Cory Booker: The War on Drugs has failed

posted at 6:41 pm on July 16, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

Newark, New Jersey mayor Cory Booker is making news again — this time for commentary regarding the War on Drugs. Via Huffington Post:

Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker took to Reddit Sunday to criticize the war on drugs, saying it was ineffective and “represents big overgrown government at its worst.”

“The so called War on Drugs has not succeeded in making significant reductions in drug use, drug arrests or violence,” the Democrat wrote during the Reddit “ask me anything” chat. “We are pouring huge amounts of our public resources into this current effort that are bleeding our public treasury and unnecessarily undermining human potential.”

Over at Reddit, Booker wrote the following:

Blacks make up less than 15% of our New Jersey’s population but make up more than 60% of our prison population. I can’t accept that facts like this one do anything but demonstrate the historic and current biases in our criminal justice system…People should not see these facts and this discussion as an indictment of any one race, sector, or occupation, it should be seen as a call to all of us to do the difficult things to make a change because this isn’t a “black” problem this is an American problem.

The so called War on Drugs has not succeeded in making significant reductions in drug use, drug arrests or violence. We are pouring huge amounts of our public resources into this current effort that are bleeding our public treasury and unnecessarily undermining human potential. I see the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars being poured into the criminal justice system here in New Jersey and it represents big overgrown government at its worst. We should be investing dollars in programs and strategies that work not just to lower crime but work to empower lives.

It anguishes me how we seem to be so content with national and state recidivism rates of around 60% and how a staggering number of young black men are involved in the criminal justice system.

My police in Newark are involved in an almost ridiculous game of arresting the same people over and over again and when you talk to these men they have little belief that there is help or hope for them to break out of this cycle.

And it is a dangerous world for people caught up in the drug trade for it is so associated with violence. Data from Rutgers University is chilling: Over 80% of Newark’s murder VICTIMS have been arrested before an average of 10 times.

There are few public policy areas where Democrats are right, but the legalization of marijuana is one of them. Last month I made a case for why social conservatives should consider supporting the legalization of marijuana, and Booker’s data above backs a lot of what I wrote about. The editors of National Review are also in agreement with Booker on both marijuana legalization and the failure of the War on Drugs.

Booker doesn’t just complain, however. He also offers solutions for those people currently on drugs, who have been arrested, and otherwise have been impacted by both their own poor life decisions and the War on Drugs:

  1. Reentry. We developed the state’s first office of reentry, raised philanthropy and other grant dollars to support it and have some impressive data. Our office has connected well over 1,000 men and women with work and a number of our programs are producing some great results. One I will mention here is our Fatherhood program. The recidivism rate for this program has dropped among participants from over 60% for nonparticipants to 7% for participants…Instead of condemning men for not being good fathers and preaching to them about how they should take care of their kids, this program looks to empower them in their fatherhood mission. The men are partnered with mentor dads, there are parenting classes, group activities with their kids and a partnership is created with the mother of the children. The men are helped with finding jobs and even with suits and more for interviews and work. All of this is so much cheaper than continued incarceration and it empowers participants (mostly black and latino) breaking the cycle of imprisonment…
  2. Court reform . . . I discussed this in another answer but by having youth courts, veterans courts, drug courts and more, we are finding that we can empower people to stay out of jail and turn their lives around as opposed to get chewed up in the system. Court innovation is critical and Newark is leading the way in New Jersey thanks to great partners like The Center For Court Innovation in NYC.
  3. Jobs. It is so critical that we find ways to rapidly attach people to work when they come out of prison even if they are minimum wage transition jobs. Newark has done a lot in this area. I’m particularly proud of our Clean and Green program taking men and women right from returning from prison and giving them jobs helping to clean and green our city.
  4. Treatment. This is critical. Our state is just recently stepping up to expand treatment and make it a mandatory alternative to incarceration. In Newark we have some great treatment options but they too need more funding. Treatment saves taxpayer dollars, empowers individuals, stops recidivism, heals families and helps us all.
  5. Legal Help. Our nation’s legal service and advocacy organizations are starving and so many people are getting chewed up by the criminal justice system just because they are poor and lack legal support. Newark New Jersey started our nations first ever pro bono legal service practice to support people coming home from prison. You would be amazed at the number of people who come out of prison, want to get a job and try to do the right thing but then their lives are entangled by countless legal problems and barriers that could be overcome with with some administrative legal support…
  6. There is much more I can list in terms of things happening in Newark that point to solutions…But for my final point…So much of this problem could be solved by strong education systems and other systems of support for our children before they get in trouble. So let me offer this as a final action item to heal our nation, end many insidious racial divisions and exalt our country’s highest ideals. Mentoring. It takes 4 hours a month to mentor a child, the amount of time most watch TV in a day. There are hundreds of kids in Newark on waiting lists for a mentor: a positive adult in their lives who cares. Mentoring has demonstrated a profound ability to dramatically lower incarceration for youth and even lower early unsafe sex practices. And it has shown to boost youth outcomes from self-esteem to dramatically increasing school performance. EVERYONE who is qualified should be mentoring a child who is not their own OR encouraging others to do so OR supporting mentoring organizations. If every so-called “at risk” kid in Newark had a mentor we could dramatically end future crime in our city.

