Failed prohibition

[Vrede too]

I'll have a go. First, I support de-criminalizing use of drugs, not legalizing. There's a difference. I support keeping restrictions on purchase and distribution of those products considered "controlled substances." But as billy.p has clearly stated numerous times, illegality creates a black market - always has, always will. And that creates criminal enterprises involving a lot of money. Criminal enterprises involving a lot of money get people killed.
An addictive user has a medical/health problem. If the use is criminalized, the user likely won't get help - and if I'm not mistaken it's even illegal for a health professional to help a user without turning him/her in. If you want to address the root problem of addiction and whatever leads to it, you won't be able to by treating it as a crime.

Just like the NRA slogan - when drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs. In fact, the best argument for not having severe restrictions on possession/sale of various firearms is the creation of a gun-running black market without much reduction in the availability of guns.

Same principle applies to controlled substances. If it's illegal, you can't control it at all, and you can't address root causes of addiction.

Of course, Leo Lyons question has been answered scores of times over the years here and even in this topic over the last day. He may disagree with the answers and the consistent science presented, but for him to pretend they don't exist is chronic dishonesty, terminal stupidity and/or severe drunkenness.

Considering ONLY the outcomes of prohibition---NO effect on "addiction, overdose deaths, babies born addicted to drugs", plus hundreds of billions wasted on the prison industrial complex, the Constitution shredded, LEOs corrupted, distrusted and hated, pushers and gangs enriched, near civil war in Mexico and the many consequent negative effects on the US, and the massive violence caused here by the black market...what is the advantage in not legalizing drugs, and why on Earth would YOU want to see addictive drugs kept illegal?

[Leo Lyons]

Of course, Leo Lyons....chronic dishonesty, terminal stupidity and/or severe drunkenness.

Are you an asshole all the time, or just when you're awake? Were you taught to be an asshole, or is it naturally in your genes?
Do you even know the meaning of civility? Fuck you.

I know you started this thread as bait; well you got what you wanted.

[Vrede too]

Awwww, someone sure throws a foot-stomping tantrum when it's pointed out that we've discussed "the advantage in legalizing drugs" for years and for the last 2 days, and that he's an uncivil asshole for suggeting that we haven't.

Actually, I honestly did not start "this thread as bait". I just thought the articles were interesting. I really, really don't care if you ever reply or not. That said, your paranoid, self-important ranting is entertaining, thanks.

[O Really]

Seems to me the simplest answer is to ask "is the current approach working?" If what we expect for "working" is nothing more than a reduction in addiction and addiction-related problems, then the answer is a resounding "no." So at the very least, it seems everyone (not directly benefiting from the current approach) could agree that another approach should be taken.

[Vrede too]

Seems to me the simplest answer is to ask "is the current approach working?" If what we expect for "working" is nothing more than a reduction in addiction and addiction-related problems, then the answer is a resounding "no." So at the very least, it seems everyone (not directly benefiting from the current approach) could agree that another approach should be taken.

Actual outcomes and meaningful measures of success don't enter into the calculus of the financial beneficiaries, dogmatically faithful, and irrational drug war addicts.

My list above was so long I forgot one very important way that prohibition is "working" - racial and class repression. Not only do the poor and nonwhite suffer from the drugs while the drug war has been so ineffective, but they also are the main victims of the pushers and gangs, they are most likely to see the consequent violence of all types, they are more ostracized from successful society, their neighborhoods are most impacted, and they are the recipients of massively unequal drug war policing and imprisonment. It's almost like this was the whole point all along, hmmm.

Race and the Drug War

Discrimination Against Drug Users

[Leo Lyons]

Of course, Leo Lyons....chronic dishonesty, terminal stupidity and/or severe drunkenness.

Are you an asshole all the time, or just when you're awake? Were you taught to be an asshole, or is it naturally in your genes?
Do you even know the meaning of civility?

I know you started this thread as bait; well you got what you wanted.

