Why Drugs Should Be Legalised

[edgarshade]

Sabotage Times

3 April 2011 | 18:27

With reader comments

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/life/why-drugs-should-be-legalised/

If taking mind altering substances is an innate part of human nature, should we really be outlawing drugs?

In the same month that Obama renewed his commitment to the War on Drugs in Latin America, the British establishment is starting to openly question the winability of such a war.

On 21 March it was reported that “leading peers – including prominent Tories – say that despite governments worldwide drawing up tough laws against dealers and users over the past 50 years, illegal drugs have become more accessible.” And this isn’t just some crank MPs in the Palace of Westminster looking for an eye-catching crusade. These MPs and members of the House of Lords include former heads of MI5 and the Crown Prosecution Service.

They are part of a recently formed All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform and these unlikely advocates of Freak Power are calling for new policies to be drawn up on the basis of scientific evidence.

It probably won’t come as a surprise to some readers that this writer might have an opinion on the drugs question…

Now, former altar-boy that he is, the Croppy has no truck personally with this kind of degenerate behaviour but can’t help nevertheless, approaching this dilemma through the application of simple first principles.

Of course, for all the people who see themselves as right-thinking, but who don’t enquire too deeply once their Daily Mail dogma takes hold, the knee-jerk response seems to be that ‘Drugs are bad so they should be illegal’.

 

[anarchogen]

wut

 

[Mora Fiend]

I like any article written by a paper with 'Sabotage' in it's name.

 

[TheLostBoys]

The clowns & corporations that run this country want to control us like robots. They wanna know what is going on in every aspect of your life & if you do anything to break the law using or dealing drugs, they will come after you even tho these clowns are the same people allowing the big shipments of drugs. Its a revolving door/cash business for everyone, cops, judges, lawyers, politicians, senators, prisons, probation officers, etc....,they all have their hands & they all want their share of the money.

They will not upset the flowing cash machine because we complain that the war isnt winnable, they already know & knew it was never winnable & thats the way they like it. Only people here making real money are the players in this game in high places. They themselves do drugs & make money while doing it. The rest of us are pawns in a game where we are considered expendable.

 

[ATLL765]

The problem in the US is that we practically let the industry write the laws that regulate them and nobody in the gov't says shit about it because they're the ones who get these politicians elected by funding their campaigns. Honestly, I don't feel like commercial enterprises should be allowed to donate to political campaigns. I feel like private donations should be the sole way of contributing to campaigns, better yet, they should all have to be anonymous. That's the only way to make it as hard as possible for the politician to be biased towards an industry or a particular company ala Bush and Enron.

The problem with getting drugs legalized lies solely with the people in this country having been brainwashed by DARE programs and scare tactics used by the partnership for a drug free america. Things like the above the influence commercials are just there to scare kids into not using drugs, it's ridiculous to demonize something inanimate like drugs. It's not like drugs are communists coming to destroy our society, their just simple substances. Nothing will change until the people educate themselves with the truths of drug use, both the good and bad effects of their use. People will see, but they have to open their eyes or have their eyes opened somehow. I just wish I knew how to do that.

 

[TheLostBoys]

The problem in the US is that we practically let the industry write the laws that regulate them and nobody in the gov't says shit about it because they're the ones who get these politicians elected by funding their campaigns. Honestly, I don't feel like commercial enterprises should be allowed to donate to political campaigns. I feel like private donations should be the sole way of contributing to campaigns, better yet, they should all have to be anonymous. That's the only way to make it as hard as possible for the politician to be biased towards an industry or a particular company ala Bush and Enron.

The problem with getting drugs legalized lies solely with the people in this country having been brainwashed by DARE programs and scare tactics used by the partnership for a drug free america. Things like the above the influence commercials are just there to scare kids into not using drugs, it's ridiculous to demonize something inanimate like drugs. It's not like drugs are communists coming to destroy our society, their just simple substances. Nothing will change until the people educate themselves with the truths of drug use, both the good and bad effects of their use. People will see, but they have to open their eyes or have their eyes opened somehow. I just wish I knew how to do that.

You would need a revolution type atmosphere by the people demanding legalization of drugs for there to be any sort of change.

 

[jspun]

Governments job should be to protect us against enemies, foreign and domestic, not our selves. We, as human beings are entitled to certain rights, laws of nature created by natures creator as you understand him (or don't understand him.) To be deprived of these rights is an unatural state of being. Atleast this was the position of the Founding Fathers of the USA when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the cornerstone that this Republic was founded on and a legal document that supersedes other legal documents and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were formulated to establish a system of government that ensures these natural laws could exist unfetered in an egalitarian society made up of Free Men for them and our posterity.

So to quote the first part of the DOI

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The problem is that in our over 300 year history, we have deviated from the principles of The Founding Fathers, with disasterous consequences. The Swiss Confederation in 1840 modeled their confederation on the USA's. Unlike us, they didn't stray far from the principles their country was built on and they are doing excellent as a result.

for this reason the war on drugs is UnAmerican, by definition. Its expensive, and in pragmatic terms. The fact that the government was willing to stop paying military families of the US Military while not thinking twice about continuing the war on drugs is criminal.

