US drug war has met none of its goals

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There's a lot of unused capitol just sloshing around here because of the recession. The government can put idle hands to work, and stimulate the economy by borrowing to put this capitol back into play. The government does "crowd out" if it borrows unnecessarily during a boom, but not during a recession, or especially a liquidity trap.

 

[Timshel]

There's a lot of unused capitol just sloshing around here because of the recession. The government can put idle hands to work, and stimulate the economy by borrowing to put this capitol back into play. The government does "crowd out" if it borrows unnecessarily during a boom, but not during a recession, or especially a liquidity trap.

That's a problem the government created by encouraging malinvestment. Further, the government delays the market correction by propping up the bad investments and lengthens the period of investor unease. Government attempts to prime the pump will likely lead to a new bubble.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Such as? Any success will pretend it could not have happened otherwise while ignoring how the government tends to crowd out other options.

You're rationalizing. What is the alternative to government would be the question I would ask you? You're quick to condemn goverment with out offering alternatives that work so, essentially, I am correct. Scratch a libertarian and you have an anarchist.

 

[Timshel]

You're rationalizing. What is the alternative to government would be the question I would ask you? You're quick to condemn goverment with out offering alternatives that work so, essentially, I am correct. Scratch a libertarian and you have an anarchist.

Government works best when it seeks to protect the rights of individuals to be free from attacks on their person or property. But when it becomes a tool of force to wage some moral war it always fails.

I am not arguing for no government, but for a limited one.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Government works best when it seeks to protect the rights of individuals to be free from attacks on their person or property. But when it becomes a tool of force to wage some moral war it always fails.

I am not arguing for no government, but for a limited one.

Well who isn't skippy?

It has rarely, in the history of the world, been the function of government to protect the rights of individuals. That's only a part of what government does under the rule of law. It is primarily the function of government to regulate our society, preferably, via the rules of law. It is also a viable function of government to provide services for the public, at the public behest.

Government, in a democratic society, gives us nothing that isn't bought and paid for by the public demanding those services. That debate centers around who wants or needs those services vs their cost/benefit.

To say that governments role is to be limited to only "protecting our rights and property" is a recipe for failed government as the role of government is broader than this. In fact you have it backwards, "protecting our rights and properties" from government are some of the limits we place on government.

In fact we have shown you specific evidence of government providing services far beyond the limits you would place that have had incredible benefits for our society that we would not now be enjoying if left to libertarian ideology.

Scratch a libertarian and you'll find an anarchist.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Well isn't that the point? Hell it's a win/win situation. The person receiving the education will produce more income in their life time and thus benefit from a higher quality of life and, as a result, the government will receive more tax revenues to utilize for public services.

I agree. I'm on another republican site and am eating them alive in this debate.

They complain about kids getting free handouts for education. They'd rather those kids stay poor and be on welfare or even worse become criminals.

As opposed to getting an education and being a productive part of society.

Sometimes if you lend a hand? When your in need, they will lend a hand back.

That is what social programs are all about. Not perpetual handouts to the lazy. Which is what they have been programmed to believe. Its about helping each other out when they are in need.

 

[Cypress]

Such as? Any success will pretend it could not have happened otherwise while ignoring how the government tends to crowd out other options.

It might have been possible for me to attend and afford college without grants, student loans, public transportion, and relatively low-cost public universities.....if I lived in my car for three years and saved every penny I had from my pitiful low wage job. Publicly-funded programs no doubt provided me an opportunity that would have been extremely difficult to achieve otherwise.

I'm always fascinated by these libertarian theories that there was supposedly a superior alternative to these types of government programs....but I wonder if this theory is just something that exists in the obscure reports and editorials of the CATO institute? Or whether there are actual, real world examples and evidence of this libertarian nirvana?

Can you provide me the name of one single nation of the planet, that has a decent and viable education system is entirely private, run on a for-profit basis, and that receives no funding, subsidization from tax payers? I'd love to hear your real world examples, thanks.

