Global Commission on Drug Policy has declared War on Drugs is lost.

[billybroome]

No, I'm just very aware of the quantity of stupid people in every city.

I can't argue with a dude that knows his people.

[JerryK]

I can't argue with a dude that knows his people.

I'm concerned you think I'm lumping you in with those people. Not true, you guys are cool...It's the people we see in the paper every day that drink/drive/crash.

And don't forget, I'm ok with pot/hemp. I think developing roadside tests can make pot safe..and a hemp industry would really help the economy.

But going beyond pot is going to be big problems.

[Vudu]

Legalize the whacky tobaccy!

[T0mShane]

We live in a country wherein a President can't get elected unless he pretends to be at Sunday Mass every week. What Presidential candidate is ever going to commit mass political suicide (taking his party with him) by legalizing weed?

[billybroome]

I'm concerned you think I'm lumping you in with those people. Not true, you guys are cool...It's the people we see in the paper every day that drink/drive/crash.

And don't forget, I'm ok with pot/hemp. I think developing roadside tests can make pot safe..and a hemp industry would really help the economy.

But going beyond pot is going to be big problems.

My God, talk about missing the point. I presently DO NOT do drugs at all. I have used them many years ago and looking back I see they have their time and place. Pot was my favorite followed by coke, LSD, and speed. I lived through them all as will most people who use them recreationally. There will always be a percentage of users who can't deal with their addictive properties and succumb to an addiction, and I honestly feel they shouldn't be persecuted about it. They should be given other avenues of rehabilitation aside from what the legal system hands out.

[#27TheDominator]

I don't see how you people think they can legalize weed. They are in the process of outlawing cigarettes. Do you think people really plan to buy joints with filters and public health warnings?

[slats]

We live in a country wherein a President can't get elected unless he pretends to be at Sunday Mass every week. What Presidential candidate is ever going to commit mass political suicide (taking his party with him) by legalizing weed?

It's good to have a guy like Gary Johnson out there at least talking about it. I think it would have to come from a Republican administration, selling it on it's fiscal advantages. Democrats would go along. Whereas if a Democratic guy brought it up, the Rupubs would come out with both liberal/soft on crime barrels blazing.

But you're right about this country, though. Thomas Jefferson once wrote his own version of the Bible in which he took out all the silly miracle stuff. How do you think such an act would play today? I think he'd take more heat for that than owning slaves.

[CTM]

We live in a country wherein a President can't get elected unless he pretends to be at Sunday Mass every week. What Presidential candidate is ever going to commit mass political suicide (taking his party with him) by legalizing weed?

heh... just saw a stat the other day that said 44% of the people in this country think the rapture is probably coming within the next 30 years... kind of scary how big a voting block people who think the world is going to end in the 30 years represent. what motive do they have to be behind any long term problems?

[Barcs]

The thing with weed is that no matter how stoned most people get, it simply doesn't compare to being wasted on alcohol. Most people can drive perfectly fine while blazed, and some I know even drive better. Weed is not for everyone, though, and affects people differently, but while you may get really hungry or pass out, you are very little danger to society, in most cases. You don't lose balance, have blackouts, become violent, get taken advantage of sexually, or act as irrationally, and it's not physically addictive. Sure, some people have pre existing conditions, but compare weed with even most legal drugs and you will see the long term health effects are much worse for FDA approved drugs. That's the biggest ongoing joke in America today. FDA is a joke. Weed doesn't harm society at all, and it has been here for a long time. No "war" on drugs is going to change the demand. More people might go to jail, but that's just more people being locked away on the taxpayer dollar. There's no reason whatsoever it should be illegal, or even be such a huge money pit for the government. Legalize all drugs and reallocate the money being spent on the war on drugs into rehabilitation centers. The tax money that could potentially be made of of this could save this country. There's no reason we should constantly be trying to increase the debt ceiling when such no brainer solutions are available. Capitalism is all supply and demand, and the demand is causing the supply to be met by illegal drug cartels, who are not trustworthy and probably make the drugs much more dangerous. As a capitalist society we should fill the demand, so it will be safer for everyone.

