Slashdot Mirror

> Stupid, thin argument. Drugs are damaging, debilitating, family destroying and wrong to think of as "recreation."

Wow. You make such sweeping generalizations, and then have the balls to call the opposing argument "stupid" and "thin"?

Read this book and see if you can defend your position logically.

The late Peter McWilliams wrote a brilliantly insightful book on such topics.

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country)

He was not very philosophically educated, nor particularly deep in his analysis, but he had a knack for explaining things in such simple terms any average Joe can grasp the point.

No need for lithium batteries of that size. Just settle down politics (that's fantasy part of the plan, I know) and build power line across continents, crossing that tiny Bering Strait and connecting all solar plants around the world. Then shuffle electricity around the globe as needed. It's quite doable today, with today tech and moderate expenses.

I like the way you think... it's a beautiful dream and I'm right there with you, except for the 'doable' part. See this great Megastructures documentary, Bridging The Bering Strait. So many great things to accomplish. If more than ~19.6% of engineers receiving a Bachelors in engineering were women I think we would be much better off. (Not what you said, just thinking that because my daughter is choosing a major.)

There is such an expanse between things that are good ideas and those that are practical --- that is, practical in the sense that you can imagine them happening in your own lifetime or would bet on them. As opposed to merely being able to imagine them. Unless mankind blows a stinky one and goes tits-up, a global power grid is desirable, inevitable and necessary. But when? And what first?

Presently deployed technology principally uses resonant AC generated mechanically.
A inter-continental or global grid MUST be spanned with high voltage direct current.
The converters that render DC to properly synchronized AC (and back) are not perfected and are expensive.
A series of overlapping HVDC loops within a continent is a good start.
Presently North America utilizes three grids with no appreciable energy connection between.
This is ridiculous. A country should be able to pool electrical energy as necessary coast to coast.
We did it with railroads and then highways.
Sometimes positive change requires reasons beyond corporate interests.
The US was once spanned by crappy roads.
The Interstate Highway System was Eisenhower's way to insure that the US could move troops quickly if invaded.
From awful scenarios and bad times, good things may arise.
Likewise with nuclear energy.

BUT.
Grid rebuilding does not 'create' new energy.
The politics of spanning the globe with cable are insurmountable.
Because an idiot with a hacksaw just cut off Northern Arizona.
There are a lot of idiots out there with hacksaws and explosives.
Therefore, any single globe-spanning initiative is actually a single point of failure.
In engineering, despite the beauty of this planet-spanning solar dream, it is a bad idea.
I don't like it, you don't like it, but could we bet our future, our childrens' future, that it would never happen?

SO.
What is the next step?
Some form of wealth creation.
Energy is wealth, so let's create energy.
Something that requires a few hundred somethings, not tens of thousands or millions of something.
A few hundred somethings that are weatherproof, self-contained concrete fortresses that just output energy.
Something we can build, not just (for example) borrow money to have the Chinese build for us.
We can defend hundreds of things located in our back yard. We must.

DO IT! Let's Get Off Our Buts.

There are a number of things that have high demand and a black market, but historically making the services legal was even worse. For instance, there is still a black market for slavery in the US, it is pretty hard to stamp out completely,

(1) what part of consenting adults do you fail to understand?
(2) There has never been a high demand for slavery. There have been a small minority of people who want it. But that's not "high demand."

A classic example that led to opium generally being cracked down on was as it spread through a community or region it could cause economic collapse.

Citation puhlease.
Opium was first outlawed in the USA in 1875 in San Francisco because of racism against chinese immigrants. Much like the history of maurijana criminalization.

Look to the Democrats to shut it down...

The link to the newspaper article that you posted does not support your opinion.

"California voters strongly favor legalizing marijuana. The state Democratic Party adopted a platform last month urging California to follow Colorado and Washington in ending marijuana prohibition. The stateâ(TM)s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom, has called for legalizing the drug."

"Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift"

"Nationally, 51 percent of adults support legalizing the drug, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in February, including 60 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents and 72 percent of young adults. Even 44 percent of Tea Party members said they wanted the drug legalized."

They are the ones that need the massive funds the government gets from the war on drugs to help fund lots of other progressive measures.

You shouldn't have inhaled. The "war on (some) drugs" is a massive government spending program:

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/w...
https://suite.io/christina-gle...

It is, however, a massive subsidy programme for border and drug police, drug dealers, paramilitary groups, defense and aerospace firms, international organizations like the UNODC, private prison operators, and politicians.

I'd argue that's a problem caused by prohibition in general, and that revenue from silkroad is probably insignificant compared to more traditional drug trade routes.

Then again, given how much money we waste fighting the war on drugs, how much they spent on silkroad might be a gigantic number but could still be proportional. We've spent 30 billion on fighting drugs this year, if silk road was 1% of the drug trade, $300 million spent on busting it would still be proportional.

Just a lil something I found on from Google. They've spent about a trillion bucks on this over the last 40 years and can't spend a few thousand on some 4 TB drives to crank up their storage space? The question is begged, wtf did they spend the money on? My money's on 'hookers & blow'...

And here's the war on drugs clock from drugsense:

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

$4 million is 2 hours and 13 minutes of the war on drugs: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content?

This is called natural selection -- those unfit to preserve their existence will remove themselves from the gene pool. It's not pretty, but it's logical and it's part of nature...

Who pays to clean up that mess? I can understand moderation - but our newspapers are littered with stories of people who don't do moderation.

What mess? If you mean who cleans up the dead people who overdose -- well we have that problem EVEN WITH drug prohibition -- people commit suicide all the time and people kill each other all the time.

If you mean who cleans up for the stupid actions people take when they're under the influence of drugs -- THEY do. If you go out and assault someone, YOU pay for the consequences by spending time in jail and likely being fined. If you happen to be under the influence of a drug while you do that, YOU STILL should pay the same cost.

Which is cheaper - the army surrounding the bottle, or paying to have a support net to catch the stupid when they fall?

I think cleaning up after the actions of irresponsible drug users is much cheaper (we have to clean up for their actions ANYWAYS). The war on drugs cost almost $14 BILLION DOLLARS in 2009.

Furthermore, if you look at countries that have very relaxed drug policies, you'll notice that they have much fewer drug addicts. Why is this? Because the forbidden fruit is much more tempting... Many countries in Europe have no enforced legal drinking age, and they have much less problems with excessive youth drinking than the United States does. In fact, most of the marijuana smokers in Amsterdam are tourists; the native residents don't even smoke that much marijuana!

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/index.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1098894305.html

Yep. Half of that is about $400 billion dollars. That would be way more than a shot in the arm for the economy. And once you start paying down the debt, then the interest on said debt goes down, too.

The deficit is four times that.

So until you cut another $1.1 trillion dollars the debt will continue rising, as will interest payments. Especially given interest rates are at historic lows. What happens when the world realizes we do not have the economic growth to pay this back? Someone will blink first.

While halving the military budget will be a wonderful start, it's just that.

As for the War on Drugs that runs about $60B a year. I'd love to see that go as well, but even if we look at profits from taxation and reduction of incarceration we're still not close to eliminating our deficits, much less our debt.

We need across the board freezes and across the board cuts and across the board tax rises. This will never fly. We had some decent choices ten or twenty years ago, now we have none. And everyone will want to make the other guy pay first. I don't see any solutions but ultimately hyper-inflating our way out.

Maybe not this year or next, but it will happen, count on it.

anyone who believes that americans don't have more freedom than people living in saudi arabia need to educate themselves.

Tabacco [sic] causes far more being legal, cheap and highly addictive (far more than heroin).

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Look, all I'm saying is that a lot of researchers are beginning to suspect that it isn't actually bullshit, and that nicotine is in fact one of the most addictive substances commonly consumed by humans.

Here's a small example. If you don't beleive me, speak to your GP.

