the US drug policy and its failures

I originally posted this as a response to the government security clearance thread but decided to start my own thread.

I think it is unbelievable that our entire DEA group is mainly composed of people that have never touched a drug in their life. How are they supposed to know the true realities about drugs if they have never experienced it themselves. The propagandist bullshit that is constantly spewed out by the DEA is sickening sometimes. Their focus is in the wrong direction in every single part of the drug trade.

Why devote so much money to anti-weed campaigns? Why focus our countries efforts and moneys on arresting users...they are not the ones that are supplying the drug industry.

The no-tolerance policy implement by the government is obviously not working, a different approach needs to be taken.

comments

The US drug policy is flawed for one major reason:

prohibition.

The government hasnt learned from history, and as recent events have shown with gambOOling it pretty much hasnt the brains too either.

Saying that tolerance is not the way to go either. The easiest way to stop the flow of drugs into america woul be to stop the conflicts raging in south america, specifically columbia and to pump cash into these areas to create industy, commerce etc.
Once America actually starts to help people improve their own lives, other people wont have such a need to flog coca plants to simply stay alive.

But then bombs look much better dont they? :(

US politicians dont seem to understand that it doesnt matter if N korea or Iran have differing politics from themselves, its whether these regimes are stable or not.
Drug trafficking is fuelled by gorillas/extremist groups needing to produce cash to buy weapons/fund terrorist operations etc. This is why columbia is a drug haven and afganistan is becoming one. (fwiw, under the taliban opium production in afganistan was reduced 90% in 6months by the taliban as negotiations opened for them to be recognised as a govt t he united nations, I SHIT YOU NOT)
10 years of US/UN work did nothing to stop production but the taliban did it in 6months.

Morale: just becuase you dont like someone, dont invade them. If their country is fucked up, sure go in and fix it, but if the country is stable (even if bad) leave it be. Saddam was totally against 9/11, and america still sees it as a terror 'hotspot' as does Mr STupid Blair.
All the reaction to 9/11 has done is create the next nest for anti-western groups to use, probably for a nuclear attack next time :shock:

@rant over@

I honestly think tolerance probably is the answer. Tolerance and education. Coke is becoming very popular again. I could be wrong, but I attribute this to the false claims about weed. Going into thier teenage years everyone had this stuff beat into thier head about weed being horrible ect ect. Then they are in situations where most of the people they do have done it or are doing it. All of thier freinds seem fine, they just get hungry and find stuff funny. Also there seems to be no long term effects. Then people try it and find out its nothing liek what was described to them by thier schools and parents. Now these same kids are heading for thier 20's and a lot of people around them have done or are doing coke. See the problem?

Quote:

---

Drug trafficking is fuelled by gorillas

---

This made me giggle. Someone just tell Mr. Bush - Think of all the tax money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toe

Quote:

---

Drug trafficking is fuelled by gorillas

---

This made me giggle. Someone just tell Mr. Bush - Think of all the tax money.

---

heh I always make this mistake too..

I fully agree too.

There's a lot of un-truths surrounding drug policy at every level of government in this country.

Viriginia Tech recently tried to alter drug policy with respect to marijuana becuase prior rules were that possession of it = the permenant boot from school. No exceptions. Alcohol, of course, has a 3 strike policy. People complained becuase they didn't want to see VT be soft on drug use. The whole thing really gets to me.

And all this is becuase alcohol is a more socially acceptable high than marijuana when in my opinion marijuana is much more mild and less dangerous.

Anyone see the latest Rolling Stone? The photos on p. 58 & 59 give me a stiffy.

The most ridiculous thing to me is when the DEA starts forging reports and experiements. They released many false document pertaining to the effects of ecstasy, they then followed this up with a huge campaign parading the so called "results" of the experiment.

When a seperate organization conducted the same experiment and put tremondous pressure on our government they admitted the substance tested was methamphetamine a compound with a similar structure to MDMA but completley different.

This admission was kept low key and the majority of the public has been brain washed by this. I am not defending drugs right here, but my point is how is it that the agency that makes drug laws lies to the public and expects the educated population to agree with their methods and decisions.

How is this agency composed of people that their knowledge of drugs solely comes from the slanted opinion of the government that has taught them everything they know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz

The most ridiculous thing to me is when the DEA starts forging reports and experiements. They released many false document pertaining to the effects of ecstasy, they then followed this up with a huge campaign parading the so called "results" of the experiment.

---

This is standard. It's well-known that the anti-drug campaign is based on lies and half-truths. I recently heard an anti-smoking advocacy group claim that 30 seconds of exposure to secondhand smoke gives you the same risk of heart disease as a lifetime smoker. I don't think very many people on this board will disagree with you on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz

The most ridiculous thing to me is when the DEA starts forging reports and experiements. They released many false document pertaining to the effects of ecstasy, they then followed this up with a huge campaign parading the so called "results" of the experiment.

---

This is standard. It's well-known that the anti-drug campaign is based on lies and half-truths. I recently heard an anti-smoking advocacy group claim that 30 seconds of exposure to secondhand smoke gives you the same risk of heart disease as a lifetime smoker. I don't think very many people on this board will disagree with you on this issue.

