biggest source of funding going away and would be in a lesser position to do harm.
Keep in mind that we have seen this story before with Prohibition. Legalizing alcohol stopped the property tax riots and allowed cities, states, and the federal government to take in huge amounts of new revenues even as consumers got access to a better product at a lower cost. And since the trip to the speakeasy did not mean taking risks people drank more responsibly because they could increase their trip frequency while drinking the same amount of alcohol. And let us not forget that the mob wars over alcohol went away.
Perhaps, instead of putting people in jail for illegal drug use, we could impose hefty fines based on income to finance what SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde said:
"...we must do everything we can to effectively promote prevention, treatment and recovery programs across our country."
"The US government. It tells us that it has spent billions a year on the War on Drugs. It has filled the prisons with people who have not done anything to anyone else...."...
Ahhh but the federal government doesn't say that at all, you say it vangeIV because that's your interpretation (replete with massive amounts of hyperbole) of the government info/propaganda regarding its war on drugs...
Ahhh but the federal government doesn't say that at all, you say it vangeIV because that's your interpretation (replete with massive amounts of hyperbole) of the government info/propaganda regarding its war on drugs...
It has nothing to do with MY interpretation. It is a known fact that heavily armed SWAT teams have killed many innocent people based on false information. It is a known fact that people who are not violent and have not committed property crimes have been jailed just for using or selling drugs. It is a fact that the ATF sold guns to Mexican drug gangs and that those guns were implicated in the deaths of Mexican civilians, police, and American border agents. It is a fact that terrorists get a great deal of money from the drug trade. It is a fact that the US government spends billions abroad in the fight against producers and billions more at home.
The Drug War has helped make the US into a police state where ordinary people are scared of the police. If that is your idea of success I hate to see what failure looks like.
Post a Comment
<< Home