14 year old drug mafia hitman is a US Citizen and it is your fault America

I guess we can win if we declare martial law and go after drug dealers with the U.S. military.

Start looking for the infested areas. Take pictures. Make videos. Call 911 every time it looks suspicious. Provide law enforcement and politicians with evidence and facts

Support and expand Neighborhood Watch programs! It does work.

How about we stop trying to enforce a duty of abstinence for our citizens and start to allow a more reasonable distribution market?

How much of the money they make is just pot? More people smoke pot than use any other drug.

It is time to start coming up with real solutions instead of asking communities to enforce abstinence collectively. Why should the average Joe have some responsibility to work as neighborhood security for free,and put their life at risk to enforce laws that should not have been there to begin with?

Why don't the people who scream the loudest for these stupid drug laws which have contributed significantly to our shameful status as #1 in prisoners fight this drug war using their loved ones. We can stand to lose a few of those people.

"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both."

Do you even read what you have posted beside your name? How much freedom have we given up to enforce abstinence from drugs? Dude, wake up.

Agreed Tom88, very well said (on both posts).

The War on drugs (some drugs, not all drugs, because some are ok! Even if they are more harmful than the 'bad' drugs), is as politically popular as it is useless and expensive.

Portugal decriminalized drugs 10 years ago, and their results are just what we have been looking for (e.g. usage down almost across the board - especially among teens).

thnx Concerned Citizen.

The drug war apologists need to own the destruction their crusade is causing.

acapulco kevin, sorry but I disagree on the idea of taking pictures of cartel activity and turning them in..especially if the person doing such an activity lives outside of the US...the only way someone should be recommended doing that is if they have a death wish..stay out of it...they will not just kill you, but your entire family as well...sometimes it is better to just keep your mouth closed and not pay attention...for the sake of your family and their well being...I know well first hand why tattling on them is not a good idea as I have seen entire famlies wiped out for being informants. The best thing that can happen that will destroy cartels is legalizing drugs.

While I agree that legalizing drugs may may take a page out of the cartels portfolio, it is certainly not a cure all. Neither to the drug problem overall, nor to the existence or perseverance of the cartels.

People who persist in drug abuse will continue to abuse it, and the cartels will continue their activities just as aggressively if only in different venues. Guns, illegal immigrant transportation, slave trade, prostitution, and even newer more dangerous types of drugs.

Simply making it legal for people to destroy their bodies with drugs is not going to fix the cartel problem. Once the drugs are legal the government will tax them and an established street price will be set. If your legally taxed drug of choice is going to be $100 per unit at the street level, the cartels could even undercut that price if they wanted to just to keep their drug train moving.

While legalizing drugs may seem like a viable option to some (and it may well be), I certainly don't believe it has any chance of "destroying" the cartels. They just have too much money, and too many facets to their organizations. Drug traffic may be their biggest money maker but it is certainly, and by no means their only money maker.

Personally I think it would be nothing more than a whack-a-Mole game with the cartels to simply legalize drugs and not actually make an effort to physically remove or destroy the cartel leaders and members themselves.

That would be sort of like saying "Okay GM, car X has been declared dangerous to drive so you can't sell them anymore". It won't destroy them because they're so big they can just switch the focus to a different car in their lineup. All it "might" do is slow them down a bit until they can retool for a different type of car.

Same goes for the cartels. It "might" slow them down a bit until they can spin up one of their other, already existing money making facets.

If we're going to do this we need to do it right, and do it right the first time. Attack the problem from both ends and attack it with a vengeance. Some people feel that all drugs no matter how dangerous they've been proven to be, should be declared legal. I disagree, and think that some drugs should and some should not be legalized, but that's just my opinion.

Some people also feel that by simply legalizing all drugs, the cartels will be destroyed. Once again, I just don't think that will happen. But that's just my opinion.

Attack the problem from both ends and attack it with a vengeance.

How do you "attack" people to get them to confront or work on their drug problem (a problem they may very well disagree they even have)?

What "attack" should we be doing on the drug users? Isn't that a little like "the beatings will stop when morale improves" ?

cartels will continue their activities just as aggressively if only in different venues. Guns, illegal immigrant transportation, slave trade, prostitution

You could add all of those activities together, double their production and they still won't even come close to the revenue generated from illegal drug sales.

Simply making it legal for people to destroy their bodies with drugs is not going to fix the cartel proble

Drugs harm people's bodies regardless of their legalities. The Cartels would suffer a major economic blow without their drug sales.

the cartels could even undercut that price if they wanted to just to keep their drug train moving.

Yes but why would someone want to buy "bootlegged" drugs when they could purchase it legally from Wallgreens? Odd that this doesn't happen with alcohol isn't it?

Personally I think it would be nothing more than a whack-a-Mole game with the cartels to simply legalize drugs and not actually make an effort to physically remove or destroy the cartel leaders and members themselves.

A forceful removal of the Cartels would need to happen as a 2nd phase or simultaneously as legalization.

Same goes for the cartels. It "might" slow them down a bit until they can spin up one of their other, already existing money making facets.

Let me know when you can come up with an example of any industry that even comes close to the illegal drug trafficking trade.

Some people feel that all drugs no matter how dangerous they've been proven to be, should be declared legal. I disagree, and think that some drugs should and some should not be legalized, but that's just my opinion.

When has making any drug illegal stopped its use by the public?

How do you "attack" people to get them to confront or work on their drug problem (a problem they may very well disagree they even have)?

Some would tell you the answer is to make drugs legal. That'll sure fix their problem boy.

Just like an alcoholic, an addicted drug user will never admit they have a problem. If you have a friend or co-worker that is a drug abuser and you can prove it, talk to him. If he tells you to get lost then do yourself, your company, and that person a favor and turn them in. If he's on drugs and doing a job, you can bet that eventually it will become a problem and someone may eventually get hurt as a result. If you know he's on drugs and he causes personal harm or destruction as a result then you are as guilty as he is for not reporting him.

I think simply taking the millions of dollars in resources that are being focused on pot growers and users and shifting it towards hard drug manufacturers, distributors, and users would be a good step in the right direction.

Pot is the least harmful of the substances in question yet it's the most attacked by enforcement agencies. Pot farms are much easier targets for police agencies than home meth labs so they "seem" to focus primarily on them.

Let the people in the United States grow their own pot. Since the bulk of what's being brought in from Mexico is pot, that alone will make a major impact in at least that portion of the cartels activities. It won't solve our "drug" problem, but until people can learn to start taking a more active role in the welfare of their friends, family, and neighbors that will at least help.

How do we attack the cartels themselves? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Our president needs to work with the president of Mexico in a joint military type effort.

I'm not saying declare war on Mexico. I'm saying work with the Mexican government to declare war on the cartels with the governments permission and assistance.

Set up a specialized and dedicated military force along our border and use any and all technological tools and manpower necessary to keep our borders safe. People think drugs are the only dangerous things coming into this country. There are far more dangerous things coming across our borders than drugs and they are not being dealt with very seriously.

Al, so you advocate turning in coworkers you suspect of using drugs, including pot?

Are you saying make pot legal, decriminalized, what? Would you agree that pot users should be punished or not?

Most users of other illicit drugs are not addicts, i think you have some serious misconceptions about drug users and the drug market. With high demand drugs fetch high prices making the market quite lucrative. You are saying nothing but basically what we are doing now, except with more military intervention.

The drug war is not a war with Mexico it is a war with our own citizens, most of which supply and consume the drugs. This whole Mexican deal is just one part of it. The more you bust people, the more the military is involved the more drugs will cost.