Now, I’m just a lowly blogger with more opinions than he ought to voice, but even if Booker’s solutions aren’t right for every community they make a lot of sense. Rather than incentivize failure, encourage success. Preventive measures through mentoring. The value of employment, local solutions and citizen involvement. These are conservative principles to help improve society, and Booker seems to believe they are working.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

I’d say your Daddy, but I stay away from those type of women…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM

ROTFLMAO… I probably have kids older then you.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 7:53 PM

You’re very angry and agitated. You could use a joint right about now.

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Well, it is coming up on 5 o’clock, PDT…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Notice how any post about legalizing drugs draws the libs like a moth to a flame. Wonder why that is? /

Typically, they won’t stand up for any law that they aren’t busy hiding behind.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM

The evidence in Portugal is that making drugs legal did not increase drug addiction: http://drugpolicy.ca/2011/12/sir-richard-branson-time-to-end-the-war-on-drugs/

Why? Why are stiff prison sentences not a deterrent? Well, beyond the underrated fact that many are attracted to the lure of the illicit, the greatest deterrent is what people know drug addiction does to their lives. Drug addiction throws a wrecking ball into your ability to make a living, raise a family, and do most things in life. This, and the social stigma associated with drug addiction, is deterrent enough; the addition of a legal stricture cannot add anything more to the situation that the overwhelming personal cost associated with drug addiction doesn’t already add.

anotherJoe on July 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Red herring. Legalize marijuana, legalize whatever drug you like, you won’t change the fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than others, except perhaps illegal alien hispanics.

slickwillie2001 on July 16, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Slowly, backing away from the radioactive pile…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Corey Booker is looking more and more like the future of the Democrat Party. At least he’s not a completely insane communist which is their current mainstream.

I totally agree. The “Drug War” has failed and was doomed to fail. It’s never going to work and it was the “excuse du jour” for eroding civil liberties and empowering government prior to terrorism.

I’m personally against consuming drugs. I wouldn’t do it. But I fail to see how the federal government has the right by fiat to outlaw them without a Constitutional Amendment (as was required for Prohibition) and to force abortion on all 50 states (57 if you are a democrat). These are questions the Constitution is silent on and thus should be left up to the STATES, as the founders intended.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Once users are all prohibited from receiving medical care (and driving up my insurance premiums), prohibited from receiving any form of public assistance, and are required to lock themselves away like a freaking werewolf, lest they be met by a hail of silver bullets ON SIGHT, then and only then will I entertain legalizing a freedom to use mind altering and addictive substances which rob people of the freedom to disuse them.

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Oh my..then what about alcohol? Prohibition again, cigs? Your insurance premiums..heh..I am paying for people that like to breed uncontrollably and public school taxes. Take me out of that mix.
What about fat people? Genetic disorders? Alzheimers-the elderly and baby boomers killing my premiums?
You sound like a self righteous fool.
I may agree with you on some issues-but you sound like the typical dumba$$. Werewolf..LOL. Lockem away!!

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 7:55 PM

The War on Murder has failed, let`s legalize murder! :-P

ThePrez on July 16, 2012 at 7:57 PM

The Notorious G.O.P on July 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I have to say that I am again astounded by one of your comments. Your comment here, in it’s entirety, is exactly my feelings on the subject. Your comments lately have been like that and I wonder if my opinion of your positions in the past has been rash and too harsh. My apologizes if that has indeed been the case.

At any rate, I think we see more eye to eye on that we have disagreed about.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

You might not agree with Walker but he is neither ignorant or a liar.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 7:47 PM

He is openly advocating summary executions. If that isn’t gross ignorance, what would you call it?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I’d say your Daddy, but I stay away from those type of women…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM

You in Junior High? Fail.
I love these threads..brings out the freaks with large beaks.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 7:59 PM

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

100% class.

Rare around these parts. h/t.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

He is openly advocating summary executions. If that isn’t gross ignorance, what would you call it?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Expressing his opinion. You obviously have a problem with anyone else’s right to do that.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM

states issue.
and why isn’t the DOJ suing states dea’s since there is a federal dea?

decriminalize it all, oui laws already cover most issues.
and screw rehab, you do drugs you take the bad with the good. not societies job to rehab you.

dmacleo on July 16, 2012 at 8:02 PM

He is openly advocating summary executions. If that isn’t gross ignorance, what would you call it?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I wonder what SWalker would do if the kids were in the car while he carries out these spot executions. Probably force them to applaud.

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 8:02 PM

He is openly advocating summary executions. If that isn’t gross ignorance, what would you call it?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

The only way drugs could ever BE stamped out would require such egregious violations of the Constitution that you would HAVE to put up with such travesties as summary execution of drug USERS by cops.

Only by mass murdering of drug users would the market demand be (literally) killed off that the gangs wouldn’t profit in it. That is the only way drug use will EVER be stopped regardless of the law. Every time you take out a drug gang two more rise to take it’s place.

I won’t accept that. Or anything in between. The law enforcement establishment has eroded our freedoms TOO MUCH already.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

You might not agree with Walker but he is neither ignorant or a liar.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 7:47 PM

He is openly advocating summary executions. If that isn’t gross ignorance, what would you call it?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

What part of LEARN YOUR PHUCKING HISTORY is still escaping you? You Ronulans are all the same, brain dead ignorant full of $hit, think you know everything when in reality you don’t know your a$$ from a hole in the ground.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

The only way drugs could ever BE stamped out would require such egregious violations of the Constitution that you would HAVE to put up with such travesties as summary execution of drug USERS by cops.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Don’t give Mayor Bloomberg any ideas.