[Leo Lyons]

Awwww, someone sure throws a foot-stomping tantrum when it's pointed out that we've discussed "the advantage in legalizing drugs" for years and for the last 2 days, and that he's an uncivil asshole for suggeting sic that we haven't.
If it was indeed a "foot-stomping tantrum", it's because I flew off the handle and said something I rarely ever say; but you're the type of name-calling, attention-seeking, narcissistic troll that baits people to the point of anger. I've also read your posts in Yahoo where you call other posters "wuss" and other bullshit names because you disagree with them. Are you ever going to grow up? Or are you going to continue on as a laughingstock for your other 'friends' here? Yes, I said 'laughingstock', because it's very obvious how they really and truly inwardly feel about you. Yep, they KNOW you're an asshole.

Actually, I honestly did not start "this thread as bait".
Liar (a word you're well familiar with using)

I just thought the articles were interesting.
...and was excellent baiting material.

I really, really don't care if you ever reply or not. That said, your paranoid, self-important ranting is entertaining, thanks.
As well as you THINK yours is. You're welcome

[Leo Lyons]

Race and the Drug War
Because Blacks are in the largest numbers of users? Because Blacks are generally in the center of most crimes? Take a good look at looting videos during the last two hurricanes. I'm not being racially biased, telling it as was actually videoed.

Discrimination Against Drug Users
"In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, sensational media stories and political rhetoric about crack cocaine led to the widespread condemnation of “crackheads” and “crack mothers,” who were almost exclusively portrayed as African-American..."

That's propaganda bullsh*t. ANYONE, any race manufacturing, selling, using crack cocaine, or meth were called crack-heads; I never heard of "crack-mothers". In fact, the label "meth-mouth" was most common.

I suppose that if, or when, this shit is legalized (oops, "decriminalized"), calling dope-heads these names will be prosecuted as hate-speech.

Just a thought; maybe these two heroes of the faith will be made martyrs for the cause:

[Leo Lyons]

I just thought the articles were interesting.

Perhaps these "interesting" images will make you feel good about
"legalization" decriminalization?





Anybody know their race?







Wow! Just think! One day he may be able to buy his fixes at Walmart...at low, low, Walmart prices because there will be no more street gangs, cartels, drug dealers .... "good times are comin', uh huh!"

[Leo Lyons]

Of course, Leo Lyons question has been answered scores of times over the years here and even in this topic over the last day. He may disagree with the answers and the consistent science presented, but for him to pretend they don't exist is chronic dishonesty, terminal stupidity and/or severe drunkenness.

Why of course! How silly of me to forget that the undisputed expert on any and every subject set me straight "scores of times over the years", and my even daring to question his replies <shudder> would unleash his narcissistic, name-calling wrath upon my poor, defenseless being! Whatever was I thinking!!? Grow up Vrede. You're no longer a child cowering in a corner.

[O Really]

Leo's pics certainly support the idea that the current approach does not work more than it does. Seems every election somebody is running on the "drug use is worse", "opioid crisis", "reefer madness" or something. I haven't seen anybody running on what a great line of successes the current approach has had.

Question for Leo: If the drugs the people in the picture used had been illegal, and cops put some effort in preventing sales and use, would those people have been able to get in the condition they were?

[Leo Lyons]

Thanks for your decent and civil reply, O Really. It's sad that 'other person' feels it's necessary to launch a name-calling tirade every time he responds to a post containing an opposing opinion. It appears it's OK for him to berate and belittle, but if the favor is returned, he whines about attacking or whining about him. As another poster said "he can dish it out, but he can't take it".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll have a go. First, I support de-criminalizing use of drugs, not legalizing. There's a difference.
The difference is in terminology only.

I support keeping restrictions on purchase and distribution of those products considered "controlled substances." But as billy.p has clearly stated numerous times, illegality creates a black market - always has, always will. And that creates criminal enterprises involving a lot of money. Criminal enterprises involving a lot of money get people killed.
That's true, but as with any controlled substance; over-possession will still be a crime; not only that, controlling a substance will not deter illegal sales on a black market; nor will it stem the flow from sources outside the U.S. A black market currently exists for practically anything someone wants if they have enough money; counterfeit high-dollar name-brands for one example.