Then you know how the military will become involved, as they have in the past and most likely currently are? In distribution. Corrupt personal will help move the drugs. There is soooo much money in it.

Of course we can always combat that sort of thing with more surveillance, more military more people watching.

Maybe if we stopped being so anal about sex and drugs and set some reasonable policies a lot of these problems would go away.

I don't know why seemingly reasonable people think we can enforce abstinence from drugs. Why waste so much energy? Shouldn't we focus on helping addicts, reducing use and problems from use and allowing people to experiment with drugs and alcohol like responsible adults?

Or do we continue this farce of some "better" society where drug use is strictly prohibited for our own good. Why? That is not reasonable at all. I don't see where "society" gets off telling me i can't smoke pot, or i can't take mushrooms because they know whats best.

No "they" do not. I have seen what "they" say and they don't know much of jack @!$%# about drug users, and don't really care to.

Until we as a society do, i don't see where we get off telling people what they can and cannot take, even going so far as to trump what doctors say. Politicians currently are trumping doctors and this is reasonable? Huh?

What we should be taking seriously is good drug research. Not just the prevelance of use and how can we stop it, but the good research that has been done with the users, the ethnographic studies and surveys that ask good questions that really get at how people use drugs.

We need to go beyond the world of abstinence and step into reality.

Tom,

Ok so you completely missed the point I was trying to make and therefore drew your own conclusions based on those misconceptions as so many people have a tendency to do these days. Let me take each of your statements and see if I can clarify my meaning a little better for you. I take the blame for the misconception since I apparently cannot always vocalize my meaning as clearly as I would like to. That's probably because I don't think of Pot as a drug per se, but a naturally occurring herb. Since I was talking about "addictive" drugs, I mistakenly made the assumption that it was obvious I was not referring to pot when I said the word "drug". My bad.

OK, here we go. You asked:

so you advocate turning in coworkers you suspect of using drugs, including pot?

Here's what I said on that point:

If you have a friend or co-worker that is a drug abuser and you can prove it, talk to him. If he tells you to get lost then do yourself, your company, and that person a favor and turn them in.

Consider the words I used there. I specifically said "drug abuser", not pot user. I suppose I should have been more precise in my statement, sorry about that. But I also said "talk to him".

I would think that a person would want to first approach a friend or co-worker to at least let them know they have a problem, especially if it's having a negative affect on them or their work place. If this person IS a friend then you are obligated to at least try to help them or you are NOT a true friend.

If you can see them going downhill has I have seen several of my own friends do, then you are actually doing them a favor by reporting them. If they are arrested they will be given the opportunity to go through a drug rehab program and I just can't see how that is a negative thing. At least it will get them off the drugs (not necessarily pot) long enough for them to make a "sober"decision as to whether they have a drug problem or not.

What kind of a friend would let a friend kill themselves on drugs?

Ok, next line:

Are you saying make pot legal, decriminalized, what? Would you agree that pot users should be punished or not?

In my opinion, I can see no valid reason for pot to even be illegal in the first place. I can see putting an age restriction on it for the obvious reason that a person needs to be old enough to make an intelligent and educated decision for themselves as to whether or not they want to us it.

I think a lot of problems could be resolved very quickly if free cultivation of pot were allowed and not taxed by the government. As soon as the government starts taxing it the price will go up and people will just go back to importing it. By allowing pot to be grown freely and without taxes, there would be no reason to shop around for the best price. People could just grow their own and maybe sell to those who can't. Let me know if that didn't answer your question.

Most users of other illicit drugs are not addicts,

I never said they were. But you don't have to be a drug addict to be a drug abuser, and there are "abusers" of virtually every drug there is. Even though I don't consider pot as being a drug, and have never known anyone to be addicted to it, I do know many people who have abused it as well. To clarify my conception of abusing pot, I would say that if a person smokes it all day long then they are abusing it or at the very least wasting it. Anything more than a couple of hits at a time is a waste of pot unless you are smoking dirt weed.

i think you have some serious misconceptions about drug users and the drug market.

LOL Maybe. But I don't think so since I've been around drug users for probably longer than you've been alive. I've seen it all, been there, done that, and seen many people rot away and die and several of them were my friends. I've seen people try heroin just once to see how it felt and knowing in their minds that they would not have a problem with it. Well guess what, they did. You name the drug and I've seen it in action, as well as the bottom line of the end results of abuse. It is never pretty.

You are saying nothing but basically what we are doing now, except with more military intervention.

Hmmmm. Not really. I'm saying people need to stop ignoring what's going on around them and start taking affirmative action against a problem that everyone knows exists and is killing people or getting them killed indirectly. But nobody wants to take the initiative do anything about it themselves, they want everyone else to fix it for them.

Let me ask you this: If you had a 13 year old daughter and you saw her shooting up, what would you do? Feed on that one for a while. Ok now why wouldn't you do the same thing if you knew a co-worker was shooting up on the job?

The drug war is not a war with Mexico it is a war with our own citizens, most of which supply and consume the drugs. This whole Mexican deal is just one part of it. The more you bust people, the more the military is involved the more drugs will cost.

I never said the drug war was with Mexico. We need to work with the President of Mexico in a dedicated and committed military fashion, seek out and destroy the cartels on their own ground. That will not fix our own drug problem but it will help to reduce the amount of people who are being murdered in both Mexico and the United States as a direct result of the cartels activities.

With the permission of President Calderon, we could put together an assault team to assist him in HIS county. It would benefit both countries through a joint effort.

Then you know how the military will become involved, as they have in the past and most likely currently are? In distribution. Corrupt personal will help move the drugs. There is soooo much money in it.

You're right, but I never said anything about using the military to fight drug users in this country. Here's what I did say:

I'm not saying declare war on Mexico. I'm saying work with the Mexican government to declare war on the cartels with the governments permission and assistance.

Set up a specialized and dedicated military force along our border and use any and all technological tools and manpower necessary to keep our borders safe.

Of course we can always combat that sort of thing with more surveillance, more military more people watching.

I can see no good coming from the "military" surveilling American citizens for any reason. There are millions of cameras in place and monitoring everything from pizza parlors to snow conditions, but that's not military.

Maybe if we stopped being so anal about sex and drugs and set some reasonable policies a lot of these problems would go away.

I'm not sure where that one came from, but exactly what reasonable policy would you suggest?

Shouldn't we focus on helping addicts,

There is already a tremendous amount of time and energy being spent on trying to help addicts. There is even a reasonable number of successes. But you have to get the addict to the rehab agency and that's what I'm talking about. It takes intervention, initiative, and just doing it instead of complaining about it. That's my whole point. It's the people who need to take action and help the addicts and quit ignoring them because they will NOT go away by simply making their drugs legal.

reducing use and problems from use and allowing people to experiment with drugs and alcohol like responsible adults?

Ok here ya go, back to my same scenario again. Let's let your 13 year old daughter who you love so much be a responsible adult and try a little shot of heroin. No problem.

Don't you realize that this is exactly what's happening right now? It's the responsible adults who are experimenting even though they know it's illegal. They experiment, they get hooked, they go down the toilet with the rest of the addicts that we ignore. Who's to blame here?

Or do we continue this farce of some "better" society where drug use is strictly prohibited for our own good. Why? That is not reasonable at all. I don't see where "society" gets off telling me i can't smoke pot, or i can't take mushrooms because they know whats best.

Oh you mean Utopia. Or was that Disneyland, I forget. Seriously though, society does not have the right to tell you that you can't smoke pot or eat mushrooms (whew). But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you're right, society does not have that right but they do have the obligation to help a friend in need and an addicted friend is truly in need.