[Vudu]

The thing with weed is that no matter how stoned most people get, it simply doesn't compare to being wasted on alcohol. Most people can drive perfectly fine while blazed, and some I know even drive better. Weed is not for everyone, though, and affects people differently, but while you may get really hungry or pass out, you are very little danger to society, in most cases. You don't lose balance, have blackouts, become violent, get taken advantage of sexually, or act as irrationally, and it's not physically addictive. Sure, some people have pre existing conditions, but compare weed with even most legal drugs and you will see the long term health effects are much worse for FDA approved drugs. That's the biggest ongoing joke in America today. FDA is a joke. Weed doesn't harm society at all, and it has been here for a long time. No "war" on drugs is going to change the demand. More people might go to jail, but that's just more people being locked away on the taxpayer dollar. There's no reason whatsoever it should be illegal, or even be such a huge money pit for the government. Legalize all drugs and reallocate the money being spent on the war on drugs into rehabilitation centers. The tax money that could potentially be made of of this could save this country. There's no reason we should constantly be trying to increase the debt ceiling when such no brainer solutions are available. Capitalism is all supply and demand, and the demand is causing the supply to be met by illegal drug cartels, who are not trustworthy and probably make the drugs much more dangerous. As a capitalist society we should fill the demand, so it will be safer for everyone.

This is true. I get drunk pretty quickly and if I go over my limit I end up with the crappy hangover and IM worthless the next day. With weed ( when I do get stoned which isnt often anymore) I get blzed, go to bed and wake up the next day like nothing happened, with no residual effects. I just dont understand how it can be "partially" legal though.

[JohnnyHector]

This is true. I get drunk pretty quickly and if I go over my limit I end up with the crappy hangover and IM worthless the next day. With weed ( when I do get stoned which isnt often anymore) I get blzed, go to bed and wake up the next day like nothing happened, with no residual effects. I just dont understand how it can be "partially" legal though.

You post better pictures when you're drunk though.

Score one for alcohol.

[Vudu]

You post better pictures when you're drunk though.

Score one for alcohol.

lawlzzz I try to stay off JN when Ive had one too many tequila shots

[bitonti]

If Phillip Morris started growing weed it would be like 3 bucks a bag. and that's a problem for everyone who benefits from the black market.

[T0mShane]

If Phillip Morris started growing weed it would be like 3 bucks a bag. and that's a problem for everyone who benefits from the black market.

I think I read about ten years ago that Phillip Morris already had an entire marketing campaign, complete with trademarked logos, taglines, etc, in the event weed was ever legalized. It would be on store shelves within 36 hours. I'd imagine it would be taxed like a muffukka, though, and every Central American drug cartel leader would be lining up to ring the opening bell on Wall Street.

[billybroome]

It would be on store shelves within 36 hours.

They'd need a hell of a heads up to make that happen. Anyone here who has rolled a joint and tossed the seeds into some soil knows the process take a lot longer that.

[villain_the_foe]

Any war can be fought and won.

The problem is all these programs become money making machines for the people supposed to fight these wars and then they want these wars to continue forever!

The problem was approaching the problem as if it was a "war". It doesnt need to be met with such a conflict-style approach.

Then again, it needs to be in order for it to be the money making machine that it was originally intended to be. In that respect you're absolutely right.

The proof is in the pudding. You make it illegal, make laws, have a war on it and it instantly becomes profitable. Go to Holland however, and you dont have that problem.

[Barcs]

Wars on concepts, ideas and inanimate objects can not be won. They will NEVER end or significantly reduce drug use with such a demand, especially since the hypocrites at FDA endorse far worse drugs on a daily basis and nobody thinks twice about it. "Oh, it gets rid of my headache, so it's cool. Forget what's in it." I think as a whole most people are just dumb and don't care about what goes in their body, but most of those people are avid marijuana opposers. Any argument left to keep marijuana illegal can be easily and logically crushed. So you think weed is so terrible, but you probably eat all kinds of processed foods, artificial sugar, caffeine, tylenol, alcohol, etc etc. What would you do if they made caffeine illegal? There would be a huge underground coffee shop movement.

[JetsFanInDenver]

The problem was approaching the problem as if it was a "war". It doesnt need to be met with such a conflict-style approach.

Then again, it needs to be in order for it to be the money making machine that it was originally intended to be. In that respect you're absolutely right.

