Ex-officer: War on drugs 'far worse' than a failure

I dont know about you guys but that vehicle makes me smile from ear to ear

 

^ You are not kidding. Kurosawa, just to name a few.

 

I was half-joking, I mean i've watched subtitled movies (the japanese "lord of the flies"-esque one comes to mind) but
- i actually did have city of god and killed it for something else (surely because of subtitles..i watch movies @night, and have a drink most nights... surely/sadly this does affect the quality of a good portion of the media i consume), and
- everyone's missing tons of great movies, and it's hard to even be remotely up-to-date on good, must-see engrish films


City of God did come up on my radar again recently during a download spree (based on IMDB's(fuck imdb though) top 250), am now going to dl and actually watch this afternoon as this is an off/movie day for me anyways

 

There are even bad movies worth watching. Old films are sometimes the best. There are so many films you could watch that would totally change what you think a film should be.

 

Cannot agree enough, that's why I try to get to "top 100 all time" lists now&then, to supplement the shit I naturally gravitate towards
[edit- I watched my all-time favorite - Scarface - for the 1st time after renting someone the dvd, their disbelief I hadn't seen it, and verifying it via AFI's top100 list ]

 

30sec into City of God, and taking a piss break because it looks like they're gonna shoot a kid for catching the chicken.
/won't make 10min if it's that gritty...i prefer docu's to films for that type of 'fuct'

 

How can legalization increase drug consumption and related social problems ??

The world is awash with illicit drugs already .

The cop is absolutely correct in that prohibition creates organized crime and the associated social problems. Removing the profit incentive is the only way to tackle the crime .

Continued prohibition cannot improve the problem - things can only continue to become increasingly worse as time progresses .

 

Drugs are estimated to account for 37% of the $870 billion dollar organized criminal market.

Drugs being controlled did not literally start organized crime or related societal problems.

Things may be getting worse now, but they have gotten better and worse over time.

 

fwiw, lrg organizations that take a 37% loss, and can be actively targetted by LE for the remainder of their activities, are unlikely to have any power afterwards.

Drugs being controlled did not literally start organized crime or related societal problems.

We could split hairs about what constitues 'organized' crime but really it's hard to say that tossing such lucrative industries into largely-criminal groups to act as distributors (whether alcohol back then, or narcotics now) doesn't make them, at a minimum, more 'organized' There were plenty of gangs before alcohol prohibition and before the war on drugs, but these prohibitions made them into legitimately 'organized', powerful organizations in a way they'd never ever have achieved otherwise. Even the 'unorganized', local/small-time, groups (ie, local gangs) can amass decent $ by exploiting the artificially-sustained (via the WoD) returns, which in-turn allows them to function and stay alive in ways that'd be impossible w/o drug money.
(as example, the zeta cartel aren't just about drugs, but it's a huge part of their income. Legalization wouldn't shut down their org, it'd just significantly reduce the personnel needed (and their profits obviously); However, there are many many smaller orgs that are entirely focused on drugs and, w/o prohibition, they'd cease to exist mostly - surely some would go to breaking into cars or muggings, but a majority would not, at least in the US. A massive proportion of dealers here are only criminal in the sense of selling drugs and are averse to real crime ie robberies/etc )

Things may be getting worse now, but they have gotten better and worse over time.

Could you elaborate what you mean here? Am unsure what this is getting at it's so vague..

 

Wish I could have been there for this, live about ten minutes from Slippery Rock. At least this guy gets it.

 

Drugs had been prohibited long long long before anything you are taking about, since the end of the dark ages (the start of history basically). Organized crime has been taking money, literally by the boatload, for centuries and countries fought economic wars with drugs and fought in wars while on drugs.

"Continued prohibition cannot improve the problem - things can only continue to become increasingly worse as time progresses."

Is this vague?

 

The complete legalization of drugs will result in millions more people using drugs," he said. "The rest of us are going to have to pay for that damage.