 

[wiseones2cents]

I personally think the War on Drugs has actually caused people to use newer drugs, like ecstasy and meth, because these are easier to make/conceal in your home or locally. They don't need to be smuggled in or transported, and if they are, can be hidden much easier than, say, marijuana bales. It is also responsible for the socially acceptable practice in our culture, of running to a doctor for a 'magic pill' to keep you happy, content... high! The drug companies are like... Oh yeah, we can mix you up some chemicals that will make you feel stoned as a rat, BETTER than pot! And by going to the doctor and asking him for it, you aren't doing anything wrong, no law is broken, you aren't a drug abuser, you aren't an addict, you're not involved in this War on Drugs! Look at you... attending your daughter's 'Just Say No' rally, high as a fucking kite!

See.... here is the problem with the War on Drugs... it's similar to what I have said about Liberal idealism, it doesn't take into account, the consequences... and there are ALWAYS consequences to something like this. The results can be catastrophic... Look back to Prohibition for examples. The error is, not addressing the fundamental problem, and attempting to apply an artificial 'fix' for the symptoms. It makes us feel like we are doing something, but in actuality, we are often causing more harm than good.

We need to be able to honestly discuss what makes individuals want to escape life, or enhance a euphoric feeling to function in life? Why do they seek this high? Solve that mystery, and you solve the drug problem.

One problem is that drug use is glamorized and promoted by the entertainment industry. Especially the hip hop gangster rap crowd. All under the "excuse" of free speech. There should be free speech but not to promote illegal/immoral activity.

Another problem is the elites use drugs to subdue the poor people so they don't retaliate for their miserable lives. This is why there is so much drugs in poor neighborhoods.

Prohibition failed because they couldn't stop the main source of the alcohol. Which was coming from Europe.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

One problem is that drug use is glamorized and promoted by the entertainment industry. Especially the hip hop gangster rap crowd. All under the "excuse" of free speech. There should be free speech but not to promote illegal/immoral activity.

No, free speech is pretty absolute. You're ideas are more in line with those of a tyrant than those of liberty.

 

[wiseones2cents]

No, free speech is pretty absolute. You're ideas are more in line with those of a tyrant than those of liberty.

Not at all. Government without Laws is anarchy. To let people do whatever they want leads to chaos, not liberty.

To be allowed to promote immorality and violence has nothing to do with liberty.

America is a free nation(note sarcasm). The elites are free to do whatever they want as long as they can make a profit(and pay for good lawyers). That is about as far as America's freedom goes.

Oh by the way? You are now on the ignore list and I wont be responding to your posts. Your signature disgusts me.

 

[Timshel]

It might have been possible for me to attend and afford college without grants, student loans, public transportion, and relatively low-cost public universities.....if I lived in my car for three years and saved every penny I had from my pitiful low wage job. Publicly-funded programs no doubt provided me an opportunity that would have been extremely difficult to achieve otherwise.

All of those things are possible without government.

The government has prevented innovation in the delivery of educational services which would have reduced costs. Where those innovations are occurring is slow because of a general attitude fostered by government that market forces (i.e., customer choices) should not be allowed to alter education. That dysfunctional attitude is basically a conservatism in education or an attempt to protect the status-quo, whether it is working or not.

I'm always fascinated by these libertarian theories that there was supposedly a superior alternative to these types of government programs....but I wonder if this theory is just something that exists in the obscure reports and editorials of the CATO institute? Or whether there are actual, real world examples and evidence of this libertarian nirvana?

Can you provide me the name of one single nation of the planet, that has a decent and viable education system is entirely private, run on a for-profit basis, and that receives no funding, subsidization from tax payers? I'd love to hear your real world examples, thanks.

Thin entering wedge. An entirely free market in education is not on the table. If you want to discuss it theoretically, okay... but of course that is going to be drastically different from the status-quo and will result in the development of new markets. I can't tell you exactly what that is going to look like because markets are dynamic and hard to predict. But, they are generally pretty good at solving problems and satisfying customers.

The fact that there is no market utopia that solves all the problems is not a valid argument for more government. Where is your example of a government that has solved all the problems?

The only real world examples of market or government solutions exist in the current mixed markets. Arguing that those examples are invalid because "the government paves the roads" or because the "government does not own the means of production" is stupid! Neither of those things are going to change anytime soon. We are left to judge them on their relative merits.

It is you that wants to drag the discussion into sci-fi while ignoring the real world problems that government intervention has created. Centralizing control of education has been a failure in many ways. It has led to systems that ignore the primary beneficiary of education, which is the student and not society or the educators.