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I’m mystified by the reasoning of those who support legalizing drugs. These are almost always the same people who thinks its fine to make smoking a cigarette anywhere, anytime, illegal.

These are also usually the same people who want to ban plastic bags and make laws regarding how much soda a person is allowed to purchase because its not ‘healthy’ for them to consume too much soda and the thinking is that left to their own people will consume ‘too much’.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Expressing his opinion. You obviously have a problem with anyone else’s right to do that.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM

+1

He is openly advocating summary executions. If that isn’t gross ignorance, what would you call it?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I read his opinion..your purposely misconstruing what he stated.
He stated his opinion about dealers on the border with narcotics.
Not a 16 yr old with a dime bag.
I will let him speak for himself-his words not mine.
Known Walker for about 3 years now around here. A difference of opinion doesn’t make him a liar. Then you turn to juvenile jokes. But you want to be taken seriously. Ha.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

What part of LEARN YOUR PHUCKING HISTORY is still escaping you? You Ronulans are all the same, brain dead ignorant full of $hit, think you know everything when in reality you don’t know your a$$ from a hole in the ground.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Says the guy who can’t complete a single sentence without swearing.

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

There is a large majority of the population who don’t use drugs simply because they are illegal.

The Notorious G.O.P on July 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

This is first-rate, weapons grade nonsense, pulled directly out of the filthy heat of your own squeakhole.

The illegality of drugs is not a significant impediment to obtaining them. Virtually anybody who wants them can get them without a great deal of effort. Moreover, the ship has long since sailed on drug laws having any real moral force: people in general do not regard recreational drug use (as distinguished from bona fide drug abuse; the one is not the other) as an unremitting evil.

And yet, per the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, illicit drug use rates have stubbornly remained stable for the last decade, despite variation in usage between drug types (prescription drug use is up, marijuana use is down — despite state-level efforts at legalizing marijuana over the same time period).

In short, there is absolutely no rational reason to believe that the political incorrectness of certain substances is the only thing standing between us and some sort of Hippie Apocalypse, where a “large majority” of Americans suddenly becomes dope fiends.

Get a grip.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Expressing his opinion. You obviously have a problem with anyone else’s right to do that.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM

No problem with it at all.

But apparently he has a problem with being called out on advocating such over-the-top totalitarian ideas, liker summary execution of US citizens. And on the fact that doing so puts him in company with the current POTUS… two advocates of abrogating the Constitution in one pod. Very comfortable together, I imagine…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

These are also usually the same people who want to ban plastic bags and make laws regarding how much soda a person is allowed to purchase because its not ‘healthy’ for them to consume too much soda and the thinking is that left to their own people will consume ‘too much’.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Most liberals are for killing children in the womb but AGAINST executing convicted murderers.

Hint: liberalism isn’t a logical or rational world view, expect no consistency.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 8:11 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I don’t like JG23, but dude, you are going wayyyyy over the line here. Smoke a bowl and relax.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:13 PM

There is a large majority of the population who don’t use drugs simply because they are illegal.

The Notorious G.O.P on July 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The illegality of drugs is not a significant impediment to obtaining them. Virtually anybody who wants them can get them without a great deal of effort.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I read his opinion..your purposely misconstruing what he stated.
He stated his opinion about dealers on the border with narcotics.
Not a 16 yr old with a dime bag.
I will let him speak for himself-his words not mine.
Known Walker for about 3 years now around here. A difference of opinion doesn’t make him a liar. Then you turn to juvenile jokes. But you want to be taken seriously. Ha.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

No, he said anyone caught trafficking a pound or more of illegal narcotics should be executed on the spot.

I’m still curious what he would do if this person has their kids in the car when he or she is caught. Does he make them watch – Taliban style – or does he let them look away while mommy or daddy gets it.

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

What we should do, is execute anyone caught transporting over 1 pound of any illegal narcotic, and do it right then and there.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 6:51 PM

And this is stupid beyond all possible comprehension. What you just did was give an easy way for the government to kill people, without trial, just by declaring any given substance an “illegal narcotic”. I really don’t understand the few nutjobs like you and Newt Gingrich that seem to think that transport of drugs is worth summary execution. You’re insane.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

two advocates of abrogating the Constitution in one pod. Very comfortable together, I imagine…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

STFU… Seriously. You wouldn’t know the US Constitution if it walked up and kicked your skinny little Marxist a$$.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Known Walker for about 3 years now around here. A difference of opinion doesn’t make him a liar.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

No. Claiming…

until Marx’s disciples watched Ethel and Julius fry for treason.

…makes him a liar.

The Rosenbergs were, in fact, convicted of espionage.

Claiming…

the first nation to try that was the Netherlands, and they just repealed the whole thing because after 40 years

… makes him a liar.

In fact, the Dutch have not repealed the whole thing, continue selling cannabis legally in every city in Holland, and don’t plan on stopping.

He’s an ignoramus and a liar. I will treat him as such.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33]

You mean, even though weed was legalized, DUI was still a crime? And it was enforced? Wow. What a horrible thing.

Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

So?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM

For the eternal blog record-as it is kept forever in a vault-
As I have stated before…I am arguing about weed..not dangerous narcotics drugs or Pharmaceuticals.
I just don’t see weed in the same category and see our resources spent on people with a joint or a dime bag..to me it is stupid.
But I have been around an occasional pot smoker and grew up with alcoholics..I watch Fox news sometimes..guess I am stubborn and ignorant-so what do I know?
As far as heavy narcs.. I say a big no to legalizing. I just find the hypocrisy around alcohol and weed annoying.

Alcohol= very cool- pres beer summits and such.
Weed=omg..call the S.W.A.T.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I don’t like JG23, but dude, you are going wayyyyy over the line here. Smoke a bowl and relax.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:13 PM

“Smoke a bowl? Relax?? What are you… another one of them Marxists??”

- SWalker

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 6:51 PM

And this is stupid beyond all possible comprehension. What you just did was give an easy way for the government to kill people, without trial, just by declaring any given substance an “illegal narcotic”. I really don’t understand the few nutjobs like you and Newt Gingrich that seem to think that transport of drugs is worth summary execution. You’re insane.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I’ll take it to mean by this, that you are a pot head and don’t want your precious drug supplies disrupted.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM

The war on rape, murder, theft, fraud, insider trading, illegal immigration…

Stoic Patriot on July 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

False equivalence. Possession and use of drugs does not, in and of itself, violate the rights of other citizens. All the things you listed do.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I can’t accept that facts like this one do anything but demonstrate the historic and current biases in our criminal justice system…People should not see these facts and this discussion as an indictment of any one race, sector, or occupation, it should be seen as a call to all of us to do the difficult things to make a change because this isn’t a “black” problem this is an American problem.

What a crock! When blacks are killing blacks who can you blame? The problem is trying to do something about it. Programs that are supposed to help but give them an excuse to continue, feeling sorry for the victims with their choice to do the drugs. Stop all funding and close all the offices. Sounds cruel but lets see if it works, all the other programs do not.

mixplix on July 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Legalize anything you can grow in your own windowbox.

Which leaves out heroin, cocaine, meth, amphetamines, barbituates, “bath salts”, etc.

profitsbeard on July 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

profitsbeard:I think,we have found the model that just might
work,until,the window box’s gain in size,and then
its REGULATION time,baby,haha!:)

canopfor on July 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

;^)

Or people claiming that they have REALLY BIG windows.

profitsbeard on July 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

So?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM

So those who didn’t use it before were choosing not to do so because it was illegal which was the point in dispute.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

I’ll take it to mean by this, that you are a pot head and don’t want your precious drug supplies disrupted.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Of course you’ll take it to mean that. You have no defense for your idea of giving government the ultimate power: instant execution of citizens without trial. If someone is stupid enough to suggest that, then all they’re going to do is accuse the other of having ulterior motives. I’ll simply say this: I’ve argued for the end of the drug war for years without having taken a single drug that wasn’t sold at the pharmacy. So try again, and try to use a bit of reason this time.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:22 PM

it should be seen as a call to all of us to do the difficult things to make a change because this isn’t a “black” problem this is an American problem.

The real problem ain’t weed good sir. I am for legalization of marijuana but it isn’t going to fix the core problem on bit.

cajun carrot on July 16, 2012 at 8:22 PM

So those who didn’t use it before were choosing not to do so because it was illegal which was the point in dispute.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Or those who used it before were afraid to admit it because it was, you know…illegal.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:22 PM

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Actually, life insurance premiums change whether you’re a smoker or non smoker… what’s wrong with similar differentiations for private health care insurance among pools for alcoholics and smokers? Nothing, other than the fact that if those pools were allowed to be disparate, the premiums on the high risk pools would be astronomical. So instead we get ACA lunacy and mandatory minimum coverages. One only “pays” for people that “breed uncontrollably” if those kids become net consumers of tax benefits instead of net producers. But it shows you completely understand how an activity is objectionable only because of insane government policy, and how one would be more accepting of the behavior if the policy was fixed FIRST. Strenuously objecting to an obvious principle you simultaneously agree with makes one of us sound like a self-righteous fool, but it’s not me… Equating genetic disorders and behavioral choices makes one of us sound like a typical dumba$$, but again it’s not me…

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 8:23 PM

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Nothing unexpected there at all. I think any responsible advocate of legalization recognizes that some people will begin use as a result of elimination of criminal penalties.

But that wasn’t the original assertion, was it? The original assertion was that a clear majority of people refrain from using drugs because they are illegal. If that were the case, one would expect increases in drugged driving to go up by orders of magnitude, would we not?

Most people don’t use drugs because it is, all things considered, a bad idea. That won’t change (particularly with heroin and cocaine) the day we make them legal.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

And this is stupid beyond all possible comprehension. What you just did was give an easy way for the government to kill people, without trial, just by declaring any given substance an “illegal narcotic”. I really don’t understand the few nutjobs like you and Newt Gingrich that seem to think that transport of drugs is worth summary execution. You’re insane.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

You aren’t understanding what he’s saying. THE ONLY WAY the drug war can ever be won is if that is exactly what we allow the government to have the power to do: summary execution of ALL DRUG USERS encountered.

