Prohibition Has Failed

drug_mentor

drug_mentor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
7,533
Location
Melbourne, Australia
By Alan Howe
October 2009

EVEN among the bulging annals of American improbability, this meeting was right up there.

The two most famous faces on the planet joined in a war on drugs -- the War on Terror of its day.

Since mid-1969, US president Richard Nixon had toyed with the notion of declaring drugs public enemy No.1.

Then, late in 1970, he received a surprise call from the King. Not a phone call. Elvis Presley turned up, uninvited, at the White House asking to see the president.

"I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and communist brainwashing techniques,'' he told the fascinated Nixon.

"And I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good . . . the drug culture, the hippie elements, Black Panthers, etc, do not consider me as their enemy, or as they call it The Establishment. I call it America and I love it, sir."

He asked to be made a Federal Agent at Large. Nixon presented him with the badge. Elvis presented Nixon with a World War II-era Colt 45, the pair nicely ticking off America's twin evils.

Nixon kept the meeting secret for a time and months later launched his offensive against the drugs scourge.

What a dream ticket: Presley, the biggest rock star of all time, would be dead in just over six years, having consumed 19,000 doses of sedatives, stimulants and narcotics in his last 30 months; the gin-soaked Nixon, sometimes too drunk to take calls from other world leaders, liked to pop a mood-altering prescription drug called Dilantin, illegally supplied to him in 1000-capsule bottles.

The US war on drugs is estimated to have cost more than $1 trillion -- more than enough money to put Osama bin Laden on the moon. It puts a million Americans in jail each year.

Plenty of Australians are jailed each year, too, for possessing and using illegal drugs.

1In a little-publicised contribution to Kevin Rudd's 2020 summit last year, Brisbane doctor Wendell Rosevear, who has worked in the prison system for decades, called for all drugs to be legalised. He believes the billions of dollars spent in Australia on policing, convicting and jailing addicts and their suppliers should be spent on drug intervention and education programs.

"Drugs are illegal, so we put people in jail to solve the problem and we label people who use drugs as bad -- it doesn't make them feel valuable,'' he said. "If we think we can just put it out of sight, out of mind, we are actually devaluing people and not solving the problem.''

Given that the West's various wars on drugs have failed so miserably, perhaps we should look more closely at Rosevear's proposals.

Certainly, he is not alone. Arriving in Australia today is Norm Stamper, the legendary former chief of the Seattle police, and also a campaigner for legalisation of all drugs.

Stamper is being hosted by the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, which believes we can minimise the damage from the drugs trade -- the violence, property crimes and deadly infectious diseases, not to mention the dizzying and untaxed profits being made by Australia's drug gangs -- if we relax our laws.

"That America proclaimed drugs public enemy No.1 and declared all-out war on them I now see as a colossal mistake,'' Stamper said from Washington state at the weekend as he prepared for his trip.

"The war was not against drugs so much as it was against people,'' he said.
"Particularly people of colour, and young people and poor people.

"We've incarcerated tens of millions of non-violent drug offenders and yet drugs are more readily available, at lower prices and higher levels of potency than when we declared war against them.''

I'd call that failure. He does. You'd probably agree.

Stamper is a prominent member of a 13,000-strong international organisation called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that includes current and former police officers, district attorneys, drug enforcement administration officers, homeland security agents, prosecutors, judges and prison wardens who want an end to the prohibition of now-illegal drugs.

They see the lessons of the US Prohibition 90 years ago being forgotten. Back then, alcohol manufacture, sale and transportation were outlawed. It barely affected consumption, but it led to deeply rooted criminal systems being established and crime rates soaring as demand was met, albeit illegally. Like it is with serious drugs today.

STAMPER sees "softer'' drugs, such as marijuana, being decriminalised first, and when lessons are learned, harder drugs following suit.

Having worked in San Diego, he has first-hand experience of the Mexico towns that are now are the front line of the drug cartel wars for control of the lucrative drugs trade.

Ideally, Stamper sees the state growing, manufacturing and controlling the supply of drugs, although LEAP does not have a view on this.

Of course, that's a much stricter regime than we have for the manufacture and sale of alcohol, notwithstanding the alcohol-fuelled violence that so regularly sees injury and death on Melbourne streets.
Click to expand...

http://theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2009/10/jeepers-heraldsun-says-prohibition-has.html
 
Everyone likes to point out how hypocritical it is to drink alcohol and use RX drugs while pursuing drug prohibition, and while it is there is no way Nixon saw it that way. No one at the time considered RX meds as part of "the drug problem", so its unfair to single him out.

He wasn't aware of his hypocritical actions.
 
garuda said:
everyone likes to point out how hypocritical it is to drink alcohol and use rx drugs while pursuing drug prohibition, and while it is there is no way nixon saw it that way. No one at the time considered rx meds as part of "the drug problem", so its unfair to single him out.

He wasn't aware of his hypocritical actions.
Click to expand...