 

[Timshel]

One problem is that drug use is glamorized and promoted by the entertainment industry. Especially the hip hop gangster rap crowd. All under the "excuse" of free speech. There should be free speech but not to promote illegal/immoral activity.

How will you separate speech that glamorizes drug use from that which promotes changing the law. Further, who is to say they are promoting immoral activity rather than another concept of morality? Should the song "Legalize It" be outlawed?

Another problem is the elites use drugs to subdue the poor people so they don't retaliate for their miserable lives. This is why there is so much drugs in poor neighborhoods.

Prohibition failed because they couldn't stop the main source of the alcohol. Which was coming from Europe.

Are you a troll? Both of these points are absurd.

There were plenty of domestic sources of alcohol.

Drugs are everywhere, the war is fought in the poor neighborhoods so that's where the news cameras go, exaggerating the differences. The real disparity is due to the fact that the risk/reward of engaging in the illegal act is more attractive to those that have little to risk. All you can take from a poor man is his time and that is something most poor people have plenty of, due to under employment. Your conspiracy bullshit is not needed to explain these outcomes. They are due to the out in the open War on Drugs which punishes the poor.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Not at all. Government without Laws is anarchy. To let people do whatever they want leads to chaos, not liberty.

To be allowed to promote immorality and violence has nothing to do with liberty.

America is a free nation(note sarcasm). The elites are free to do whatever they want as long as they can make a profit(and pay for good lawyers). That is about as far as America's freedom goes.

Oh by the way? You are now on the ignore list and I wont be responding to your posts. Your signature disgusts me.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Why? Do you not approve of that lifestyle?

 

[Southern Woman]

Being queer is unnatural.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

One problem is that drug use is glamorized and promoted by the entertainment industry. Especially the hip hop gangster rap crowd. All under the "excuse" of free speech. There should be free speech but not to promote illegal/immoral activity.

Another problem is the elites use drugs to subdue the poor people so they don't retaliate for their miserable lives. This is why there is so much drugs in poor neighborhoods.

Prohibition failed because they couldn't stop the main source of the alcohol. Which was coming from Europe.

Again, Prohibition failed for the same reasons the War on Drugs fails, they do not address the fundamental root problem, and instead, attempt to address the symptom. If you had terminal cancer, and the only medical treatment you received was pain medicine to help with the pain, would you ever cure your cancer? Of course not, because you haven't done a thing to treat the disease, you've only treated a symptom. Same is true with drugs and alcohol... we continually assume we can combat the problem by remedying the symptoms, and that always fails.

Now people will ask... How do we address the fundamental problem? Well, maybe we start by not denigrating and diminishing the power found in spiritual strength? It seems like most recovering drug and alcohol addicts, tend to credit this sense of interpersonal strength through spiritual belief, as being essential to their recovery. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to mock it and turn it into something of ridicule? Nooo.... that may lead someone to think we're advocating a Sky God or something crazy like that!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Again, Prohibition failed for the same reasons the War on Drugs fails, they do not address the fundamental root problem, and instead, attempt to address the symptom. If you had terminal cancer, and the only medical treatment you received was pain medicine to help with the pain, would you ever cure your cancer? Of course not, because you haven't done a thing to treat the disease, you've only treated a symptom. Same is true with drugs and alcohol... we continually assume we can combat the problem by remedying the symptoms, and that always fails.

Now people will ask... How do we address the fundamental problem? Well, maybe we start by not denigrating and diminishing the power found in spiritual strength? It seems like most recovering drug and alcohol addicts, tend to credit this sense of interpersonal strength through spiritual belief, as being essential to their recovery. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to mock it and turn it into something of ridicule? Nooo.... that may lead someone to think we're advocating a Sky God or something crazy like that!

We can all find greatness in the greatness that is Yog Sothoth and C'thulhu.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We can all find greatness in the greatness that is Yog Sothoth and C'thulhu.

Well regardless of what you "believe" in, the point is not about a specific dogma or religious philosophy. I am not saying we should all go to church on Sunday and pray, and none of us would ever drink or do drugs... not what I am saying at all! But the systematic tearing down of spiritual foundations, in order to 'destroy religion' is detrimental to mankind, and detrimental to our culture and society, and this is a prime example of how that manifests itself. We can't even have an honest and open discussion about spiritual strength, or how it has been essential in dealing with problems of addiction. The minute someone dares to mention this, they are ridiculed and laughed out of the room as some kind of religious wacko who probably voted for Huckabee.