Only by destroying the demand (by mass murder) would it be possible to stop the supply.

Unless we are prepared, as a society to accept a massacre of all discovered drug USERS, the drug war can never be “won”.

I’m as ready to accept that as I am us nuking our own cities to stop crime.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Or those who used it before were afraid to admit it because it was, you know…illegal.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Admitting it or not admitting it has nothing to do with arrests for DUI.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I’ll take it to mean by this, that you are a pot head and don’t want your precious drug supplies disrupted.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM

And by the way, it’s just f**king RICH for you to accuse anyone else of Marxism when you are advocating giving the State more power than I’ve ever seen anyone on this site suggest. Yet another fair-weather “conservative” that throws liberty and freedom out the goddamned window the minute his emotions kick in.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:25 PM

No, he said anyone caught trafficking a pound or more of illegal narcotics should be executed on the spot.

I’m still curious what he would do if this person has their kids in the car when he or she is caught. Does he make them watch – Taliban style – or does he let them look away while mommy or daddy gets it.

Go RBNY on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Okay, I don’t speak for him. Perhaps..as I know he is from a border state and he was speaking about those crossing gang/cartel players?
Like this?
Sorry, I would have shot too. The reality is not pretty on the border. You don’t wait and see if they kill you first. This isnt a game.

I ain’t SWalker but he has always been an okay dude.
I have stated my opinions..perhaps he disagrees but he isnt cursing at me. Ya’lls beef not mine.
I will stick to my own biz and let him state his own opinions.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:25 PM

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Which doesn’t refute the point I made at all. At best, it supports only the claim that, thirty years ago, the legalization of marijuana resulted in more people smoking and then driving.

Which, okay, that was a problem — thirty years ago. Given that over the intervening decades there’s been a pretty noticeable campaign against DUI, is there any particular reason to imagine that past would be prelude?

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM

You aren’t understanding what he’s saying. THE ONLY WAY the drug war can ever be won is if that is exactly what we allow the government to have the power to do: summary execution of ALL DRUG USERS encountered.

I’m as ready to accept that as I am us nuking our own cities to stop crime.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I’m going to take a leap of faith and assume that the latter statement indicates that you think it’s as bad an idea as I think it is. If so, are you aware that SWalker seems 100% serious about his idea? So why are you re-iterating to me what I’m already aware he, and a few others, have been saying for years? Rush Limbaugh even agreed with it. Well…that was before he started buying drugs illegally. I guess SWalker thinks Rush should have been executed for transporting illegal narcotics.

Whaddya say, SW? Should we start out your nightmarish government murder of civilians by giving them clearance to knock out the most prominent conservative voice in America?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I sell insurance..but preach on.

Amuse me..go ahead. I knew you would take the hook.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Known Walker for about 3 years now around here. A difference of opinion doesn’t make him a liar.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

No. Claiming…

until Marx’s disciples watched Ethel and Julius fry for treason.

…makes him a liar.

The Rosenbergs were, in fact, convicted of espionage.

Claiming…

the first nation to try that was the Netherlands, and they just repealed the whole thing because after 40 years

… makes him a liar.

In fact, the Dutch have not repealed the whole thing, continue selling cannabis legally in every city in Holland, and don’t plan on stopping.

He’s an ignoramus and a liar. I will treat him as such.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Wow, are all pot head Ronulans this ignorant?

A) the Rosenberg’s, your distinction is one only either a complete imbecile or a Marxist sympathizer would make.

Judge Irving Kaufman:(the judge who sentenced them to death)I consider your crime worse than murder… I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-Bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country. No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack.

In fact, the Dutch have not repealed the whole thing, continue selling cannabis legally in every city in Holland, and don’t plan on stopping.

This is a complete and total lie. The Dutch have made it illegal for any none Dutch Citizen to purchase any cannabis in any of those shops, they will no longer issue any licenses for any of those shops, and have systematically been forcing those shops to close.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM

So those who didn’t use it before were choosing not to do so because it was illegal which was the point in dispute.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Um, wrong. The point in dispute was that “large majorities” of Americans refrain from drug use only because drugs are illegal.

Reading is fundamental.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Admitting it or not admitting it has nothing to do with arrests for DUI.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

But it was still against the law, was it not? And it was still enforced, was it not?

By the way…have you got stats on what substance people were on when they were arrested? Do you know for a fact that the increase was due to drug intoxication? Could it just as easily have been increased police enforcement in reaction to the legalization, netting them arrests they would have been getting before?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

In one episode of gang killing in Mexico, 49 migrant workers believed to be involved in drug harvesting or preparation were murdered and beheaded by what was first thought to be the Zeta drug cartel. The Zetas hung banners all through the country claiming that they were not even this barbaric. But they, the Zetas, even if they weren’t responsible for this mass murder, they routinely do kill multiple victims of opposing drug factions, imformants and legitiment Mexican Law Enforcement officer, and then behead, dismember, skin, burn, you “literally” name it. If you are one of their victims, you’d pray for a speedy execution prior to avoid the unthinkable vivisection, which they do save for their worst enemies.