What we should be taking seriously is good drug research. Not just the prevelance of use and how can we stop it, but the good research that has been done with the users, the ethnographic studies and surveys that ask good questions that really get at how people use drugs.

No argument here.

We need to go beyond the world of abstinence and step into reality.

That all depends on what we're abstaining from. I have no problem abstaining from eating Foxglove, but have no intention of abstaining from pot.

Until common sense prevails, a level of intelligence must be utilized.

Seriously though, society does not have the right to tell you that you can't smoke pot or eat mushrooms (whew). But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you're right, society does not have that right but they do have the obligation to help a friend in need and an addicted friend is truly in need.

Umm drugs are illegal. Society does have that right, and the police enforce abstinence by chasing drug users and drug dealers. It is an impossible job, but they try.

Consider the words I used there. I specifically said "drug abuser", not pot user. I suppose I should have been more precise in my statement, sorry about that. But I also said "talk to him".

a pot user is a drug abuser. Any use of a drug is drug abuse. While there are differences in terminology, such as definitions of dependency and abuse, as far as the state and the fed are concerned any use is abuse. That is the basic assumption. In a world of narking that Kevin advocates that is what we would be discussing. Turning in people for any drug use of an illegal substance. If you do not consider pot on that list i think you would need to say that.

If you can see them going downhill has I have seen several of my own friends do, then you are actually doing them a favor by reporting them. If they are arrested they will be given the opportunity to go through a drug rehab program and I just can't see how that is a negative thing. At least it will get them off the drugs (not necessarily pot) long enough for them to make a "sober"decision as to whether they have a drug problem or not.

As for the other drugs, again, all use is abuse, so lets say you see your coworker do a line of coke at a part. You confront him about his abuse and he says blow me. You tell the boss? Not too cool.

Or do you mean "abuse" as some sort of drug problem, addiction or dependency? That is a whole other deal, and even still i would have to think that being arrested, fired and all of the fun stuff that comes from the official response to drug problems would not help the person out. If you did that to someone i certainly would not call you a friend.

An interesting side-note. Did you know lots of companies use random drug tests to thin out the workforce in times of bad economy and the business has slowed down? Its true! I here blue-collar workers talk about it.

But yea, being fired would be rough. In some states if you alerted the police and they had kids the state might take the kids as well. Big help!! Unless, of course you knew their kids were in an abusive situation i cannot imagine how that would be helpful.

Lets see: You spot what you feel is drug "abuse". You alert the authorities who arrest the person, search their home, and then take their children and charge them with child endangerment. Their employer fires them when they find out. I suppose on the bright side they would be required to go through treatment (and remain abstinent from drugs and alcohol) during a time where they are in dispair. But they need to stay sober to get the kids back.

Big help. Remember your idea of help is not necessarily what will happen when you turn someone in. In all 50 states pot IS included on that list. And lots of other drugs that are commonly used are not some crazy poison that will turn users into frothing at the mouth addicts.

If you say someone in a downward spiral from a drug probably needs help even if they dont think they do, i can agree with that. But in the current political climate our response to that individual is like throwing a drowning man an anchor. We are hurting a lot more than we are helping.

I think a lot of problems could be resolved very quickly if free cultivation of pot were allowed and not taxed by the government. As soon as the government starts taxing it the price will go up and people will just go back to importing it. By allowing pot to be grown freely and without taxes, there would be no reason to shop around for the best price. People could just grow their own and maybe sell to those who can't. Let me know if that didn't answer your question.

I guess. Employers still drug test, especially in blue-collar work, so they can forget about that. The fed is now pushing for zero-tolerance drugged driving laws (already in like 17 states) that make driving with any traceable amount of pot in your system a DWI. Of course, pot stays in your system for a while, but thats just life i guess. I think you probably do have a good distribution network for pot in mind, but there are lots of other issues with it.

I never said they were. But you don't have to be a drug addict to be a drug abuser, and there are "abusers" of virtually every drug there is.

For an illegal drug, all use is abuse. Only when the possession of any quantity of a drug under any circumstances is not punished could it be described otherwise.

Abuse is a slippery term that is sort of hard to pin down. Your colloquial definition about smoking pot all day unless it is dirt weed is a prime example. It means lots of different things to lots of different people, but to the police and most in the government and the vast majority of employers it is any use of an illicit drug and any use of a legal drug besides maybe alcohol nicotine and a few others for the purpose of getting high for enjoyment.

You name the drug and I've seen it in action, as well as the bottom line of the end results of abuse. It is never pretty.

See, a line like this would lead me to think that most people who use drugs for recreation are done for. From one line of coke to selling your body on the street for a stamp bag. While some addicts who sell themselves for stamp bags did do their first line of coke in the process i dont think that is the result of the one line.

If you agree the majority (indeed the vast majority) of drug users do not go on to become addicts. That is, the vast majority of drug ABUSERS do not either. Unless, of course, you get to make up the definition for each drug. Even still, that definition would have to include a decent amount of experimentation before it went into an "abuse category" or the vast majority of your "Abusers" will actually experience little to no consequences as a result of their use. That is, or course, unless one of their fr...er i mean enemies turned them in.

Maybe you have seen some of the results of drug addiction on certain individuals. I can believe that. Saying "the end result of drug abuse is never pretty" is just dramatic and wrong. It sounds like a slogan from Partnership for a Drug Free America. Give me a break. I have seen the end result of "drug abuse" work out just fine for plenty of people.

Let me ask you this: If you had a 13 year old daughter and you saw her shooting up, what would you do? Feed on that one for a while. Ok now why wouldn't you do the same thing if you knew a co-worker was shooting up on the job?

My God i would not turn her into the police!! Are you mad? I would take some serious action but i would not turn her in to the school or to the police. That is not how i treat family. I WISH i lived in a society where i could. And one where they would not insist upon my abstinence. Heroin is nasty when you shoot it but opiates come in many forms. You can get a heroin buzz other ways too. Lots of people like that. Lots of people also need help with it, but punishing them for drug possession or low-level dealing rarely helps them.

I never said the drug war was with Mexico. We need to work with the President of Mexico in a dedicated and committed military fashion, seek out and destroy the cartels on their own ground. That will not fix our own drug problem but it will help to reduce the amount of people who are being murdered in both Mexico and the United States as a direct result of the cartels activities.

With the permission of President Calderon, we could put together an assault team to assist him in HIS county. It would benefit both countries through a joint effort.

They are funded by drug money and are going to fight for the drug market so long as there is a demand. A lot of activity is carried out much more discreetly than a war. This is not the type of war you win with troops on a battlefield. What is an assult team going to do, take out the cartel leaders? New ones will step up, and they will be more bloody because they will have to be. Perhaps the newer ones might look into using their money to purchase information such as where the families of soldiers live. Some already have. Bloodshed will never win this battle, it will keep it going, or push it elsewhere. We have to do something about the drugs. I dont think we can win this one in the traditional fashion.

That's my whole point. It's the people who need to take action and help the addicts and quit ignoring them because they will NOT go away by simply making their drugs legal.

You are absolutely right! Drug and alcohol treatment is great and people need it. I cannot agree with a regime of coercive treatment, but i think lots of treatment options should be available. I also think it would be reasonable for employers and the state to require treatment under certain circumstances as a condition for employment, release, etc, but those circumstances would be limited to serious problems with addiction or crimes committed because of addiction or use. I am not against treatment, just am very leery about state required treatment. The police should not be used to chase drug users and force them into treatment.