This sort of quote make me wonder for this persons sanity. People who are interested in drugs partake of them irrespective of legal status (imho) and people who aren't interested dont. Chaning the legal status is not going to make someone who has no interest in drugs suddenly become a frenzied pot head.

 

Drugs had been prohibited long long long before anything you are taking about, since the end of the dark ages (the start of history basically). Organized crime has been taking money, literally by the boatload, for centuries and countries fought economic wars with drugs and fought in wars while on drugs.

Drugs' legality have gone back/forth through history, as has organized crime. That doesn't change that in this day&age, what we refer to by 'organized crime' in threads such as these, are groups who would lose incredible amounts of power, or outright implode, w/o money from the drug trade. Do you disagree w/ that? Because it was the entirety of my prior post, which was responding to your saying drugs didn't start organized crime. I was speaking of scope/magnitude, hope that's clear now. For illustration's sake, consider current-day mexico: sure, there were gangs before, but due directly to the drug war the violence there is unprecedented. This much I'm sure you agree w/, and that is the essence of what I was trying to get across.

 

Drugs' legality have gone back/forth through history, as has organized crime. That doesn't change that in this day&age, what we refer to by 'organized crime' in threads such as these, are groups who would lose incredible amounts of power, or outright implode, w/o money from the drug trade. Do you disagree w/ that? Because it was the entirety of my prior post, which was responding to your saying drugs didn't start organized crime. I was speaking of scope/magnitude, hope that's clear now. For illustration's sake, consider current-day mexico: sure, there were gangs before, but due directly to the drug war the violence there is unprecedented. This much I'm sure you agree w/, and that is the essence of what I was trying to get across.

Do you consider something changing every half a millennium as going back and forth?

I am talking about drug use in the 20th and 21st century, for which we have information on, that has had several ups and downs over decades. But staying consistently lower following prohibition.

I do not disagree if you claim to use a limited definition of organized crime but you should just use the definition all the readers will understand.

Organized crime found drugs easy and profitable, but organized crime existed and was profitable before certain drugs were made illegal.

 

omg never mind, I'm not sure if you're trying to be obtuse or we're just talking past each other.. Drug prohibition gives organized crime more money, allowing/encouraging more ppl to join into it. End of story.

 

Drugs are estimated to account for 37% of the $870 billion dollar organized criminal market.

Drugs being controlled did not literally start organized crime or related societal problems.

*estimated..

The only drugs being controlled in this country are nicotine and alcohol. Poorly controlled, at that. You're using the word control in the same way the word enforcement is used by the DEA.. Prohibition prevents regulation. theres overwhelming observable, documented proof. Also- refer to our country's attempts at prohibition of weed/booze in the 1920s/ 30s.

 

*estimated..

The only drugs being controlled in this country are nicotine and alcohol. Poorly controlled, at that. You're using the word control in the same way the word enforcement is used by the DEA.. Prohibition prevents regulation. theres overwhelming observable, documented proof. Also- refer to our country's attempts at prohibition of weed/booze in the 1920s/ 30s.

You've got yourself totally confused.

 

omg never mind, I'm not sure if you're trying to be obtuse or we're just talking past each other.. Drug prohibition gives organized crime more money, allowing/encouraging more ppl to join into it. End of story.

How do you know either of those things are true?

 

How do you know either of those things are true?

facepalm

 

Do you consider something changing every half a millennium as going back and forth?

I am talking about drug use in the 20th and 21st century, for which we have information on, that has had several ups and downs over decades. But staying consistently lower following prohibition.

I do not disagree if you claim to use a limited definition of organized crime but you should just use the definition all the readers will understand.

Organized crime found drugs easy and profitable, but organized crime existed and was profitable before certain drugs were made illegal.

Why shouldn't we take away one its easiest money makers. Even if drug use is down after prohibition, I dont buy this at all if we were to take all drugs legal and illegal I bet we would find that use is up, the violence and number of lives ruined caused by the drug war makes this point pretty much mute.

 

You've got yourself totally confused.

please, enlighten me buddha.