These people are more barbaric than any foe I’ve encountered in 34 years of being deployed in any part of the world. If you think these people will simple go ask for jobs at the Quickie Mart because we legalize pot, you’re kidding yourself.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

If you think these people will simple go ask for jobs at the Quickie Mart because we legalize pot, you’re kidding yourself.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Point taken-I think, as other organized crime cartels have always done..they would move on to a new criminal trade. They evolve with the times.
JMO.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:33 PM

whoops, no strike meant to be there hawk.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

These people are more barbaric than any foe I’ve encountered in 34 years of being deployed in any part of the world. If you think these people will simple go ask for jobs at the Quickie Mart because we legalize pot, you’re kidding yourself.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Nobody thinks that. We’re saying that if pot is legalized in America, the jobs will go to Americans. Once the supply is sufficient, the cartels would not be able to compete. What…people are going to go onto the black market so they can buy laced dirtweed from Mexico when they can get it from the local dispensary for the same price or less…cleaner, more potent, and in the strain of their choice?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I’m going to take a leap of faith and assume that the latter statement indicates that you think it’s as bad an idea as I think it is. If so, are you aware that SWalker seems 100% serious about his idea? So why are you re-iterating to me what I’m already aware he, and a few others, have been saying for years? Rush Limbaugh even agreed with it. Well…that was before he started buying drugs illegally. I guess SWalker thinks Rush should have been executed for transporting illegal narcotics.

Whaddya say, SW? Should we start out your nightmarish government murder of civilians by giving them clearance to knock out the most prominent conservative voice in America?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Are you going to make me say it?

OK, I am NOT for summary execution of those in possession of drugs by government agents. I’d much more likely be for summary execution of government agents by citizens when they are caught in the act of violating that citizen’s Constitutional Rights. When you read the Constitution it becomes apparent that it absolutely prohibits government actors executing citizens summarily but the right of the citizen to do that to an out of control government actor is actually IMPLIED!

2nd Amendment.

wildcat72 on July 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

whoops, no strike meant to be there hawk.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

whoops, you were infected my my speeling mistakes.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

In one episode of gang killing in Mexico…

If you think these people will simple go ask for jobs at the Quickie Mart because we legalize pot, you’re kidding yourself.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Mexico has a problem.

We should secure our borders in order to keep it there.

And let Mexicans solve their own sub-cultural lunacies.

(Are there Quickie Marts in Mexico?)

profitsbeard on July 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Given that over the intervening decades there’s been a pretty noticeable campaign against DUI, is there any particular reason to imagine that past would be prelude?

Missing the part where human nature has done a 180 in the intervening decades which is the only thing that would preclude a repeat performance…. not “awareness campaigns”. While everyone is now aware that “DUI’s are bad, mkay,” I think you’ll find a lot fewer who believe that matters to smarter, more in-control, and less likely to get caught selfs. Let alone those who have had their judgment impaired by mind altering substances.

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Nobody thinks that. We’re saying that if pot is legalized in America, the jobs will go to Americans. Once the supply is sufficient, the cartels would not be able to compete. What…people are going to go onto the black market so they can buy laced dirtweed from Mexico when they can get it from the local dispensary for the same price or less…cleaner, more potent, and in the strain of their choice?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

This. Also? On some level I don’t care what bloodthirsty Mexican drug cartels do on their side of the border. Whether they want to work at the Quickie Mart or keep killing each other matters not a whit to me, as long as we’re no longer ruining the lives of Americans just because they consumed, grew, or were found in possession of a politically-incorrect plant.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Whaddya say, SW? Should we start out your nightmarish government murder of civilians by giving them clearance to knock out the most prominent conservative voice in America?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I say we start by doing away with all the unconstitutional 2nd amendment restrictions. Then we bid adieu to 80% of the cops in America. Then we drag your dumb a$$ out of Madison Wisconsin and park it within 10 miles of the US Mexican Border (which would be where I live) and see if you still think your stupid asinine ideas have any validity.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Okay… this is good. We’re having a more civil discourse.

So, you don’t particularly approve of Obama’s use of deadly force. I’m thinking you’re referring specifically to the use of drones. I find that usage problematic as well, particularly when deployed against a US citizen without due process. I’m not standing up for terrorists in any way, but I don’t like any American’s rights to be abridged. I believe that Americans are entitled to due process. If we make an exception for one American, no matter how traitorous or treacherous we may believe him to be, we inadvertently open the door to more exceptions to the law in the future.

However, I do stand up for people to express their opinions, particularly those whose opinions may be controversial. Even when I disagree with them vehemently. I also believe we can have a discourse in a reasonably civilized manner.

SWalker has reason to express his opinion with emotion. If you recall, in the quote you’re using he prefaced the remark with the admission that he had been a ‘rock star’. He has personal experience with this issue that others may lack and that should be respected. Regardless of whether anyone agrees with him or not, he has the right to express that opinion without being the subject of rank derision or verbal abuse. Perhaps it might have been enlightening to ask him what his reasons were for suggesting that summary execution might be the best solution. Engaging in a dialogue is the best way to become informed and reach a resolution.

We may disagree with one another, but we are best served if we try to do it while offering up a reasoned and persuasive argument, cite our sources where possible, and defend our positions with vigor and alacrity, but try to treat each others arguments with the same degree of reason we would ask for our own ideas.

Failing that, we are left shouting at one another and no one is convinced.

