Harvard Lecturer: Legalize Drugs to End Border Violence

Threedee said:
I don't like either approach. Don't want to pay to fight it, don't want to pay to treat it. Perfectly willing to pay to educate about drugs, but then I wouldn't say that DARE and GREAT really work all that well, nor health classes in general with regard to drugs. People continue to smoke tobacco, even though its obviously a stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...

There's a little bit more involved with the public health approach to drug abuse then just education though that is certainly an important part.

The biggest advantage of the public health approach is that first, it virtually eliminates the black market and all the related crime and violence associated with it. Second, in order to obtain the drug the user must enter into the public health system where their health and well being can be monitored, they can recieve affordable drugs of known quality and when they are ready to rehab that would be available to them. This way you keep the junkies off the street and commiting crimes to get a fix.

This approach is not only way more affective in addressing and reducing drug abuse and drug related crime, it's vastly more cost affective then the criminal justice system and we don't clog up our courts, jails and prisons with non-violent drug abusers.
 
blackascoal said:
Legalizing drugs is the only sane solution and at some point it will be the only solution available.

However, the Obama Administration is not that point. He does not have the courage to stand behind it because he's much too worried about what republicans think and his image. How will he look?

This is yet another example of how just much republicans should be ignored.
Click to expand...

That's unfair. Your forgetting how most Americans have been educated about drug abuse. They have been taught that it's a crime and not disease. To change our system will require a huge paradigm shift away from the criminal justice approach and towards a public health approach and until that occurs politicians would be comitting political suicide by supporting the end of prohibition.
 
blackascoal said:
I agree with you on your first point, not sure about the 2nd. When this porcess finishes I'll do some research, but I'll conceed your point unless I discover different.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I look forward to hearing what you've learned and how you perceive it. If you want a real eye opener, once you read the majority decision in Raich, read Justice Thomas' dissent. Not sure how you feel about J. Thomas, but he is spot on with his opinion.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
1) congress must rewrite the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana (preferably ALL naturally occurring substances) from its jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Whether or not a drug is natural should, IMHO, be entirely irrelevant. A dangerous substance that's natural is just as dangerous as the same substance created synthetically.
 
Watermark said:
Whether or not a drug is natural should, IMHO, be entirely irrelevant. A dangerous substance that's natural is just as dangerous as the same substance created synthetically.
Click to expand...

then congress should start regulating poison ivy, killer bees, and black widow spiders. they are all natural.

but you've missed the point entirely anyway, of which doesnt surprise me.

tell me, why do you think congress has the authority to regulate what a person grows on their own property, for their own consumption?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then congress should start regulating poison ivy, killer bees, and black widow spiders. they are all natural.

but you've missed the point entirely anyway, of which doesnt surprise me.

tell me, why do you think congress has the authority to regulate what a person grows on their own property, for their own consumption?
Click to expand...

Do you think congress has the authority to regulate what a person brew together on their own property, for their own consumption?

It just annoys me somewhat when someone says something that appears as though it's arguing that "all-natural" things are better or in someway healthier than synthetic substances. They aren't.
 
Watermark said:
Do you think congress has the authority to regulate what a person brew together on their own property, for their own consumption?

It just annoys me somewhat when someone says something that appears as though it's arguing that "all-natural" things are better or in someway healthier than synthetic substances. They aren't.
Click to expand...

I don't believe congress has the power or authority to regulate whether I brew beer or scotch or whiskey on my property if all my ingredients were bought or grown in my home state and I'm not selling it.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's unfair. Your forgetting how most Americans have been educated about drug abuse. They have been taught that it's a crime and not disease. To change our system will require a huge paradigm shift away from the criminal justice approach and towards a public health approach and until that occurs politicians would be comitting political suicide by supporting the end of prohibition.
Click to expand...

I disagree my wise friend.

Obama is well aware of the injustice of the criminal system and how drugs play into that. Although I wouldn't expect a complete overturn of the system, surely he has the support and mandate to take the steps that lead to sane solutions.

Obama has been all over the place on marijuana use, decriminalization, and legalization. One day he's for it, the next day he's against it. When Tim Russert asked the presidential candidates who opposed decriminalization of marijuana to raise their hands, Obama half raised his before he quickly put it back down.

I'm not sure anybody, including Barack Obama, knows what Barack Obama's position is on the legalization of drugs. I believe it's dependant on which way the wind blows.