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

You realise that this redistribution of wealth requires increased government borrowing.

Not at all true. The question of how much the government spends is seperate from what it spends it on; and these are seperate from how it gets funded.

If we wanted to increase social spending, we could do it and still have less government spending, if we decreased wasteful "defense" spending (we could halve our spending, save over $260 billion a year, and still outspend any other nation by a factor of five!), or spending on enforcing laws against "consensual crimes" ("War on Drugs" spending is about $50 billion a year).

And if we wanted to increase such spending without cutting other spending, we could - gasp! - raise taxes instead of borrowing. Just restoring the inheritance tax would raise about $20 billion a year. With that we could triple SCHIP expenditures (current a hair under $8 billion).

Ironically this game is proof of that. See also War on Drugs, RIAA, Oil Business.
Basically power corrupts both morality and the ability to learn.

Perfect example: http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

We all know that the war on drugs works.

If folks would take the good with the bad and don't burden others with the results of thier stupidity (such as driving high/drunk) then I'm OK with a lot of things that are illegal. They are illegal BECAUSE we can't trust people to be responsble "consumers".

Marijuana has never been shown to kill anyone. Alcohol kills people every day. That costs us money. Yet, a large part of the over US$50 BILLION we spend each year on the War On Some Drugs is spent dealing with Marijuana. In fact, the only people who die in Marijuana-related incidents are involved with or bystanders to the acts of processing and shipping it. If you legalized it, those deaths would stop. Yet, alcohol is still legal. How is this possible?

This alone is sufficient proof that the war on drugs has nothing to do with protecting the american people. The reasons behind it are several but here's the biggies: First, the original causes. Note the timing; Marijuana was made illegal through the interstate commerce clause during the great depression of the 1930s. This was for two reasons, both related to financial issues. Marijuana was painted as a drug of "dirty" blacks and mexicans, who were competing for the same jobs as white americans. Thus, by telling a bunch of lies about marijuana and attaching the stigma to non-whites, you could keep blacks and mexicans from getting the jobs, so whites could have them.

Not enough for you? Look at the threat to the plastics industry (Charles DuPont) and the paper industry (Hearst among others) to examine further impact. That's the other half of the banknote.

Legalizing Marijuana would reduce crime, not least because all of the directly marijuana-related crimes would no longer be crimes, but also because it would be cheap and readily available and less crime would be comitted in order to get money to buy weed with.

The reason why the war on some drugs continues to this day is twofold. First, there's too much money to be made on it to stop now. The WoSD creates so many jobs in corrections and the judicial system that alone would be a factor in the minds of the elected. That US$50B spent at the federal and state levels combined (actually it's more than US$50B; see the war on drugs clock for a sobering glimpse at our tax money running away) can be siphoned off into countless departments everywhere from congress to your local police department. Simply, too many people have too much to lose if the WoSD ends to allow that to happen.

And of course there's the embarrassment factor; admitting you're wrong can be tough...

What ever you do, don't let it in your brain! storage of any kind is piracy!

Just think of the minions that will fight the war:
http://images.google.com/images?q=See%20no%20evil% 2C%20hear%20no%20evil%2C%20speak%20no%20evil&hl=en &lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi
(See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil)

Seriously though, I'm sick of declaring wars. Aren't we wasting enough money on wars?

I can think of 2 that havn't been very successful...

DRUGS: http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
TERRORISM: http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/

Companies that use EULAs must make sure they are "reasonable." ....if you call a lawyer right now and say, are EULAs enforceable, he will likely get into the above and his final answer would be "it depends, but in some cases the only way to tell is to go to court."

What I can't understand from this is WHY Blizzard would be opposed to this? If a mini-economy were to open up around your game, isn't that a good thing? They could get into the act themselves -- selling magic items and high level characters to the highest bidder? Hasn't anyone learned ANYTHING from the file swapping issues, Hacked satellite boxes or even drug interdiction? You can't stop people from doing what they want, and by picking battles of silly stuff like this weakens the arguments in legitimate cases where people actually are injured.