If you’ve no interest in convincing others of the validity of your position, I regret having to say that there’s really no point in posting unless you’re just looking to ladle out some abuse and receive some in return.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Love to continue the discussion, but on an ironic note, I need to watch the season premiere of Breaking Bad.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Missing the part where human nature has done a 180 in the intervening decades

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Yes, I am indeed missing the part where human nature has done a 180 in the last 30 years. I see no evidence that anything like this has actually occurred, except in various folks’ imaginations.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Throw out the chum and here comes captn obvious-

I am laughing so hard..you would think I was high. LOLLLLLz.

You an actuarial Captn? Bahhhhhhhhh. ;) It is so obvious.

As my best bud says hellfire!

Moving on.

you boyz play nice.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Boy, you just don’t know when to stop demonstrating your ignorance or your mendacity.

the Rosenberg’s, your distinction is one only either a complete imbecile or a Marxist sympathizer would make.

Tell me, does that include the US Code? Because here is the US Code entry for treason.

Here is the US Code entry for espionage.

You’ll note, if in fact you can read, they are entirely different chapters in US law.

So… Marxists writing our espionage laws now, are they?

The Dutch have made it illegal for any none Dutch Citizen to purchase any cannabis in any of those shops,

Which, by definition, means that those shops are open, they are serving cannabis, and the claim that the Dutch have

just repealed the whole thing

…is a lie, told by an ignorant liar.

Which, in case you haven’t noticed, you just helped me prove. Congratulations, you liar.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

hahaha, breaking bad

ya’ll a bunch of squares homey

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I sell insurance..but preach on.

Amuse me..go ahead. I knew you would take the hook.

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM

That’s not all you’re selling…

You either understand the obvious principle of removing governmental interference first, or you don’t.

Else, all we’ve established it that you’re a master baiter.

CapnObvious on July 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Then we drag your dumb a$$ out of Madison Wisconsin and park it within 10 miles of the US Mexican Border…

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

You really are sick in the head, by the way. You certainly seem like the type that shouldn’t do drugs.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

master baiter! I shat myself

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

We’ve had this discussion before. Just weed? I’ll say it again. Folks that think like you, whose opinions I do respect, are no different than folks who want to keep pot illegal. You’ve just drawn a different line in the sand.

But they’re all lines in the sand. Opinion based as to what’s bad for you or not.

But there is no argument to it, legalizing pot will not put a dent in a war that has seen over 47K people killed since 2006. This is over the profits for a myriad of drugs that they manufacture and sell.

Legalize pot because you want to smoke it. Don’t give people false hopes that these barbarians will dissapear after you do though. Because they won’t. You would have to legalize everything.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Just decriminalize all drugs and let anyone who wants to kill themselves have at it. The price of the drugs would drop like a rock once the money was taken out of the industry, crime would drop across the country and in countries like Mexico. It would also remove the monies that are now funding the Taliban. I hate to say it about a democrat but Booker has it right.

RZuendt on July 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

master baiter! I shat myself

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

LMAO- caught it before changing threads..
I am the MASTER BAITER!!
and that aint all I am selling..howlllllll. ;)

bazil9 on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

There is a large majority of the population who don’t use drugs simply because they are illegal.

The Notorious G.O.P on July 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

This is first-rate, weapons grade nonsense, pulled directly out of the filthy heat of your own squeakhole.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Right not a single person would not use Weed because they could go to jail or lose their job.

Are you insane?

When Alcohol became legal again the amount sold went up many times. Same would happen with weed. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

Some European States that legalized are now making it illegal once again.

But I do think we should legalize it for certain medical use. Cancer for one. But only for life threatening diseases. I figure if you might die then at least getting high might make it easier besides it does improve appetite for these people.

The problem is not the laws against drugs. The real problem is the destruction of America as a whole. The lack of any moral authority we used to get from the bible. Restore moral values and the drug war could be won. If you do not restore values well the drug problem will become a meaningless problem before long.

Steveangell on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

I’m in favor of legalizing all narcotics. Should have asked for clarification instead of assuming.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

SWalker has problems

take it from more of a rock star than you (that means I did more drugs)

weed is a plant. it’s harmless. proven.

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Well said.

thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

The reason the war on drugs has failed is because of the creation of the DEA. That right there was an admission that they expected the “war” to be perpetual. They have a budget and careers to protect. They aren’t going to wipe out the drug cartels that keep their own careers in operation.

We have to figure out a way to give incentive to actually destroy these operations, not just confiscate enough drugs to make it look like we are doing something yet not enough to actually knock the cartels out of business.

Maybe we should use some of the techniques we have learned against the Taliban.

crosspatch on July 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM

send in the drones!

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I only do Cherry Coke cuz it’s legal.

Jeddite on July 16, 2012 at 8:49 PM

(Are there Quickie Marts in Mexico?)

profitsbeard on July 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Sí, pero se llaman “Mercado Rapido”. Y toda esta semana están teniendo un especial sobre Slurpies de guayaba.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:49 PM

it’s illegal in New York Jeddite, keep it in a sippy cup

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

slurpies, that’s what the rethugs were drinking in the back seat, when we were in that ditch, and they want the keys back!

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I’m in favor of legalizing all narcotics. Should have asked for clarification instead of assuming.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

My assumption was based on previous discussions with you. You’ve called my assertion to drop the pretense and legalize everything ridiculous in those past discussions. I assuming your position has changed.