An addictive user has a medical/health problem.
A medical/health problem they DIDN'T HAVE until they experimented with drugs. (or alcohol, or tobacco.)

If the use is criminalized, the user likely won't get help - and if I'm not mistaken it's even illegal for a health professional to help a user without turning him/her in. If you want to address the root problem of addiction and whatever leads to it, you won't be able to by treating it as a crime.
I understand getting hooked on pain-killers; almost got hooked myself once. Even in that scenario, a prescription has a limited refill schedule. If you or I were addicted to a controlled substance pain-killer, and we were out of pills but knew we could get more from 'ol John Doe down at the pool hall, that's illegal in the eyes of the law, but 'ol John ain't no law-abiding citizen, and we're still addicted. In that case, we should seek treatment.

Just like the NRA slogan - when drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs. In fact, the best argument for not having severe restrictions on possession/sale of various firearms is the creation of a gun-running black market without much reduction in the availability of guns. Same principle applies to controlled substances. If it's illegal, you can't control it at all, and you can't address root causes of addiction.
A point I meant to make earlier; I got side-tracked and rambled on about something else. ANYTHING that is controlled or has a limited ability to purchase, or is outright illegal, is going to be available on a black market, website, or down at Joe's Pool Hall...back alley, in the back of a cab, from a crooked cop or government official... always has, always will.

Leo's pics certainly support the idea that the current approach does not work more than it does.
It doesn't work, so far it hasn't worked, (I never claimed it has) so the best solution is to continue the fight against it. Ours is not the only government involved in the 'drug war'. Mexico, for example has more violent deaths linked to drugs that are not actually drug-use related. Their government is practically powerless to stop it. Considering their counter-measures, we treat drug peddlers with kid gloves.

Seems every election somebody is running on the "drug use is worse", "opioid crisis", "reefer madness" or something. I haven't seen anybody running on what a great line of successes the current approach has had.
As above, because it hasn't succeeded yet, and you'll not see many candidates running on an anti-drug stance because many of them are users themselves. Turning our backs on a drug epidemic is a sign of irresponsibility on our elected officials part; and we have many irresponsible government officials. I know.

Question for Leo: If the drugs the people in the picture used had been illegal, and cops put some effort in preventing sales and use, would those people have been able to get in the condition they were?
Did you mean "had been legal?" I can't answer that question, but I will say that the instance of those type of drug deaths would be less if illegal forms of drugs were NOT available at all. We both know that will never happen even if drugs are legalized or decriminalized.
It won't be against the law to kill your dumb ass by overdose is all.

[O Really]

Leo's pics certainly support the idea that the current approach does not work more than it does.
It doesn't work, so far it hasn't worked, (I never claimed it has) so the best solution is to continue the fight against it.


Question for Leo: If the drugs the people in the picture used had been illegal, and cops put some effort in preventing sales and use, would those people have been able to get in the condition they were?
Did you mean "had been legal?" .

[/quote]

Seems that "so far it hasn't worked, so the best solution is to continue the fight against it" sounds a lot like "doing the same thing and expecting a different result" is...

Nope, I meant "illegal." Trick question. Obviously they were illegal and the current approach and cops effort didn't help those people in the pics.

[Vrede too]

Seems that "so far it hasn't worked, so the best solution is to continue the fight against it" sounds a lot like "doing the same thing and expecting a different result" is...

Nope, I meant "illegal." Trick question. Obviously they were illegal and the current approach and cops effort didn't help those people in the pics.

More pics.

Drugs
10 Shocking Examples of Police Killing Innocent People in the "War on Drugs"
Many innocent victims have become collateral damage in our pointless, destructive drug war.

1. Kathryn Johnston; Atlanta, Georgia, 2006.



2. Tarika Wilson; Lima, Ohio, 2008.
"... she was killed. Wilson’s one-year-old child was also shot but survived, although one of his fingers needed to be amputated."