If there is a market for WoW stuff, then people will buy and sell it. p>Alot of times you'll here the legal phrase "Qui Bono" which literally means "Who benefits." It's used in the context of trying to establish who really ganis from certain actions. In litigation like this, I think the question that needs to be asked is "Qui Incolmunis" -- or, who is injured. In this case, where (as far as I can tell) no one is injured, there should be no litigation.

I have read the players complaining about the constant "buy now" things they see online. I don't think that legislation is the right way to solve a social problem. Why not make all artifacts have a permanent lifespan with the character who first posesses them, and only 24 hours after that? You could make items/characters untradable, but people don't want that. They just want them to be not tradable for money. Unfortunately, the way the world is, money is a universally accepted currency that can be used to acquire things of value. Driving the market underground is exactly the same as an ostrich sticking it's head undergound -- you can't see the problem anymore, but it will still be there.

Let me see if I get this straight. You commented that ) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal... suggesting crack, crystal meth, and marijuana are expensive? No, only some drugs are illegal. Even though name brand green beans are $0.50-0.88 per can, some people will still buy the cheaper generic ones for a variety of reasons. So cocaine gets cheaper, so does crack, and there's still a market for it.

) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities.

I cannot stand it when people say "several studies" and give no source whatsoever. Anyone can say those two words, and it adds an element of believability in the same way saying Benjamin Franklin once said it, or whispering it. For every study, there is an equal and opposite study. My experience in the volunteer work I've done in the past for the Star of Home shelter in Houston is that once people are on drugs, it is extremely difficult to get them off of them, and they "need" more and more. At first they can afford them, but the increased need for them eventually causes them to lose everything, or overdose. Quite a few of the people I spent time with lost their jobs because they were no longer able to function at work, given their increased need for the high associated with the addictive drug of choice... needing it during their working hours eventually. So maybe I should write and publish a "study" disproving the studies you paraphrased, but did not give any reference to.

If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now.

Currently, in the war on drugs, 20% of federal dollars are spent on treatment, leaving the other two thirds to be spent on prevention. The Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2003 Executive Summary shows that the federal budget increase for 2003 was $461MM. That's just an increase. The total was almost $19BB. Care to make any summaries as to how that money could have been spent instead? Let's look at how you suggest (rather how Peter McWilliams, whose only qualifications are as an author, suggests) we could spend the war on drugs money elsewhere...

Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.

Anyone who has an understanding of federal bonds and the majority of their use would never suggest we pay off the national debt. Most of those bonds are held by American taxpayers, and typically for retirement funds. Would you like to see more people forced into an already overbought and unstable stock market instead? In the realm of risk analysis, people closer to retirement need investments that less risky, and t-bonds/t-bills are near the top of that list.

Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent. With 41% of federal income spent on social security and medicare, and an additional 18% spent on the US military, I challenge you to show me the math in 100-41-18=75.

Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.

What? Oh, probably the story of the $600 hammer again. That hammer never existed.

Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year

Erm... watch the clock tick and let me know when it reaches the $580 billion dollars you get when you give 280 million people a check for $2000.

Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.

While my numbers may not represent everyone in the US, I think I'm prob

since the war on drugs eliminated drugs.

Maybe we could redirect some of that money to pensions and retraining for current poverty industry employees, and spend what's left (easily the majority) on the space program or education or something that will actually provide some benefit other than employing people in corrections.

Academia is far from as pure as the public might imagine. It is troubled with the same problems as the rest of society.

For those who don't know of him, George Ricaurte is the NIDA scientist which recently had to retract a severly flawed paper on MDMA neurotoxcity. Part of the problem is that NIDA is in the business of sustaining the War On Some Drugs, a multi billion business. It is in their interest to sustain funding for research that confirms the basis for this "war". Researchers which come up with results that are contrary to this cause (ie. which debunks common myths of toxicity and other perceived dangers) are committing career suicide.