---

right, but the problem is that most people really dont see through this bullshit. Its sad, but most people will happily go along with this crap because its being fed to them by the gov't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I fully agree too.

There's a lot of un-truths surrounding drug policy at every level of government in this country.

Viriginia Tech recently tried to alter drug policy with respect to marijuana becuase prior rules were that possession of it = the permenant boot from school. No exceptions. Alcohol, of course, has a 3 strike policy. People complained becuase they didn't want to see VT be soft on drug use. The whole thing really gets to me.

And all this is becuase alcohol is a more socially acceptable high than marijuana when in my opinion marijuana is much more mild and less dangerous.

---

I think, from your school's perspective, it has a lot more to do with one being a legal substance and the other an illegal one. Obviously weed is less harmful to the human body then alcohol but it's not going to be legal anytime soon because it can't be effectively taxed like alcohol. Alcohol would be illegal in the US if the government if the tax on it wasn't so lucrative for the gov't. I don't smoke, but this is very simple stuff.

eric youre probably right, but this is what all the outrage is about. Its not illegal for any reason that it should be illegal.

Drug policy is something Ive taken a huge interest in and I think is one of the biggest policy mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, of not just the United States but of the "free" world.

Best book on the subject Ive read is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Laws-Have...e=UTF8&s=books

If you guys are interested in the issue you should really check that out and if you know somebody who is an avid proponent of the war on drugs have them read it as well. If they can think for themselves, they most likely wont hold the same opinion afterwards.

this book looks good, maybe I should read it, I think I would like it.

Just don't do meth and heroin...other drugs are quite controllable without the severe health risks that come with these two...People with self destructive behavious and personal problems should stay clear of all drugs including alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Drug policy is something Ive taken a huge interest in and I think is one of the biggest policy mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, of not just the United States but of the "free" world.

Best book on the subject Ive read is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Laws-Have...e=UTF8&s=books

If you guys are interested in the issue you should really check that out and if you know somebody who is an avid proponent of the war on drugs have them read it as well. If they can think for themselves, they most likely wont hold the same opinion afterwards.

---

this book had better say that world opinion has gone through a circular pattern of banning and then unbanning widespread drug use otherwise its wrong.
Current research suggests that the next 50-odd years will see legalisation again of many substances because govts (specifically the US) will be tied up in other areas (middle east, protecting oil supplies specifically) but when the oil runs out US strategy is expected to take on a south american interest and drug policys will again become prohibitive, perhaps permanently so, buts that all 'lala' talk from uni professors and whatnot.

fwiw, i still think legalisation and taxation > prohibition but i think drug/alcohol related crime (i.e drunk driving/driving under drugs) should have severe consequences, i.e take your driving license permanently and/or lock you up for a couple years. hence, using drugs is fine but screwing up in life under drugs = getting owned hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

this book had better say that world opinion has gone through a circular pattern of banning and then unbanning widespread drug use otherwise its wrong.

---

I agree and this thread is a good example of how this is already happening. Most of us are still young and not one of us agrees with the US government's drug policy. I think that bodes well for drug policy becoming a lot less strict in the future.

We turn into our dads though, don't forget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz

I think it is unbelievable that our entire DEA group is mainly composed of people that have never touched a drug in their life. How are they supposed to know the true realities about drugs if they have never experienced it themselves.

---

I generally agree with you, but this statement is just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Just don't do meth and heroin...other drugs are quite controllable without the severe health risks that come with these two...

---

There are plenty of others: K, GHB, crack...

Don't forget about the support the DEA receives from the jesus loving right-wingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Drug policy is something Ive taken a huge interest in and I think is one of the biggest policy mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, of not just the United States but of the "free" world.

Best book on the subject Ive read is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Laws-Have...e=UTF8&s=books

If you guys are interested in the issue you should really check that out and if you know somebody who is an avid proponent of the war on drugs have them read it as well. If they can think for themselves, they most likely wont hold the same opinion afterwards.

---

this book had better say that world opinion has gone through a circular pattern of banning and then unbanning widespread drug use otherwise its wrong.
Current research suggests that the next 50-odd years will see legalisation again of many substances because govts (specifically the US) will be tied up in other areas (middle east, protecting oil supplies specifically) but when the oil runs out US strategy is expected to take on a south american interest and drug policys will again become prohibitive, perhaps permanently so, buts that all 'lala' talk from uni professors and whatnot.

fwiw, i still think legalisation and taxation > prohibition but i think drug/alcohol related crime (i.e drunk driving/driving under drugs) should have severe consequences, i.e take your driving license permanently and/or lock you up for a couple years. hence, using drugs is fine but screwing up in life under drugs = getting owned hard.

---

So this book has to say that or its wrong? Wrong about what? The book discusses the current state of drug prohibition and a prohibition scheme will never work. If you want to read a book that discusses world drug law then read, "Drug War Heresies" by MacCoun and Reuter, the book I suggested earlier doesn't do that.

Regardless, I still dont understand that original statement you made "this book had BETTTER say this or else!" Honestly man, wtf? The book is about US drug policy NOW, not speculation of changes because of military and government overstretch, but about the flaws of the current policy.