Ok here ya go, back to my same scenario again. Let's let your 13 year old daughter who you love so much be a responsible adult and try a little shot of heroin. No problem.

Don't you realize that this is exactly what's happening right now? It's the responsible adults who are experimenting even though they know it's illegal. They experiment, they get hooked, they go down the toilet with the rest of the addicts that we ignore. Who's to blame here?

Al, there are plenty of other drugs to experiment other than shooting up heroin. You cannot swipe away all experimentation with one scenario of a 13 yr old girl shooting up.

Why isn't the person to blame? Is the government really supposed to be protecting us from drugs? I don't want their protection. Seriously. Most drug users do not want their protection, so why are people such as yourself so hell-bent-and-determined to give it to them? Back off! When they get to the addiction part, step in and help, but you are responsible from making sure people never come in contact with a laundry list of drugs (a list that is made by politicians, not doctors). This prohibition thing isnt working and he surveillance and punishments required to make it work are harsh. Lets try something besides abstinence only. Again, the vast majority of drug users do not go on to become addicted. Why should everyone in society suffer the results of drug prohibition to protect a few addicts who are doing drugs anyways?

Oh you mean Utopia. Or was that Disneyland, I forget. Seriously though, society does not have the right to tell you that you can't smoke pot or eat mushrooms (whew). But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you're right, society does not have that right but they do have the obligation to help a friend in need and an addicted friend is truly in need.

Seriously, society DOES, and they do. If you agree they do not, then you would be advocating for drug reform and an end to drug prohibition. That does not seem to be your stance....

Until common sense prevails, a level of intelligence must be utilized.

I think that you are trying to be reasonable, but i don't see how what you are saying is. It is unreasonable for society to demand abstinence from all of these drugs from each citizen and use billions of dollars in resources and erode valuable civil liberties in the name of this crusade. Bringing up the possibility of a 13 yr old girl shooting up does not make it reasonable.

I do not see how you or the government is qualified to make those decisions about my life and the lives of others. While you say you agree with that, everything else you say does not. Which is it?

Tom,

That's about 10 minutes of my life I will never get back but it was an interesting read.

Considering you managed to totally misinterpret just about everything I said and respond as if you were responding to a completely different message I will only say that we agree on some things and disagree on others.

Trying to massage a persons comments to suit your own perspectives doesn't do either of us any good. I don't think I'm capable of wording my thoughts in a manner that you would understand the point I'm trying to make without it coming out meaning something totally different so I'll just drop it and wish you the best.

Have a great day Tom

Considering you managed to totally misinterpret just about everything I said and respond as if you were responding to a completely different message I will only say that we agree on some things and disagree on others.

Really? it would help me if you provide an example or something because i am not seeing how i do this.

You are the second person to tell me this as of late, and additionally you also seem to hold a similar position as the last person who told me about the same thing.

I understand drugs are a complex subject, but i don't see how the complexity is to difficult to manage for a conversation.

But since you are saying i am massaging your comments to suit my perspective i would appreciate if you gave me an example so i may retort.

Tom,

Since you're being nice about it, I will try. I'm always open to a friendly discussion.

Where I seem to be having problems in our discussion is in trying to find the connection between your responses to my comments. Not all of them, but a few of them. Your responses seem to all be based on a particular line of thought and I think I just figured out what that is. Maybe it's just me but take a peek at the first part of 2.16.

I'm really not trying to be difficult or insulting. Ok here goes.

I wrote this in an effort to agree with you. I was saying the same thing you were with the addition that a friend should be there to help another friend in time of need:

Seriously though, society does not have the right to tell you that you can't smoke pot or eat mushrooms (whew). But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you're right, society does not have that right but they do have the obligation to help a friend in need and an addicted friend is truly in need.

Here's your response to the above comment.

"Umm drugs are illegal. Society does have that right, and the police enforce abstinence by chasing drug users and drug dealers. It is an impossible job, but they try."

Maybe you could explain to me how that has anything whatsoever to do with what I said.

Okay here's the next line I wrote where I was trying to explain that if a person is abusing drugs at work you should talk to him about it before you take any action. Most employers have a set of procedures for just such an occasion, and it doesn't always lead to job loss or arrest. Drug problems are widely known and there are several procedures in place that are meant to "HELP" the abuser.

Consider the words I used there. I specifically said "drug abuser", not pot user. I suppose I should have been more precise in my statement, sorry about that. But I also said "talk to him".

Here's your response to that comment, and I'm still scratching my head over it.

"a pot user is a drug abuser. Any use of a drug is drug abuse. While there are differences in terminology, such as definitions of dependency and abuse, as far as the state and the fed are concerned any use is abuse. That is the basic assumption. In a world of narking that Kevin advocates that is what we would be discussing. Turning in people for any drug use of an illegal substance. If you do not consider pot on that list i think you would need to say that."

I think the part of your sentence that I highlighted is the key to everything you are saying.

From that statement I get that you're of the opinion that any use of any drug at all including pot is abuse. This is where we part ways on our opinions. But only the first. The rest of that paragraph seems to ramble on about several other things on your mind.

Ok let's take a look at the part that really got your dander up. The following comment was meant to be a "radical" example of what can really happen. This actually does happen in real life so there is nothing farcical about it. It was meant to find out how you would handle a situation where a loved one needed help, and exactly what steps you would take to help her.

Let me ask you this: If you had a 13 year old daughter and you saw her shooting up, what would you do? Feed on that one for a while. Ok now why wouldn't you do the same thing if you knew a co-worker was shooting up on the job?

Ok here's your response.

"My God i would not turn her into the police!! Are you mad? I would take some serious action but i would not turn her in to the school or to the police. That is not how i treat family. I WISH i lived in a society where i could. And one where they would not insist upon my abstinence. Heroin is nasty when you shoot it but opiates come in many forms. You can get a heroin buzz other ways too. Lots of people like that. Lots of people also need help with it, but punishing them for drug possession or low-level dealing rarely helps them."

See, you automatically assumed that I meant you should turn your 13 year old daughter in to the police. The question was "What would YOU do". I would take my daughter to the hospital and do whatever I could to help her, not take her to to the police station. They can't help her. But you twisted my comment to serve your own perspective and in doing so you killed the whole point.

Here's the part that brought your perspective into clear view:

"I don't want their protection. Seriously. Most drug users do not want their protection, so why are people such as yourself so hell-bent-and-determined to give it to them? Back off! "

First of all I find that statement insulting. Secondly, I'm not hell-bent-and-determined to help anyone that doesn't need it or want it. In fact, I'm not hell bent and determined to do anything so YOU back off. Boy you just really have a serious issue chewing at you but that's your problem and don't worry, after that insulting remark I wouldn't waste my time trying to protect you from "anything" no matter what it was.

I've heard hard core druggies and junkies use the same logic and say the same things you have said in this discussion.

Ok you asked and I delivered.

z

Al, we are definitely missing each other a bit, but that is ok.

Maybe you could explain to me how that has anything whatsoever to do with what I said.

I am trying to impress upon you that society does have the right and exercises it daily. For lots of substances. You say you agree society does not have the right, yet you do not seem concerned that this is what is going on. I wrote that as an attempt to let you know that society does not agree with us. The reason i wrote it is because i think that is a crucial point that needs to be made over and over. You say you agree with me, at least conditionally for pot and mushrooms, but here is my problem Al: poppy is a natural plant and so is cocoa. What makes them any less "natural" than pot? People have been using all 3 plants for centuries with little problems, yet all of the sudden they are so dangerous we need all the regulations and protections so society can exercise their right to regulate your consumption which trumps your right to use these substances.