The MDMA neurotoxcity paper by Ricaurte came under heavy fire for flawed methods when it was first released (mostly from partisan researchers with nothing to lose). The paper has since been used to push anti-MDMA legislation (like the RAVE act), both in the US and in other countries. The main reason the paper was retracted was the discovery that Ricaurte and his team hadn't even used MDMA in their animal toxcity experiments, but a completely different chemical. A small error (as Ricaurte claims) or evidence of very foul play? The company which supplied the chemicals claim that such a mixup is absurd and extremely unlikely.

Still, this has only put a small dent in Ricaurte's reputation, since he is working for the "good cause". The science behind it doesn't seem to be important, it's the underlying goals. He is now involved in new NIDA research with the same goals as before, to "prove" that MDMA is an inheritly dangerous and evil chemical.

For more information about the retraction, see the retraction itself and the response from MAPS.

Science is the a very good method to make the world understandable, but the public would do well to be a tad more sceptical and understand that a scientific degree is no automatic proof of pure intentions or valid results, there is almost always bias. Especially when there are large sums of money involved.

I'm an American and speak from that perspective...

Okay, I'm a Canadian, and I'll speak from that perspective ...

would say that if VoIP were to ever be adopted as a full replacement for POTS then yes wire-tap laws should be updated to encompass that to maintain law enforcement's ability to conduct investigation. I would not extend such a update to include internal or privately held VoIP systems, but if it used like any other public utility it should be regulated in some manner

I personally think the internet has brought about signficant enhancements to free speech in the last decade, and I would respectfully submit that to the extent possible the internet should not be regulated. What do you think couldn't be accomplished with keyloggers and search warrants issued by judges? The only issue, is an issue of convenience for law enforcement, and the only convenience I believe in, is a judge issued search warrant. Frankly, I've had enough stupid US imposed law. We've had many such laws over the years.

I don't launder money or smoke up, but these are prime issues of stupidity, right up there with the war on drugs.

More to the point I'm all for , where justified.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

The government hasn't done anything TO me or FOR me.

Then you are much more fortunate than the millions put in cages for exercising private choices about their bodies, or the handful whose religion was not ATF approved, or those denied the right to travel freely for holding politically incorrect views...

The U.S. Government: the people who brought you the Fugitive Slave Act, the Trail of Tears, Prohibition, concentration camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to intimidate the USSR, MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, the War on (some) Drugs, and "pre-emptive" war based on lies, among other great hits. So is a high degree of skepticism appropriate when analyzing its actions? You bet your liberty.

Wiretaps for that year cost taxpayers $69.5 million, and approximately 80 per cent were related to drug investigations.

I'm not saying legalize everything, just treat addiction to hard drugs as a medical issue and let medical doctors prescribe for maintance while helping their patients. Marijuana (something much safer than alcohol) needs to be legalized and taxed.

Get the facts about marijuana. End the drug war now.

Here's a good overview if you are interested: Link

The "establishment" wishes it were that easy. If it was than the billions spent on the war on drugs yearly would have actually reduce supply instead of increasing the market value. In America their is no better example of disporportionate punishments than the manditory sentences for drug offenders. Yet yearly surveys show that everywhere mary jane and coke are easier to attain by children than alchohol. Its seems that in order for an unpopular law to remain unbroken, it needs to remain unwritten.

Then I wonder what we're spending the $1200/second budget of the drug war for. It can't all be for "education"; there were only a couple of Superbowl commercials.

Actually, there were 1,579,566 arrests for drug law violations in 2000. 734,497 of those were for cannabis. 646,042 people were arrested for cannabis possession alone.

Granted, they're not all convicted, but many are: prisoners sentenced for drug offenses make up about 55% of Federal inmates and about 20% of adults in state prisons.

All this helps to give the United States the highest prison population rate in the world, at 686 per 100,000.

[Obviously this is nothing compared to the number of people who speed. I'm just objecting to the "not enforced very often" line.]

Have we won ANY of these wars?

How about a war on those who would call a war for anything.