So we continue on, trying to "fix" a problem by reacting to the circumstances of the problem! Avoiding the honest truth, because we are afraid someone will think we're "religious" or want to make them read the Bible and pray against their will! We've got to get back to a place where we are not ashamed to admit the truth and face the truth. Regardless of what "God" you believe in, there is a lot to be said for spiritual strength, when dealing and coping with addiction.

 

[Topspin]

what a fucking moron, religion is the problem with drugs. child please

 

[wiseones2cents]

How will you separate speech that glamorizes drug use from that which promotes changing the law. Further, who is to say they are promoting immoral activity rather than another concept of morality? Should the song "Legalize It" be outlawed?

The same way they separate hate speech and racism. BAN IT. Debating about legalizing drugs is one thing. Promoting the use to millions of children is another.

Are you a troll? Both of these points are absurd.

There were plenty of domestic sources of alcohol.

The main sources were European. Not to mention alot of politicians were alcohol drinkers. Therefore it was a losing battle.

Drugs are everywhere, the war is fought in the poor neighborhoods so that's where the news cameras go, exaggerating the differences. The real disparity is due to the fact that the risk/reward of engaging in the illegal act is more attractive to those that have little to risk. All you can take from a poor man is his time and that is something most poor people have plenty of, due to under employment. Your conspiracy bullshit is not needed to explain these outcomes. They are due to the out in the open War on Drugs which punishes the poor.

If there is one subject I know ALOT about? Its the drug trade and drug use. So spare me your Bullshit.

Yes drugs are everywhere. It used to be an elite and poor man's drug but no more. Doesn't deflect from the reason why drugs were introduced to society in the first place.

Alcohol has been used for MILLENNIUMS to keep the poor suppressed(and to escape their miserable lives) also. It was the recessions and depressions that made alcohol popular.

Here are a few countries where the alcohol was coming from, but much was coming from Europe.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States"]Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/Fileetroit_police_prohibition.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e2/Detroit_police_prohibition.jpg/250px-Detroit_police_prohibition.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/e/e2/Detroit_police_prohibition.jpg/250px-Detroit_police_prohibition.jpg[/ame]

Alcoholic drinks were not always illegal in all neighboring countries. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally imported to the U.S. The Detroit River, which forms part of the border with Canada, was notoriously difficult to control. Chicago became a haven for Prohibition dodgers during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Many of Chicago's most notorious gangsters, including Al Capone and his enemy Bugs Moran, made millions of dollars through illegal alcohol sales. By the end of the decade Capone controlled all 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago and ruled the bootlegging business from Canada to Florida. Numerous other crimes, including theft and murder, were directly linked to criminal activities in Chicago and elsewhere in violation of prohibition.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Well regardless of what you "believe" in, the point is not about a specific dogma or religious philosophy. I am not saying we should all go to church on Sunday and pray, and none of us would ever drink or do drugs... not what I am saying at all! But the systematic tearing down of spiritual foundations, in order to 'destroy religion' is detrimental to mankind, and detrimental to our culture and society, and this is a prime example of how that manifests itself. We can't even have an honest and open discussion about spiritual strength, or how it has been essential in dealing with problems of addiction. The minute someone dares to mention this, they are ridiculed and laughed out of the room as some kind of religious wacko who probably voted for Huckabee.

So we continue on, trying to "fix" a problem by reacting to the circumstances of the problem! Avoiding the honest truth, because we are afraid someone will think we're "religious" or want to make them read the Bible and pray against their will! We've got to get back to a place where we are not ashamed to admit the truth and face the truth. Regardless of what "God" you believe in, there is a lot to be said for spiritual strength, when dealing and coping with addiction.

The Christian movement was VERY involved in prohibition, but they lost because the corrupters had more money and influence and were able to manipulate the people into the thinking it was a war that could not be one. Which is in part true because all the other countries were making booze and importing it to America.

Though what about drugs? Will that excuse fly today? NO. America is paying countries around the world, money to do a job they are not doing, and if they cant do it? Time to cut off the funds and wage war ourselves.