You also hedged your statement with some sort of notion of societal responsibility to help drug users. It confuses me how punishing drug users through our criminal justice system is help. While you may not agree with that, you implicitly support it when you advocate keeping certain drugs illegal.

I know i may be a bit all over the place in my responses (partially because they are long, i am saying a lot and i do not have a ton of time). I am sorry about that and will try to be more clear. Sometimes i even respond with other people's words in mind (like Kevin, the seeder) so i may be discussing a concept that you may not have advocated yourself, but someone else did. I will try to stop doing that too.

From that statement I get that you're of the opinion that any use of any drug at all including pot is abuse. This is where we part ways on our opinions.

I personally do not think all drug use is abuse, but if we are discussing official policy, it is. While you may agree that all use is not abuse, your opinion and my opinion mean very little in the overall scheme of things. So when you say something like "If you have a friend or co-worker that is a drug abuser and you can prove it, talk to him. If he tells you to get lost then do yourself, your company, and that person a favor and turn them in." I would like you to realize that to many people pot is included on that list and that any use is abuse! Al, in that sentence you basically are giving what i would consider to be very bad advice.

Now i can agree later on in our discussion (in a different post) you clarified the meaning behind what you said, but that meaning was not clarified in your initial post. If i would not have responded to you it may never have been. Do you see what i am saying? I think what i am trying to tell you is that what you mean is not always what you are saying. Also, in part because of this, some of your posts make you look like a drug warrior. While i don't think that is the case, you should consider what the implications are of what you are saying.

Does that make sense to you?

See, you automatically assumed that I meant you should turn your 13 year old daughter in to the police

Sorry about that, more miscommunication. I only made that assumption because you advocate turning someone in to their employer or to the authorities if they were abusing drugs and would not talk to you about it in a meaningful way. I wanted to let you know that i would never turn in my family to the authorities because i think that would make the problems worse. I do not trust the police to look out for the best interests of me and my family and i do not feel they would. I think i am pretty safe in that assumption.

I think i understand what you are trying to say, but honestly what i am concerned about is current criminal justice policy, not substance abuse interventions that can be successful for families. While i agree it is important, the point i want to make is that the police and criminal justice system are not there to HELP drug users, they are there to catch and punish them. Under the current climate we cannot continue to bust people for drugs and then try to say we are helping them. Perhaps for a rare few the bust ends up being a positive overall, for the majority of people it just creates a ton of problems.

What would YOU do"

What would i do? Help her as best i can. Let her know how extremely dangerous what she is doing is. Perhaps she would need hospitalized or put into a rehab program; shooting up really is a dreadful way to do drugs. But as i said earlier, i am more concerned with what we as a society are doing, and not as much with how i would handle that type of situation. I would like to say again i do not feel either the police or the schools would be who i turned to, or would be who ended up helping. It seems to me they usually just make the problem far worse. At the very least it would be a very risky crapshoot to expect them to help in a positive way.

First of all I find that statement insulting. Secondly, I'm not hell-bent-and-determined to help anyone that doesn't need it or want it. In fact, I'm not hell bent and determined to do anything so YOU back off. Boy you just really have a serious issue chewing at you but that's your problem and don't worry, after that insulting remark I wouldn't waste my time trying to protect you from "anything" no matter what it was.

People seem to get very insulted when i tell them that they are not qualified nor welcome to make decisions about my life. However, when you vote for politicians who make drugs illegal and pursue drug war policies and you advocate keeping many drugs illegal, how are you not trying to make those decisions for me? Isn't that what it means to prohibit drug use? When things are banned that means a decision has been made. If that decision is made because you want to protect me from myself or because you stand to make millions on a new prison contract, what is the difference at the end of the day?

If you feel insulted at my statement, maybe you should ask yourself why. I think that answer might say more about the problems with the drug war than any of us have on this seed.

I've heard hard core druggies and junkies use the same logic and say the same things you have said in this discussion.

I am sure you have, i am expressing their sentiments. What puzzles me most about the whole drug issue is the opinions people seem to care least about come from those who know the most about the drugs--the drug users. Millions of them are saying they do not want or need help and to just leave them be. Perhaps we should listen to them instead of further targeting them as criminals and making them hate society even more.

While YOU may be interested in helping drug users, we, as a society, are not. We want to punish them. As long as we keep drug use criminalized, these problems will continue and get worse.

I hope this helps you figure out what i am trying to say.

Tom,

I think the core point to all of that is simply this: Leave druggies alone no matter what.

I have no problem with that.

Your response to the "What would YOU do" question is exactly what "I" would do. You simply assumed that I would turn her into the police or school. Bad assumption and totally wrong. I never at any point said that throwing someone in jail is helping them.

We do have a very strong difference of opinion about drug use in the workplace. I know from several of my own experiences with drug users on the job that it is very dangerous.

If you feel insulted at my statement, maybe you should ask yourself why. I think that answer might say more about the problems with the drug war than any of us have on this seed.

Your statement was insulting because you blatantly stereotyped me. You made accusations and assumptions about me when you know absolutely nothing about me.

And then you make yet another assumption about me that is totally unfounded.

Also, in part because of this, some of your posts make you look like a drug warrior. While i don't think that is the case, you should consider what the implications are of what you are saying.

Drug Warrior? You don't know anything about me so how can you make such a demeaning statement?

Look Tom I think I can see where you are coming from even without all the name calling.

I "think" you believe that drugs (all drugs) should be legalized.

I think you believe a person should never try to help a drug abuser.

I think you believe that a drug abuser should never be turned into the police.

I think you believe that when a person says they would help a friend who is abusing drugs, they actually mean they want to throw them in jail.

I think you make a lot of ungrounded assumptions about people.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell. If you want to get drugged up on your own time then go for it. I really couldn't care less.

I think any drug use on the job is dangerous. I think people who persist in drug use on the job should be terminated after 2 warnings. If they cause damage or injury they should be reported to the authorities.

I would never force help on anyone. That said, I've seen children (12 to 15) heavily into drugs that were already showing signs of reaching a point of no return without outside help.

Here's where you totally misunderstand me. When I say the word HELP, that's exactly what I mean. It doesn't mean turn them over to the police, or report them to their schools, it means literally what it says, HELP. Help for a person who has put themselves into a state where they can't help themselves usually means HOSPITAL help, NOT jail. Hopefully you got it that time.

If you insist that taking a person to the "hospital" for help when they've overdosed, or abused drugs to the point they are out of control is forcing them then fine, that's your opinion. If it will save their lives I really don't care what you think.

I would rather have a live friend and be considered a ... what was it you called me, hang on a sec, ah yes Drug Warrior, than lose a friend because someone thinks I shouldn't intervene.

Drug Warrior? You don't know anything about me so how can you make such a demeaning statement?

Al, i said make you look like a drug warrior. I wasn't calling you anything. You might want to go back and read that again because i think you missed my point. We seem to be doing a lot of that.

I "think" you believe that drugs (all drugs) should be legalized

depends on what you mean by legalized. There is a wide range of options between a strictly enforced prohibition and the complete legal sale of an item as if it were candy.

I think you believe a person should never try to help a drug abuser.

not true at all, i am saying we as a society have to be careful with "helping" people. I am totally cool with helping out those who need it.

I think you believe that a drug abuser should never be turned into the police.

Now this is true, unless there was some other crime being committed i do not recognize drug "abuse" as a crime. Anyone who agrees that society should not dictate what a person puts into their body unless it is absolutely necessary would agree on this point. Otherwise, you do think society has the right to dictate personal behavior at that level.