The proof is in the pudding. You make it illegal, make laws, have a war on it and it instantly becomes profitable. Go to Holland however, and you dont have that problem.

Even with a conflict style approach any war can be won.

The reason why most people do not believe that is because in our lifetimes we have seen many never ending, money draining wars being fought with no results. And so we start believing that it cannot be done.

What we don't see as people is how these wars become money making machines for the some people. And once they start making money they want these wars to continue forever and then it becomes a never ending exercise of futility. And that's what most of our wars have been. A money making exercise for vested interests.

[slats]

What would you do if they made caffeine illegal? There would be a huge underground coffee shop movement.

It's a gateway drug.

[villain_the_foe]

Even with a conflict style approach any war can be won.

The reason why most people do not believe that is because in our lifetimes we have seen many never ending, money draining wars being fought with no results. And so we start believing that it cannot be done.

What we don't see as people is how these wars become money making machines for the some people. And once they start making money they want these wars to continue forever and then it becomes a never ending exercise of futility. And that's what most of our wars have been. A money making exercise for vested interests.

I 100% agree with you. I just think that if we want to help people drug addiction we cant look at it as a "war". War is our answer for everything...and what ends up happening is exactly as you stated. We find profitability in it which prolongs the drug addiction because you need to prolong the war in order to prolong profits.

the "war" approach has never been the answer because ultimately it never helps. War is only won by the profiteers, not the dope fiends. I've worked for not-for-profit organizations that deal with recovery programs for drug addicts etc. Trust me that "not-for-profit", is just a name because this organization is receiving millions from state, federal and donation pools. And given my administrative duties i've been exposed to some things that clearly show that its not about helping people....but about the numbers.

War is "for-profit".

[billybroome]

Even with a conflict style approach any war can be won.

Tell that to the Vietnam war vets. They'd laugh in your face.

[JetsFanInDenver]

Tell that to the Vietnam war vets. They'd laugh in your face.

How did i forget that!

Thanks for lending us your brilliant insight!

[billybroome]

How did i forget that!

Thanks for lending us your brilliant insight!

Anything to help your head clear your a$$.

[JetsFanInDenver]

Anything to help your head clear your a$$.

Slapdick post!

P.S: You do not have to work so hard to prove you are a douche, we all already know!

[billybroome]

Slapdick post!

P.S: You do not have to work so hard to prove you are a douche, we all already know!

Whatever newb. Whatever...

[JetsFanInDenver]

Whatever newb. Whatever...

Newb ? Weak!

[rillo]

http://m.npr.org/story/137083294?url=/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/09/137083294/report-u-s-drug-war-spending-is-unjustifiable

[billybroome]

http://m.npr.org/sto...s-unjustifiable

Excellent post. The best part stating:

"We are wasting tax dollars and throwing money at a problem without even knowing what we are getting in return," said Sen.Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who chairs the Senate subcommittee that wrote one of the reports, which was released Wednesday.

[BroadwayJ667]

meaningless war started to win political points. The fact is people are going to do drugs, most people aren't going to though.

If heroin were legal does that mean everyone is going to run out and start shooting up? Nope. People do drugs to cope with pain. Pain is just part of being human.

Honestly is shooting up heroin much different that relying on Xanex or any of the other escapist drugs. Not really It just who the money goes to, the corrupt giant corporations or the murderous cartels. In my eyes, grey that they are, there is no difference.

[sirlancemehlot]

True. We could decriminalize(not legalize) and make it a public health problem rather than a criminal one. But courts, cops, DAs, court clerks, court-ordered treatment programs and defense attorneys would have to find honest work.

Hah! you think your average cop doesn't have enough to do in this era of manpower shortages and mass layoffs? Go ahead and legalize it. We'll just take more accident reports and write more tickets for driving too damned slow! Seriously, though...I think about my kids. Even if it were legalized, would I want them to become stoners? Would I want them to be baked and playing video games while eating chipwiches at three in the morning? Weed isn't as harmeless as we all joke that it is. Booze is probably more dangerous (outside of the lung-cancer issue) but we can't take that away and replace it with weed. So, honestly, giving people access to both booze and weed would be problematic. Keep it illegal, but punish it more lightly. A ticket, say. And save the big punishments for more dangerous and often lethal narcotics.