The 'war on piracy' (wait for the MassMedia catchphrase) will be another failure, brought to you by those who would profit by its existence. Just like all the other 'War on' groups.

Hey Ashcroft, how about a war on puritanical Fundamentalists who see art as pornography, and symbols of fair Justice as dirty, masturabatory 'distractions' that should be covered up. Loser.

The American people want to see some titty.

I would like to take this opportunity to donate my brain in the name of science

Please, don't thank me, i'm doing it for the good of the human race.

1. nicotine
2. heroin
3. cocaine
4. alcohol
5. caffeine
6. marijuana

Thus, the most addictive drug is legal, and one of the most destructive (alcohol) is legal too. Marijuana, barely addictive and with minor health affects (less than nicotine) is still illegal. The government, then, is not "clamping down on extremely addictive drugs," at least not at all consistently.

Second, you talk of slavery but neglect to mention that it is by personal choice that people use substances, and as long as that choice doesn't affect other people, the government has no right to interfere. If you disagree, then are you pushing to pass a law mandating regular exercise and good eating habits?

Finally, if you had to choose between (1) a life addicted to marijuana or cocaine or (2) five years in prison with all the nice trappings that brings, which would you choose? You see, punishing people severely for choosing to take action that may cause them harm is hardly liberal. And don't try to claim that prison is about correction.

Actually, that's only true from one set of perspectives. Think of it this way: Your title to the house is merely a piece of paper that says that the house is yours. All it means is that you can get men in blue uniforms with guns to show up and kick other people out of the house if you want, assuming the political climate stays roughly equivalent to what it is.

This does not mean you "own" the house, any more than having control of the police force and the ability to break into people's houses, kill them, and take their property means you "own" the house (but then, when has that ever stopped anyone?)

This libel suit is just one part of an ongoing battle, one between the police/prison industry, and the general public.

If you are interested in Virginia's prison problem, including the so-called "supermax" prisions, and the insane shit that goes down at one of them, check out the following sites.

Committee to end the lockdown at Marion (old)

Drugsense

Human Rights Watch

November.org

In Virginia, prison is a big business, we import criminals to fill our prisons, and it's used as a source of revenue. On-duty cops are paid state funds to lobby the state legislature for harsher laws. Police, as a organized group, should not have a political voice, they are supposed to enforce the laws, not create them.

I'm no liberal, I believe in strict enforcement of sane laws. But when you have police writing the laws, to protect and expand their own industry, it does not serve the public's best interest.

prohabition should be lifted, addicts should be given free drugs & warehoused and the $40 billion/year should go towards paying all teachers six figure salaries. &nbsp the competition would weed out the shitty teachers and crime would drop. &nbsp as a side benefit, the gangs would go bankrupt.

why is this? &nbsp is this completely undeserved? &nbsp in my experience, the minority of teachers are dedicated and do the job because they love it. &nbsp the majority do it because they are not capable of doing anything else (or getting a degree that requires hard science classes).

You would never, ever think of telling your doctor, "Well, I could do your job if I wanted to take the time".

that's right, because YOU COULDN'T!! &nbsp anyone with a basic college education could teach grade or high school with a little preparation.

summer vacation, minimal responsibility (compared to an engineer working on a multi-million dollar project) and an easy degree is why teachers make small salaries. &nbsp period.

personally, i think all teachers should be paid $100,000+/year. the competition would weed out the shitty teachers and our children would be better educated.

we could take the $40 billion/year spent on the war on drugs and use the cash to pay teachers high salaries &nbsp WoD clock