I think you believe that when a person says they would help a friend who is abusing drugs, they actually mean they want to throw them in jail.

No sir. This conclusion is the result of miscommunication.

I think you make a lot of ungrounded assumptions about people.

Sometimes, but in this case i don't think so. Again, miscommunication. I don't think you are a drug warrior.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell. If you want to get drugged up on your own time then go for it. I really couldn't care less.

Then you agree drug use and even abuse should not be a crime

I think any drug use on the job is dangerous. I think people who persist in drug use on the job should be terminated after 2 warnings. If they cause damage or injury they should be reported to the authorities.

very reasonable, i can agree. I don't think drug use on the job is cool either. I just understand that drug tests do not pinpoint drug use at work, but rather drug use for the last few days to few weeks. As such a positive drug use is not proof of inebriation at work.

That does not mean i think it is cool to get messed up at work, i just do not think it is cool to find someone guilty until proven innocent and i feel drug tests do not meet the burden of proof regarding acute intox.

I would never force help on anyone. That said, I've seen children (12 to 15) heavily into drugs that were already showing signs of reaching a point of no return without outside help.

Al, if you said you would be willing to turn someone into the police where they will be forced into treatment, how can you deny you would force someone to get help?

Here's where you totally misunderstand me. When I say the word HELP, that's exactly what I mean. It doesn't mean turn them over to the police, or report them to their schools, it means literally what it says, HELP. Help for a person who has put themselves into a state where they can't help themselves usually means HOSPITAL help, NOT jail. Hopefully you got it that time.

Al, i know exactly what you mean. The point i am trying to make to you is that this kind of help is the exception, not the norm once authorities get involved. If you assume that this is how substance users will be treated by the authority you are mistaken. There has to be quite a bit of change (drug policy reform) before we are at the point where the official response to drug abuse matches what you have in mind.

I completely agree with you on your idea of help. I just hope to see it implemented in some areas, because right now this is not how it works.

If you insist that taking a person to the "hospital" for help when they've overdosed, or abused drugs to the point they are out of control is forcing them then fine, that's your opinion. If it will save their lives I really don't care what you think.

No, i never said that. In fact i have worked with Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) a group in which i am a member of, and a board member of the university i attend's chapter to help get a medical amnesty policy at my school that will exempt people for calling an ambulance or the authorities for help in these kinds of situations from getting in trouble themselves. Lots of kids are too scared to call in and get help because they fear (often correctly) that they will get into trouble. Organizations such as SSDP recognize the dangers of this type of thing and work to make changes.

I am all for saving lives. I am not for some drug free-for-all where nobody cares what the consequences are. I am for sensible drug policy.

I would rather have a live friend and be considered a ... what was it you called me, hang on a sec, ah yes Drug Warrior, than lose a friend because someone thinks I shouldn't intervene.

I didn't call you a drug warrior. i hope you will be able to reread what i wrote and see that. Hopefully my point will not be completely lost. It has been good chatting with you al, even though we have been missing each other's point at times i think the discussion has been positive.

Tom,

First, a couple things to clear up. I think we're down to the fundamental differences in our opinions here despite ourselves.

I said:

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell. If you want to get drugged up on your own time then go for it. I really couldn't care less.

Your response:

"Then you agree drug use and even abuse should not be a crime"

Once again another false assumption. I was referring to you. Since you feel so strongly in favor of freedom of drug abuse and how it should be legal, I was being sarcastic.

In my opinion it would be lunacy to legalize "ALL" use and abuse and I can't even imagine why you can't see a problem with making drug abuse legal. Sure it's your life and you should be able to run yourself through a meat grinder if you want to, after all it is "your" body. That sounds reasonable if you say it fast. But you seem relatively intelligent so I'm finding difficult to understand why you can't get past the "it's my right" syndrome to the "reality" of the problems inherent with legalizing drug abuse.

Personally I think there is enough crime due to drug usage. Drugs are expensive and drug abusers usually have a hard time holding down a job. No job, no money. No money no drugs. No drugs, unacceptable. Drug abusers do whatever they have to do to get their fix, or high. Right now drug related crimes all across this country are running rampant even though drug use is illegal. If all of a sudden drug usage were to become legal there would be such an increase in drug usage our country would probably go down the toilet. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't only take a few months before the drug users started running low on money and start turning towards other sources of funds. At that point I'm afraid the crime rate would start going through the roof.

No I think we've got enough drugged up junkies laying around drooling on themselves as it is, and as far as I'm concerned the crime rate is high enough thanks.

One thing that is coming out of this discussion is that apparently drug rehab works differently in your area than it does in mine. It sounds like in your area rehab consists only of jail time. In my area it depends on the situation, but in most cases even if a minor crime was committed and it's a first time offender they are offered the alternative of going through the drug or alcohol rehab course which is nothing more than 2 or 3 weeks of a live in structured life style with classes in a medical environment. Our VA (the one I retired from 4 years ago) has one of the better rehab programs in the state. I was not a care provider but I did spend a great deal of time working on the wards and took every opportunity to talk to all the patients there.

It was an interesting mix. I found that about half the guys were truly glad they were in the course and were planning on staying off drugs or alcohol when they finished the class. Local surveys only showed a true success rate of about 10%.

Ooops, company at the door. Back at ya in a bit.

"it's my right" syndrome to the "reality" of the problems inherent with legalizing drug abuse.

Right now drug related crimes all across this country are running rampant even though drug use is illegal. If all of a sudden drug usage were to become legal there would be such an increase in drug usage our country would probably go down the toilet.

Except real world examples of where drug use is legalized/decriminalized do not show this. In fact, they show a reduction of drug usage in almost every category. One reason for this is that those that suffer from addiction can seek help without legal ramifications.

Tom,

One more quick comment.

People seem to think that making "all" drug use legal will fix all of our problems. While it's my opinion that legalizing pot has the potential of resolving many issues, legalizing hard drugs does not.

A major problem with hard drug use (legal or not) is the cost. Legalizing all hard drugs and thereby putting them in the same class as pharmaceuticals will not make them cheaper.

Pot on the other hand can be grown at home for next to no cost, so there will never be the need to turn to other sources to "fund" your vice so to speak. BIG difference.

Eventually the use of hard drugs will get to the point where use exceeds the ability to pay for it. Once that happens the user becomes desperate and the quest for drug money begins.

This will never happen in the case of pot, but legalizing pot will at the very least take a huge bite out of the cartels income. On the other hand legalizing all hard drugs will not because of all the government taxes and the inherently high prices of pharmaceuticals in general. People will always go to the cheapest source for their drugs, and government intervention will not allow hard drugs to be cheap.

In my opinion it would be lunacy to legalize "ALL" use and abuse and I can't even imagine why you can't see a problem with making drug abuse legal.

Is alcoholism illegal - how is one acceptable and not the others?

Drugs are expensive and drug abusers usually have a hard time holding down a job.

First I would love to see your source for drug users and their employment status...second drugs are so expensive because they are illegal.

If all of a sudden drug usage were to become legal there would be such an increase in drug usage our country would probably go down the toilet.

This is the same silly assumption I hear/read over and over again. It is more than apparent drugs are consumed whether they are legal or not - the only changes that will occur will be positive in nature i.e. reduction in gang violence and regulating the purities of drugs available.

Is alcoholism illegal - how is one acceptable and not the others?

Nope, alcohol is legal and it has let to more deaths either directly or indirectly than you could possibly imagine. As far as I'm concerned alcohol is NOT more acceptable than drugs. Just because it is legal doesn't make it a good thing.