3. The Rev. Accelyne Williams; Boston, 1994.



4. Annie Rae Dixon; Tyler, Texas, 1992.

5. The Rev. Jonathan Ayers; Toccoa, Georgia, 2009.



6. Rodolfo “Rudy” Cardenas; San Jose, California, 2004.




7. Ismael Mena; Denver, Colorado, 1999.



8. Mario Paz; El Monte, California, 1999.

9. Alberta Spruill; New York City, 2003.



10. Pedro Oregon Navarro; Houston, Texas, 1998.

More names and pics, some duplicates.

These 13 People Were Killed By The War On Drugs. Their Lives Were The Cost Of Prohibition.

Victims of U.S. Drug Policy
Citizens meet violent death at hands of Government

[O Really]

Looks like most of those are Black or Hispanic. Wonder why that is.

[Vrede too]

Looks like most of those are Black or Hispanic. Wonder why that is.

Say, you're correct. I only noticed how criminal they look. In white anglo America "no-knock" is a fuel additive.

[Leo Lyons]

Seems that "so far it hasn't worked, so the best solution is to continue the fight against it" sounds a lot like "doing the same thing and expecting a different result" is...
"If at first you don't succeed...." When innocent lives are at stake, you don't sweep it under the rug and hope it go away.
Legalization or decriminalization is hoping it will go away on it's own and no one bears any responsibility except the loser.

Nope, I meant "illegal." Trick question.
It got me.

Obviously they were illegal and the current approach and cops effort didn't help those people in the pics.
Nor would it helped had their drugs been legal; an OD is an OD because drugs do not discriminate. Ask the numerous celebrities who have succumbed to drug use...oh wait, never mind.

[Leo Lyons]

Drugs
10 Shocking Examples of Police Killing Innocent People in the "War on Drugs"
Many innocent victims have become collateral damage in our pointless, destructive drug war.

So when have you ever heard of a perfect "war" when everything went perfectly to plan? Your five year old story gives 10 instances; many more innocent lives have been lost since. Many more lives are lost in military combats due to mistakes.

Looks like most of those are Black or Hispanic. Wonder why that is.
Because they're poor. The rich (black, white, whatever), celebrities, affluent are rarely caught. LEO's are aware they're dealing/using, but their activities aren't as out in the open as those of less means: their homes, their dress, their mannerisms.

Say, you're correct. I only noticed how criminal they look. In white anglo (sic) America "no-knock" is a fuel additive.
Because, if you knock, THE OTHER SIDE will 'shoot first and ask questions later'. Which side of the door had you rather be on if you were in that situation? Mistakes are made; unfortunately with deadly, regrettable results. That's why it's called 'war'.

[O Really]

Seems that "so far it hasn't worked, so the best solution is to continue the fight against it" sounds a lot like "doing the same thing and expecting a different result" is...
"If at first you don't succeed...." When innocent lives are at stake, you don't sweep it under the rug and hope it go away.
Legalization or decriminalization is hoping it will go away on it's own and no one bears any responsibility except the loser.

Nope, I meant "illegal." Trick question.
It got me.

Obviously they were illegal and the current approach and cops effort didn't help those people in the pics.
Nor would it helped had their drugs been legal; an OD is an OD because drugs do not discriminate. Ask the numerous celebrities who have succumbed to drug use...oh wait, never mind.

I understand your perspective, Leo - If you're a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
But it's interesting you refer to "innocent lives" when your job was apparently to round them up and arrest them before they killed themselves. Seems like most in the pics would be criminals of some sort according to current law, wouldn't they?

[Leo Lyons]

I understand your perspective, Leo - If you're a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
But it's interesting you refer to "innocent lives" when your job was apparently to round them up and arrest them before they killed themselves. Seems like most in the pics would be criminals of some sort according to current law, wouldn't they?

We concentrated on the runners, dealers, and street pushers. Although we apprehended a few individuals, they were not our priority; and yes, the unfortunate souls in the photos were considered 'criminals' under local laws; but not to the degree that you would rather think. They were the victims of the ones we were after. We didn't meddle with local laws; some states were more lenient with users than others, but most all deal harshly with those caught with large quantities of addictive drugs.