[sirlancemehlot]

meaningless war started to win political points. The fact is people are going to do drugs, most people aren't going to though.

If heroin were legal does that mean everyone is going to run out and start shooting up? Nope. People do drugs to cope with pain. Pain is just part of being human.

Honestly is shooting up heroin much different that relying on Xanex or any of the other escapist drugs. Not really It just who the money goes to, the corrupt giant corporations or the murderous cartels. In my eyes, grey that they are, there is no difference.

Heroin is a fu*king monster. Legalize it and see the price drop. See more "recreational" use. See more overdose deaths. see more people will kill their own grandmas and rob churches for their fix. Heroin is the absolute devil. No way I could ever get behind legalizing that crap. Dirty needles, disease, violence, suicide, robbery, burglary, theft, child endagerment and neglect...its all tied to that nasty sh*t.

[slats]

Seriously, though...I think about my kids. Even if it were legalized, would I want them to become stoners? Would I want them to be baked and playing video games while eating chipwiches at three in the morning?

It being illegal isn't what's going to keep your kids from becoming baked out video game stoners - just like alcohol being legal doesn't mean they're destined to become alcoholics.

There's a case to be made that making weed legal will reduce the number of people moving onto to harder, more dangerous drugs. Lots of kids use weed now, and as a result have access to coke, ecstasy, etc. If weed were legal, they'd be buying it in legal, over the counter ways, and have less exposure to the illegal narcotic market.

[Bugg]

Heroin is a fu*king monster. Legalize it and see the price drop. See more "recreational" use. See more overdose deaths. see more people will kill their own grandmas and rob churches for their fix. Heroin is the absolute devil. No way I could ever get behind legalizing that crap. Dirty needles, disease, violence, suicide, robbery, burglary, theft, child endagerment and neglect...its all tied to that nasty sh*t.

Agree to a point. But recall that when heroin use picked up as it became more pure and therefore easily-snortable in the 1990s, crack cocaine use dropped and so did crime.Some might say more focused policing and "Compstat" crime analysis played a part. But crackheads would steal anything and go batsh*t 24/7, smack users tend to pass out in hallways. The shock for me working in and around criminal courts was how many people are long-term daily smack users. Sooner or later they all crash and OD, but some can function for years.

Problem is while we argue baout street drugs prescription(or overprescribed, illegally-subscribed or falt stolen) pain killers are probably a bigger problem than anything else. But as you probably know for all the happy bullsh*t about the wonders of the herb, the most common drug found in study after study of violent criminals is in fact marijuana. Not sure it means pot makes you a criminal, more likely the lifestyle of a failure dumbass who falls into criminality has a healthy dose of street drug use. If you have a job that matters gettinmg high all the time doesn't work.

As to the imbecilic comments how pot doesn't impair anyone, you smoke it because you alter your mind by getting high; if it didn't produce those endorphins you wouldn't smoke it. I wouldn't want anyone driving next to me on a highway who is loaded nor stoned. And I imagine no one else would either. Nor cops, firemen, ariline pilots, truck drivers, etc. who get baked. Also like any smoke inhalant it's probably highly caricenogenic.

Having said that, enforcement doesn't work. We spend billions on interdictions, courts, cops, etc. and little changes. Better we get it out of the criminal justice system and make it a public health problem.

ALL ABOARD THE LATIN AMERICAN WAR ON DRUGS GRAVY TRAIN

Waging the war on drugs in Latin America is a gold mine for contractors, a waste for taxpayers

Mike Riggs | June 10, 2011

Private companies received nearly $2 billion in Latin American drug war contracts between 2005 and 2009, according to a report released Thursday by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). That money may as well have been stuffed in garbage bags and dropped randomly from the backs of airplanes.

The two major agencies tasked with overseeing the drug war in Latin America—the State Department and the Department of Defense—lack “a centralized database or system with the capacity to track counternarcotics contracts," McCaskill found. As a result, both agencies struggled to explain contracts worth millions of dollars that were awarded to unknown recipients to complete ambiguous and often sketchy projects.