First I would love to see your source for drug users and their employment status

I'm going by my own observations and experiences as a business owner. I have no intention of leaping around the web finding information that you can just as easily find yourself if you wanted to. But then you really don't want to know the truth do you?

second drugs are so expensive because they are illegal.

That much I agree on but only to a certain point.

Drug prices may fall some if legalized but after the government finishes taxing them and Pharmacies apply their mark up do you honestly believe people will buy their narcotics over the counter at 5 to 10 times the price they can get on the street? I don't think so.

This is the same silly assumption I hear/read over and over again.

Maybe because it has validity. Consider the fact that there are literally thousands of kids that don't try hard drugs simply because they are illegal. Just from that point of view alone you have to see the potential.

It is more than apparent drugs are consumed whether they are legal or not -

That much is certain.

the only changes that will occur will be positive in nature i.e. reduction in gang violence and regulating the purities of drugs available.

I agree the purities of the drugs available will improve, but I'm not so sure that all the drugs that are now being used on the streets will be available. Some of the stuff people are calling "Meth" around this area will most likely never be put on the market legally because of the ingredients used to make it. Kerosene, Drano, and several other commonly found kitchen and shop caustics.

But the same way people use drugs whether they are legal or illegal, there will always be gang violence and drug related crimes regardless of the legality of drugs.

z

But then you really don't want to know the truth do you?

We're using real world results and studies, you are using your own limited experience. Who is really avoiding the truth?

As far as I'm concerned alcohol is NOT more acceptable than drugs.

So you are in favor of prohibition and the increased crime rates it will bring?

Maybe because it has validity.

And maybe just because it's the general uninformed response that is touted around the web.

I'm going by my own observations and experiences as a business owner. I have no intention of leaping around the web finding information that you can just as easily find yourself if you wanted to.

Ok then...how many employees do you have/have you had and how long have you been in business - I would like to know more about your sample size that would lead you to such definitive conclusions.

But then you really don't want to know the truth do you?

I would like you to back up your unsupported claim yes - welcome to NV.

Drug prices may fall some if legalized but after the government finishes taxing them and Pharmacies apply their mark up do you honestly believe people will buy their narcotics over the counter at 5 to 10 times the price they can get on the street

Yes for a few reasons; most people do not like to deal with the criminal element (the only way to purchase said drugs), drug purities would no longer be a concern and also if your contentions are correct than where and why is there not a thriving black market alcohol/cigarette trade.

Consider the fact that there are literally thousands of kids that don't try hard drugs simply because they are illegal.

Again more facts that you cannot back up. How many kids try drugs or alcohol because they are illegal?

there will always be gang violence and drug related crimes regardless of the legality of drugs.

Do you live in an urban area - I would guess from your meth comments that you do not. Gangs in cities throughout the US survive primarily on the drug trade. It enables them to purchase expensive guns and ammo and give them reason to "protect" their turf/investment. Generations of lives have been destroyed because of the ass backwards moral drug laws that are in place.

A little sarcasm is ok, and so far we're doing good. I hope it stays that way because you are bringing up some good points.

We're using real world results and studies, you are using your own limited experience. Who is really avoiding the truth?

"We're"? So what scientific organization are you working with that would prove that drug abusers don't have a hard time holding down jobs? And yes, the observations I am referring to are my own over the last half century. I don't need to see some hyped up report written by people who have never even been around people with drug problems or know the hard times they have holding down a job because they can't kick their habit. You made an incorrect assumption that I have limited experience with drug abusers. While I personally have not conducted a formal scientific study, the VA medical center I retired from did. Thousands have gone through drug rehab at that facility and every one of the patients had to fill out surveys including questions regarding their ability to hold down a job.

Do you personally believe that drug abusers or chronic drug users have no problem with employment? Remember, I've been talking about "drug abusers" and chronic drug users, not the casual line snorter.

It's not rocket science to understand that a person can't perform well at work when they're loaded, or to understand why they pose a threat to themselves and everyone around them.

Employers dump them like a hot potato as soon as they find out their under the influence on the job because they can't afford the laws suits over the damages and injuries that result from drug intoxicated workers.

As far as I'm concerned alcohol is NOT more acceptable than drugs.

"So you are in favor of prohibition and the increased crime rates it will bring?"

Nope, and I'm not sure how you got that meaning out of those words. I never said anything about prohibition. Drugs are already illegal, what prohibition are you talking about? But if you think that legalizing all narcotics and thereby having more drugged up people on the streets will reduce the crime rate, your wrong (in my opinion).

Maybe because it has validity.

"And maybe just because it's the general uninformed response that is touted around the web."

Really?

Okay let's do this. I would really like to hear what your "informed" opinion on how to resolve this situation would be. If you had it in your power to fix this situation, what would you do and how would you do it? And what would the results be in your "informed" opinion.

I would also like to know what experience you have that would make you more informed than the general public that you are saying is so "uninformed".

z

Drugs are already illegal, what prohibition are you talking about?

exactly, we are living in prohibition.

Al, i do not see how I or anyone else has a duty of abstinence from these politically defined substances because you and others (often falsely) have misconceptions about them and how they are used. You seem to only talk about the extreme examples you witnessed while ignoring millions of others experiences with them.

I don't get that.

If all of a sudden drug usage were to become legal there would be such an increase in drug usage our country would probably go down the toilet. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't only take a few months before the drug users started running low on money and start turning towards other sources of funds. At that point I'm afraid the crime rate would start going through the roof.

The government has spent billions of dollars so you and others will fear this zombie scenario. Funny thing is, drugs have been available in many societies without this result.

The far more important aspects like inequality, repression, lack of resources, etc. get largely ignored as people blame DRUGS.

Read Drug, Set and Setting by Zindberg

that will give you a little perspective. The parts you can read in the link are good, but you should read the whole book. I think that might help you understand where i am coming from.

When a drug dealer shoots at you and you have a legal permit for your weapon ~ you have a right to shoot back.

Yeah, cause getting into a situation where drug dealers are shooting at you is a really safe and effective way of dealing with the drug problem.

Two border patrol agents here in Texas got 12 years for shooting a drug dealer in the ass, moral of the story, shoot him in the head next time. Dead men dont testify.

Steve....Were those two released from prison?

I remember them. They were doing their job, and then got arrested for it. Unreal!! And I agree, shoot to kill. Too many laws protect the criminal and not the victims. (Or "would be" victims)

Mary....I think Bush pardoned them, but they are out of prison now. Hard to believe that they were ever prosecuted in the first place.

Hard to believe that they were ever prosecuted in the first place.

I know!!! That was a bunch of crap!!! I'm glad they were pardoned! Thank you Steve. :)

MaryJ, how would any of that stop people like Edgar Valdez(El Barbie) or Ponchis? Both are US citizens not illegal immigrants. One is from San Diego the other from El Paso, Texas. There is another cartel boss that is a US citizen in jail in Colorado. So write away, guard the border..these guys have US passports.

lx....I wish I knew what the answer is.

Prohibition is the problem, and I would never aid the fools that pursue those policies.

Agreed.

Are You serious? How long are you people gonna keep trying the same tired old tactics that never work? Prohibition enables all these drug cartells to stay in business! End prohibition and it will all go away...and thats the only way to do it! The heart wants what the heart wants...and with Marijuana especially...don't you see that your way just isnt working? all it does is ruin innocent lives and the drug wars will go on and on....and our jails will remain full on our tax dollars! Legalize MJ and create a whole new industry for the US....Jobs and money for everyone! Its time for a change when they arrest people like 73 year old Willie Nelson! He's certainly a danger to society! Come on people...enough is enough!