8) .
 
Miss Hollywood said:
8) .
Click to expand...


Yea I know, in the unenviable situation of defending Nixon8o

LOL but for real there is no way at all Nixon made the connection, no one else at the time did either. Things change, attitudes change.

It would be like asking how many gay marriage advocates were there in the 70s, it just wasn't on the radar or on anyones mind. Neither was RX drug abuse.
 
So if I wasn't aware that I commited a crime and I did I would get aquitted of a charge at trial? 8). If he didn't know it was hypocritical to take perscriptions w/o a script he's an idiot, narcotics were prescription only for decades before the CSA was made.

Have you ever read junkie? Rx abuse was very common in the 30s-60s.
 
Thanks for sharing this, I had no idea someone put forward drug law reform to K. Rudd's 2020 summit. Good on them.
 
Dilantin and booze sounds like a bad idea. What are the benefits of it besides seizure prevention?

BTW, back when we had a poll in NEMD about The Beatles vs. Elvis, this is exactly why I am a Beatles man.
 
Former Nixon aides are skeptical that he self medicated with Dilantin even though it was given to him by Jack Dreyfus, founder of the Dreyfus Fund and an avid promoter of the drug.

I'm not defending Nixon. I just don't believe everything that's written in tell-all for-profit books.
 
It's obvious prohibition doesn't work. The concept is completely limited in the way that it denies a person the rights to their own body. Tax these so called harmful substances and abolish the double standards which legal tobacco and alcohol have effectively created. Decades and absurd amounts of money have been wasted on incarcerating individuals for unlawful acts which would be incomparable to most crimes if the illicit substances in question were legal. Amending current acts would most definitely not solve the drug crisis our world is facing but it is a giant move towards educating and accessing truthful information.
 
at this point if you don't know prohibition is a total failure no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to change their mind so whats the point?
 
AfterGlow said:
Former Nixon aides are skeptical that he self medicated with Dilantin even though it was given to him by Jack Dreyfus, founder of the Dreyfus Fund and an avid promoter of the drug.

I'm not defending Nixon. I just don't believe everything that's written in tell-all for-profit books.
Click to expand...

Is dilantin even recreational? It looks like ancient Lyrica or Neurontin, its not a narcotic or stimulant or euphoric sedative. Is it hypocrisy if you're not taking it for recreational reasons? I've known lots of people that were anti-drug, but would gladly take a RX pill from a friend if they actually needed it for a medical reason.

No if they were anti-drug and were taking drugs just to get high, yea thats a hypocrite.
 
Dilantin is in no way recreational so that part of the article is retarted. Why he didn't just get it prescribed, idk but he wasn't taking it to get high.
 
garuda said:
... I've known lots of people that were anti-drug, but would gladly take a RX pill from a friend if they actually needed it for a medical reason.
Click to expand...

taking any drug for any reason, unless it is not specifically prescribed to you for a specific medical purpose, is "drug abuse." taking any medication except as explicitly prescribed is "drug abuse." also, giving your prescription meds to another person, for any reason, is a crime. so yes, its still hypocrisy.
 
tathra said:
taking any drug for any reason, unless it is not specifically prescribed to you for a specific medical purpose, is "drug abuse." taking any medication except as explicitly prescribed is "drug abuse." also, giving your prescription meds to another person, for any reason, is a crime. so yes, its still hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

:X how can u say taking drugs prescribed for u isnt drug abuse?
your still abusing them it's just the law condones it

so your saying if ur prescribed some type of medication for an injury and u get over it and still have the medication it isnt drug abuse because u were originally prescribed it%)
 
taking drugs prescribed to you exactly as prescribed certainly is not "drug abuse." taking drugs ONLY exactly as prescribed is the only way to take them and not "abuse" them
if your script says to take 1 vicodin every 6 hours, but you take 2, or take them every 4 hours, you are a "drug abuser" because you are taking them in a manner that differs from how they are prescribed.

i'm not the one who sees it this way. its fucking retard politicians and the idiots at rehab facilities. i'm just telling you what i've been told by doctors and psychologists. i think its fucking stupid to see it that way (because it is)

i like the DSM IV criteria better
A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
  • Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
  • Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
  • Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct)
  • Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)
B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence for this class of substance.
Click to expand...
 
tathra said:
taking any drug for any reason, unless it is not specifically prescribed to you for a specific medical purpose, is "drug abuse." taking any medication except as explicitly prescribed is "drug abuse." also, giving your prescription meds to another person, for any reason, is a crime. so yes, its still hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I agree with this. Some fo what you described sounds like drug USE, not drug abuse.

I know society likes to refer to any illicit drug use as "abuse," but I think society is wrong to do so.
 
The war on drugs is an epic failure. They spend so much money trying to stop the unstoppable. Money that they can put to more constructive things. Such as health care or infrastructure repair. As long as there is a demand there will always be a supply. When are they going to realize this and give up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top