“In one instance,” reads McCaskill’s report, “the State Department awarded a $2.1 million no-bid contract to ‘miscellaneous foreign contractors’ to purchase pickup trucks in Bolivia. According to the Department, the lack of competition was justified because the source was unique. The Department did not provide information to explain why the particular source was uniquelyqualified to provide pickup trucks.”

All told, the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) awarded more than $50 million in contracts to “miscellaneous foreign contractors,” and another $6.8 million for “miscellaneous commodities, supplies, and/or services” between 2005 and 2009. The INL’s bean counters have no idea who these companies are, or what they were tasked with doing, only that, in most cases, they got paid.

When pressed for more accurate data by the Senate, INL attempted to match receipts from diplomatic posts with its “Global and Regional Financial Management Systems.” After several months, INL concluded that “the volume of procurement actions overwhelms staff capacity in some instances” because many of the “acquisition steps are manual processes that are both time-consuming and error prone.”

The State Department’s investigation into INL’s contractor accounting began in May 2010. A year later, “INL still could not adequately account for counter-narcotics contract spending.”

Not every dollar, however, went to anonymous contractors and ambiguous projects. A little more than 50 percent of what the U.S. spent between 2005 and 2009, or $1.6 billion, went toward “aircraft-related services, maintenance, logistics, support, equipment, and training.” The Army spent $75,000 on paintball supplies and $5,000 on “rubber ducks,” which is code for fake M-16s. And a provision in the Small Business Administration’s program for “disadvantaged” businesses allowed three Alaska Native corporations—Olgoonik, Alutiiq, and Chugach McKinley, Inc.—to receive more than $50 million worth of “sole-source contracts of unlimited value without justification or approval” to provide meal service, “engineering and software support activity,” and security guards in Bolivia and Colombia.

On the Department of Defense side, McCaskill’s report found “instances where contract personnel were allowed to depart the contract without recovering all issued property, loss of laptop computers, and other valuable items such as GPS’s.” The chief (but not sole) offender in this category was the company DynCorp, which demonstrated “inadequate accounting of government property.”

Whether or not these contracts should cost less or be better accounted for is one question. An even bigger question is whether these contracts are necessary even in the context of the drug war. In 2007, the Army awarded a contract to a company in Bogota for tractor trailers. Upon learning that it had received the contract, Talleres Los Pitufo sent a letter to the Army demanding 50 percent of its payment up front. The Army’s in-country office never responded to the letter, and it took them an entire year to figure out that Talleres Los Pitufo, in turn, never delivered the tractor trailers.

McCaskill’s findings led her to declare that U.S. "efforts to rein in the narcotics trade in Latin America, especially as it relates to the government's use of contractors, have largely failed." That's a strikingly realistic and honest rebuttal to President Barack Obama’s claim that the U.S. and its Latin American partners are winning the war on drugs. A White House spokesperson, for instance, cited increased border seizures of drugs and firearms as proof positive that we're winning. The same official declined to mention increased violence, torture, kidnappings, sexual assaults, and open skirmishes between cartels, other cartels, and police.

There's also arguably a streak of pure utility in McCaskill’s stance. Her willingness to challenge U.S. counter-narcotic efforts solely on the grounds of contractor malfeasance when contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been accused of everything from murdering civilians to turning a blind eye to human trafficking suggests there’s a decreasing appetite on Capitol Hill for drug-war adventuring.

So while there’s a strong moral argument for drawing down our interdiction efforts in Latin America, there’s an even simpler argument by Washington standards: "We are wasting tax dollars,” McCaskill said Thursday, “and throwing money at a problem without even knowing what we are getting in return."

Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

[#27TheDominator]

meaningless war started to win political points. The fact is people are going to do drugs, most people aren't going to though.

If heroin were legal does that mean everyone is going to run out and start shooting up? Nope. People do drugs to cope with pain. Pain is just part of being human.

Honestly is shooting up heroin much different that relying on Xanex or any of the other escapist drugs. Not really It just who the money goes to, the corrupt giant corporations or the murderous cartels. In my eyes, grey that they are, there is no difference.

Do you really think you need to mention your gray eyes to get laid around here?

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

War on Drugs....a failure? Who woulda guessed?

Glad to see they realized what most of the world knew 20 years ago.