Here is an exerpt from a symposium that Joseph D McNamara, former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City. He gained noteriety as being one of the only actve public officials to speak out against the Drug War. He should know what he's talking about, as chief of police, I'm sure he was privy to inider info (1076-1992). During his tenure San Jose was ranked by the FBI as the safest city in the USA. By contrast, Bill Gates, who was the chief of LAPD at the time and believed that drug users should be executed for treason (he actually stated this publically) saw widespread violence on his watch leading up to the Rodney King riot.

1. Wm F. Buckley Jr. 2. Ethan A. Nadelmann 3. Kurt Schmoke 4. Joseph D. McNamara 5. Robert W. Sweet 6. Thomas Szasz 7. Steven B. Duke

4. Joseph D. McNamara

We turned next to a former police chief-Mr. McNamara was chief of police in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif.-to inquire into the special problems of the war on drugs on the street. Mr. McNamara, who has a doctorate in public administration from Harvard, is the author of four books on policing and is currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

T'S THE money, stupid." After 35 years as a police officer in three of the country's largest cities, that is my message to the righteous politicians who obstinately proclaim that a war on drugs will lead to a drug free America. About $500 worth of heroin or cocaine in a source country will bring in as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. All the cops, armies, prisons, and executions in the world cannot impede a market with that kind of tax-free profit margin. It is the illegality that permits the obscene markup, enriching drug traffickers, distributors, dealers, crooked cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers, businessmen.

Naturally, these people are against reform of the drug laws. Drug crooks align themselves with their avowed enemies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, in opposing drug reform. They - are joined by many others with vested economic interests. President Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex that would elevate the defense budget unnecessarily. That military-industrial complex pales in comparison to the host of industries catering to our national puritanical hypocrisy-researchers willing to tell the government what it wants to hear, prison builders, correction and parole officers' associations, drug-testing companies, and dubious purveyors of anti-drug education. Mayor Schmoke is correct about the vested interests in the drug war....

http://www.drugtext.org/library/spec...ugs/wodmcn.htm

1. Wm F. Buckley Jr. 2. Ethan A. Nadelmann 3. Kurt Schmoke 4. Joseph D. McNamara 5. Robert W. Sweet 6. Thomas Szasz 7. Steven B. Duke

4. Joseph D. McNamara

We turned next to a former police chief-Mr. McNamara was chief of police in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif.-to inquire into the special problems of the war on drugs on the street. Mr. McNamara, who has a doctorate in public administration from Harvard, is the author of four books on policing and is currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

T'S THE money, stupid." After 35 years as a police officer in three of the country's largest cities, that is my message to the righteous politicians who obstinately proclaim that a war on drugs will lead to a drug free America. About $500 worth of heroin or cocaine in a source country will bring in as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. All the cops, armies, prisons, and executions in the world cannot impede a market with that kind of tax-free profit margin. It is the illegality that permits the obscene markup, enriching drug traffickers, distributors, dealers, crooked cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers, businessmen.

Naturally, these people are against reform of the drug laws. Drug crooks align themselves with their avowed enemies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, in opposing drug reform. They - are joined by many others with vested economic interests. President Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex that would elevate the defense budget unnecessarily. That military-industrial complex pales in comparison to the host of industries catering to our national puritanical hypocrisy-researchers willing to tell the government what it wants to hear, prison builders, correction and parole officers' associations, drug-testing companies, and dubious purveyors of anti-drug education. Mayor Schmoke is correct about the vested interests in the drug war....

http://www.drugtext.org/library/spec...ugs/wodmcn.htm

McNamara is curently on the Faculty of Stanford University. Despite his position, he is still well respected in the LEO community, a suprising fraction of which are disillusioned with the Drug War. But a couple people suffer at your and my expense (if you are a US tax payer.)

Unfortunately, the war on drugs is escalating. Police corruption is on the rise, money laundering is bid in ths country, and tens of thousands are dying in a war against the cartels that are armed primarily by guns made in the USA.

This drug war is being perpetuated by fascist and commie scum so a few power special interst groups get rich. So I DONT ADVOCATE VIOLENT REVOLUTION. But we need to start at the polls- consider voting for a third party, no vote is a wasted vote. Then we can tell our friends, make use of the internet. If protest becomes necessary it should be done peacefully so that we obtain the moral high ground. Lobbying for harm reduction is a good way to start. But an unconditional surrender in the drug war is the ultimate form of harm reduction.

The caveat here, though, is from my standpoint its not the government's responsibility to bail out people if they choose to abuse drugs- but their are plenty of private organizations, 12 step meetings and others that are free and effective if the addict truly wants to get clean. But medicalizing drug abuse is cheaper than the current punitive approach in this country and its territories (possession of a joint in The American Samoa is punished by a 2 year sentence in prison, the result of the Ice problem that has infected the pacific, North and South.