Dont get me wrong though...I agree with you that these people are dangerous and need to be taken off the streets....but the same tired ol way just isnt working....

Acapulco, please delete that comment of yours..there are plenty of cartel members who could find your comment and find you...I would hate for anyone to be in danger and you very well could put yourself in danger...if you worked for the DEA you should know that..don´t endanger your family to turn people in...the failed drug war is indeed failed and you should not risk your life to get involved in it...and certainly not risk the life of your family...they will kill you trust me on that...they don´t give a damn who you are..if you take pictures and call the police they will find out about it...they even have people in the DEA on their payroll.

I understand your anger..but you telling the world you are an informant on line will only endanger you and your family...trust me from another ex pat your comments here concern me..not because of what they are, but who might see them...I know where spots are as well and no way in hell am I calling the cops or anyone for that matter..I will keep my mouth shut...those guys don´t just have guns they have entire standing armies.

That guy standing near your neighborhood selling crack is not protecting himself with a pocket full of posies.

And so what do we do? Lock him up? Ok. Except our prisons are already so over-crowded that judges are ordering California to cut its population. Not to mention that, the day after you get that guy off the corner? Someone else is standing there doing exactly the same thing, you're back to square one, and all you've done is put the cops in danger, cost the tax payers money, and made sure that the next drug dealer is a little more sketchy than the last one.

I agree that there is grand standing when people like me say "The solution is an end to prohibition."

But there's just as much by anyone who says that it's a battle that can be won any other way.

All I'm saying is the old way obviously aint working...isn't it time to try something else? What else can you say.

They kill people for fun.

Serial killers kill people for fun - gang bangers/drug dealers kill people to maintain control/protect their "turf" among other things. If there was no money to be made their would be a large reduction in murders.

While I am on your side for legalization and regulation I can not support Gun Toting Drug dealers.

There are only a few types of people I can think of that supports dealers; the dealers themselves - that is their source of income, the Prohibitionists - they created and maintain the lucrative black market drug trade with their failed crusade and lastly the LE agencies such as the DEA - with no drug laws to enforce their would be many people without a job.

That guy standing near your neighborhood selling crack is not protecting himself with a pocket full of posies.

Yes all black markets usually leave a trail of violence and despair. However that crack dealer wouldn't exist if drugs were legal - he wouldn't have the money to buy the gun or the ammo.

Lets not forget the bankers who launder the money, you dont just keep 40 billion under your matress. As for that cute little hitman, take him out in the desert and make him dig a hole.

amen, Enigma, I didn´t know about the CIA being involved directly in the trafficking of drugs until recently...when I saw that it became a very clear picture...our own government is a cartel that trafficks drugs to poison people with and we think we can win the war on drugs? lmao.

not just quite often it is most of the time..that is why there are 30k and rising dead in Mexico alone..that doesn´t count the dead in the rest of Latin America.

And what about the Americans who are providing the market for these drugs? If nobody bought them, there would be no cartels.

If nobody sold them there could be no buyers.

you got threatened but if someone had actually gotten killed in your family you would have thought differently about whether you would do it again...just recently someone I know got killed for doing just what you did..and likely the killers will never be punished and I will be damned before I ever open my mouth for sure.

It was very dangerous! Wasn't the only time I called them out. Was receiving phone calls a few years later and I told them that I knew who they were (I didn't), that I had their phone number (I didn't) and that I was going to the police. I, also, told them that I carried a weapon (I didn't) and that I would blow their heads off if they came near me or to my home. They stopped 'cause, I guess, they thought I was some sort of crazy lady!

It is true that they just go from one neighborhood to the next, however, if each neighborhood they went into they were chased out, pretty soon, there would be no more neighborhoods.

It is true that they just go from one neighborhood to the next, however, if each neighborhood they went into they were chased out, pretty soon, there would be no more neighborhoods.

Come to Chicago sometime - most gangs do not go from one neighborhood to the next as you suggested. Try chasing the GDs, Latin Kings or Two Sixers away and let me know how that goes...

Santino, amen...I would like to see them come down here and try to chase out FARC, ms 13, m 18, Gulf Cartel, Beltran Leyva cartel, Zetas and so forth..and also let me know how it goes for you..though likely they wouldn´t be heard from again...it is sort of like someone thinking it fun to poke a stick at a hive of killer bees.

Those dealers love you guys that do drug

The dealer loves that drugs remain illegal commanding insanely high profit margins.

while you starve for more, you (the drug addict or the recreational user) you are only empowering these dealers.

Ah...the blame the addict routine - do you also blame the rape victim for dressing too provocatively?

I don't know about you, but I don't want a whole bunch of cocaine induced people running around. And, I think it is a cop out to say that "we can't do anything about it". We can and we don't. The problem is that "they" think and know we are afraid of them. They hang out on the corners, they wear their kerchiefs and will look you straight in the eye in defiance. They do not own us! They own us from our own fright.

And, remember, they are cowards. They hide in the darkness and do their dirty work in the darkness.

Everyday on NV there is the ranting and raving of conservatives vs liberals. If everyone would join together to get the drug pushers off the streets in their communities......there wouldn't be any. We can't fight Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc. alone, but we can do it within our communities.

Take the pushers off the streets and there will be no place to buy it. Write a letter to the editor of your newspaper, name the location and demand that the police do something. Continue to do it until they move away. Harrass them as they harrass our kids. Drive by slowly, take pictures, get on your cell phone so they can see it and they are so scared they will scatter like rats. Let your kids know what you are doing.

They hang out on the corners, they wear their kerchiefs and will look you straight in the eye in defiance. They do not own us! They own us from our own fright.

The guy I buy coke from is a pharmacist's son attending UCLA, who still lives at home. The people you're talking about fighting are very low-level dealers selling in poor neighborhoods, and even they mostly just hang out in their front yards.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a whole bunch of cocaine induced people running around.

You mean when we get together, order Chinese food that no one ends up eating, and play Nintendo monopoly until five in the morning before finally passing out (dude--I get to be Zelda's sword and don't even start with me)? Yeah--we're very threatening people.

Exactly Grayson, great point. Most people are clueless about who actually uses and sells drugs.

Exactly Grayson, great point. Most people are clueless about who actually uses and sells drugs.

Yep - it's that fear/propaganda campaign you had mentioned in #16.2. It always amazes me how powerfully deceiving their messages are - impressive and disturbing.

I'm unmarried, childless, and live in an apartment :)

Most drug users really are recreational. We may enjoy ourselves on the weekend, but we're mostly middle-class or upper-middle class, hold down good jobs, have never been in trouble with the law, get along well with our families and in our romantic lives, et cetera. And, as an aside, by the way? I always call a cab. I've been a recreational user for more than a decade, and the only time it ever caused a problem was... wait... nope--never did. It's no worse than anyone who goes out to a bar on the weekend and, in fact (considering the number of drunk driving fatalities) is quite a bit safer.

Maria, do you know if you eat at Red Lobster you contribute to divers dying off the Mosquito Coast where lobsters are overharvested by indiginous people with little to no safety equipment.

Kids are abused in the making of clothes, countless abuses happen in the name of "progress" and a "free market". We don't ban lobster or clothes and expect people to eat something else or dress in something different. We regulate the market and try to fix the problems. Or not.

People are not going to stop doing drugs because you want them too any more than we are going to walk around naked for the children in China.

I appreciate your concern :)

But also have fun with your life, you only get one. :)