Look up the following (if you need more just reply and I will give you a ton): Frontline:busted..how effective is D.A.R.E
War on Drugs Clock
Interesting Fact Sheet from canadian sources That should get you started on how and why D.A.R.E. does not work. The US prohibition against drugs in an incredible failure. In the first 12 years of the War on Drugs (begining with Reagan's presidency) the US Gov. spent a record 3 Trillion dollars. If you worked out the numbers that is about $12,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. I don't know about you but my feeling is that this is an incredible waste of money. I could think of agencies like NASA who I would rather see me $1,000 a year spent on rather than the bullshit we call a war on drugs. I can't find an exact figure for the model but last year the 6th largest growth industry in the US was Prisons according to a Frontline report I saw not too long ago. The War on Drugs as it is being waged is the most blatant racist violation of US citizens rights. The statistic of 3 out of 4 black males (between ages 17-34)in inner cities being incarcerated at one point or another for a drug offense should point that out. The distribution of drug use is not vastly different between any particular ethnic, racial or financial demographic yet we relentlessly persecute blacks for it. This is an utter disgrace. Caucasians do drugs too. I don't see 3 out of 4 of us in jail for it.If this were really a WAR then we would handle it completely different but we won't. It is always election fodder and makes the righteous candidates look foolish for saying truthfully that the war is dumb. Jocelyn Elders was ridiculed out of her position as Surgeon General for saying that the drug problem is a health problem not a criminal problem. The CIA was busted selling and marketing cocaine in 'Contragate' to help fund subversive actions during the Iran/Iraq war. The list goes on there I could continue to add to ad infinitum.People for the most part are opposed to legalization/decriminalization for all the wrong reasons based upon the disinformation you are presented with in the educational system. Could we please stop brainwashing the next generation and teach them the facts? How many of us were forced to watch Reefer Madness? How much of the 'facts' presented therein is totally bullshit? Will crime go UP if decriminaliztion occurs? No because a) you will kill the black market that feeds off of it b) drugs will be much cheaper c)the quality will be better d)street gangs who finance themselves on drug sales will be out of business e)we would stop letting violent offenders out of jail to house mandatory sentencing guidlined drug offenders and the rediculous 3 time offender laws that require people to be jailed the rest of thier lives for the sale or use f)the relentless seizure of properites would end. Drug use for the most part is a victimless crime.We have to stop this madness and soon. Cops needlessly are being killed. FBI agents bodies are turning up in graves in Mexico. Our Presidential candidates have used drugs: Gore and Bush links. I am totally for decriminalization and when I say that I mean clean across the board, not just pot or coke I mean EVERYTHING. What a person does in thier own home on thier own time is thier business. You do what you want. I care not. If you do drugs and get behind the wheel of a car we take away you liscense forever(something I totally advocate for DUI offenders to) end of story. The basic tenet of freedom is the right to be left alone and not be unduly harrassed. Why isn't it that way now?Please, Uncle Sam, stop blowing my hard earned tax dollars on the bullshit and stop trying to brainwash our children.

(1) Prohibition. When alcohol was banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The amendment was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.

(1a) Drug Prohibition. When drugs like marijuana were banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The laws were made harsher and harsher, until by the year 2000, a defacto "drug exception" had been carved out of the bill of rights, over two million Americans were in prison, about half of them on mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes, the economies of most Central American countries had been destabilized, and back in the U.S., the police in New York and Los Angeles had been transformed into roving gangs of death squads. Police were given the power to seize any and all property belonging to anyone accused of a drug crime without any process or trial. The citizens of a few states, in general elections, legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, but the federal government declared that the state laws were invalid, and began an intensive campaign to intimidate, arrest, and prosecute doctors and patients who tried to exercise their rights. At the local level, the police simply refused to obey the new laws. Children were removed from core classes such as reading and math, in favor of mandatory drug propaganda classes tought by uniformed police officers, where they were encouraged to turn in their parents "for their own good." Still, all that the legislatures could or would do was pass harsher and harsher laws, and in May 2000 a law passed Congress that would create an explicit "drug exception" to the first amendment itself.

It is a common myth that alcohol prohibition was ended by civil disobedience. In fact, ending prohibition was part of a national political strategy, orchestrated by a group of New York lawyers, who were trying to save the United States from the disaster that it destroying it now. It was a strategy that helped propel FDR into power and in the process, reshaped Congress, and our entire government.

For the real story of how alcohol prohibition was ended, read here. It's quite interesting.