That being said, his plan to stop going after medical marijuana growers is a good sign .. but even there he is vacillating and equivocating because of republican noise .. which is my point.
 
Mottleydude said:
There's a little bit more involved with the public health approach to drug abuse then just education though that is certainly an important part.

The biggest advantage of the public health approach is that first, it virtually eliminates the black market and all the related crime and violence associated with it. Second, in order to obtain the drug the user must enter into the public health system where their health and well being can be monitored, they can recieve affordable drugs of known quality and when they are ready to rehab that would be available to them. This way you keep the junkies off the street and commiting crimes to get a fix.

This approach is not only way more affective in addressing and reducing drug abuse and drug related crime, it's vastly more cost affective then the criminal justice system and we don't clog up our courts, jails and prisons with non-violent drug abusers.
Click to expand...

What I meant was, I don't want to pay for their well-being. I just want to grab the tax money as I pass GO.
 
Southern Man said:
It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.
Click to expand...
If you legalize Alcohol you make bootleggers legitimate business men. They would then form huge companies that would allow them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then congress should start regulating poison ivy, killer bees, and black widow spiders. they are all natural.

but you've missed the point entirely anyway, of which doesnt surprise me.

tell me, why do you think congress has the authority to regulate what a person grows on their own property, for their own consumption?
Click to expand...
WWII grain case where the government fined a farmer for growing feed on his own property to feed his cattle. The grain never entered the stream of commerce but still ruled to have affected it because it competed with other grain farmer which grew grain to feed his cattle. It is a really stupid decision.
 
Socrtease said:
WWII grain case where the government fined a farmer for growing feed on his own property to feed his cattle. The grain never entered the stream of commerce but still ruled to have affected it because it competed with other grain farmer which grew grain to feed his cattle. It is a really stupid decision.
Click to expand...

soc, that question was meant for WM. I KNEW you'd know it. The case was called Wickard v. Filburn and it turned the commerce clause in to the all powerful congress can do anything it likes clause.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
soc, that question was meant for WM. I KNEW you'd know it. The case was called Wickard v. Filburn and it turned the commerce clause in to the all powerful congress can do anything it likes clause.
Click to expand...
Yeah I couldn't remember the parties of the case and was too lazy to go look em up. But it really was one of the cases that said, harm or not, do what ye will federal government.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's just simply not true. Ending prohibition would virtually end the demand side of the equation as all those drugs can be perfectly manufactured and distributed in the US.

I've long been an advocate of ending prohibition. It's been a cruel hoax upon our society and has caused far more damage then it has prevented.

The criminal justice approach to managing drugs is a dismal failure and need s to be replaced by a public health approach as they do in Britain and The Netherlands. Not only was drug use dramatically reduced but organized crime involving black market drug trade was virtually eliminated over night. The public health approach is a prove success where as the criminal justice approach has been a failure and it's time to face up to that fact.

Never mind the fact that shutting down our borders is a laughable idea. How the hell are we going to do that?
Click to expand...

besides the ability to shut our border if we really wanted to, great idea. obviously prohibition and the so-called war on drugs is a colossal failure so something else must be done. i don't think if coke or crack was legal more people would do it, in fact i believe just the opposite would happen. i don't feel comfortable making those drugs legal, however, making them illegal hasn't worked at all.

marijauna should abosolutely be legal. at least 95% of the people that try marijauna and then move on to harder drugs do so only because the people selling marijuana usually also sell other ilicit drugs. legalize marijuana and the problem will be cut by probably 95%.

i like your idea though.
 
Listed to a news show this morning and they said if Obama wants to stop the violence in Mexico, finish building the fence along the border and enforce all U.S banks to stop accepting matricula consular card as a way to open bank accounts. You cut off their access to bring drugs in, and for them to transfer drug profits back to Mexico. Plus you put people to work building the fence.
 
Nobama said:
If you legalize drugs you'll have a huge public health problem. Its a really bad idea.
Click to expand...

do you have any education at all. You name indicates your a right wing idiot. Marijuana is way less dangerous than beer, cigs, or catholic priest.
 
The biggest thing that legalization would do is remove the criminal element from the picture, and make the drug cartels/gangs much less of a problem.

I just saw a news story that said in 2008 there were 368 kidnappings by mexican drug cartels in Phoenix AZ. 368 kidnapping in Phoenix? That rivals third world nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top