But by the tener of your response it’s obvious anyone discussing a point opposite yours, including a friend, is in for a knock down drag out. Not up for it.

Later all.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Right not a single person would not use Weed because they could go to jail or lose their job.

Steveangell on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

That was not the claim that was made.

The claim that was made, that I am arguing against, is that “large majorities” of Americans refrain from drug use only because drugs are illegal.

I am not saying that nobody, anywhere, is dissuaded from using drugs because drugs are illegal. It’s a big country; there’s bound to be a handful of zipperheads who, if drugs were legalized, would suddenly turn into dope fiends.

I am saying, though, that there’s no evidence this would be the case for “large majorities” (again, that was the original claim) of Americans.

Reading is (still) fundamental.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM

1. Drug addiction is an illness of mind and body. Even after physical detox, the brain of an addict is wired to obsess.
Only a programmatic long term approach to treatment will be successful AND ONLY with the willing participation of the addict.

2. There needs to be an emotional imperative to change or the addict will simply drift along until he or someone else is dead; he is incapacitated, or imprisoned.

3. There is no “voluntary” rehab without serious negative consequences for recidivism. Addicts, by definition, are incapable of acting for their own good if it conflicts with their addiction.

4. Legalizing pot or any of the more destructive addictive drugs will make no difference. We have already legalized certain addictive drugs eg “Methadone”, “Suboxin”. Anyone noticed any positive changes in our drugged population?? Anyone?

5.The current solution is to allow the creation of ghettos where addiction is allowed to proliferate. (Have you watched “The Wire”?) Unfortunately, although there are more white addicts than of any other ethnicity, drug addiction is decimating the smaller, poor, ethnic communities: Hispanic and Black.

6. A real rehabilitation solution that results in a dramatic reduction in the rate of drug addiction will never happen as long as it conflicts with welfare entitlements.

7. Therefore, a real solution cannot be attempted in our current social and political environment. Only God can keep this ship from sinking.

8. There is no 8.
Randy

williars on July 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I say that too

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Some time ago, I said that if we were serious about wanting to stop drugs, we would legalize it. That way the drug cartels would be subject to liability lawsuits. Nothing kills a business faster than juries of morons who award billions to people who knew what they were doing, but did it anyway.

Snake307 on July 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Folks that think like you, whose opinions I do respect, are no different than folks who want to keep pot illegal. You’ve just drawn a different line in the sand.

But they’re all lines in the sand. Opinion based as to what’s bad for you or not.

I for one, draw the line in the sand not at the drugs we are talking about, but what agency has the authority to make that decision.

The WoD, is, for the most part, a US Government enterprise. The States pick up a big chunk of the tab, but that is largely at the point of the federal highway funding gun. This is a USG operation, and they simply have no authority under the Constitution to engage in it. That’s my bright line in the sand.

Opinion based as to what’s bad for you or not.

As to the wisdom of state level prohibition of drugs, it is not a matter of what is bad for you or not. It is a matter of adding up the benefits of prohibition, and weighing them against the cost of prohibition. And I think you can do that with each drug. And if you do so, I think you will find the argument against prohibition of cannabis falls flat immediately. I think you’ll find prohibition of heroin falls flat almost as immediately.

As to cocaine and meth, I’ll be the first to admit that there are external costs to legal cocaine and meth… severe ones… that have to be calculated in the costs column. Legal meth will result in more instances of meth-based psychoses, which will manifest itself in the community. A state has the absolute responsibility to consider that when debating legalization. I still, however, think you would find the benefits outweighing even those increased costs.

But there is no argument to it, legalizing pot will not put a dent in a war that has seen over 47K people killed since 2006. This is over the profits for a myriad of drugs that they manufacture and sell.

I used to think that. Until I saw a quote from this article:

More than 60 percent of the cartels’ revenue — $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 — came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

That’s a big old dent, right there.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Next up:

The War On Prostitution
The War On Child Porn/Pedophiles
The War On Driving Intoxicated
The War On Crime
The War On War
The War On Everything

Yup. Just give up and throw in the towel on the costly wars on everything. Things will be oh so much better if we just legalize everything. No wasted expenses. No wasted efforts. Anarchy — it is the best cure for what ails us, America. You betchya!

FlatFoot on July 16, 2012 at 9:03 PM

That way the drug cartels would be subject to liability lawsuits.

Snake307 on July 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Just like the Mafia is when they sell you a defective toaster that fell off the back of a truck?

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Boy, you just don’t know when to stop demonstrating your ignorance or your mendacity.

the Rosenberg’s, your distinction is one only either a complete imbecile or a Marxist sympathizer would make.

Tell me, does that include the US Code? Because here is the US Code entry for treason.

Here is the US Code entry for espionage.

You’ll note, if in fact you can read, they are entirely different chapters in US law.

So… Marxists writing our espionage laws now, are they?

The Dutch have made it illegal for any none Dutch Citizen to purchase any cannabis in any of those shops,

Which, by definition, means that those shops are open, they are serving cannabis, and the claim that the Dutch have

just repealed the whole thing

…is a lie, told by an ignorant liar.

Which, in case you haven’t noticed, you just helped me prove. Congratulations, you liar.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Wow, your intellectual dishonesty really knows no bounds does it.

The Judge who sentenced them to death must not have understood what treason was, he must have somehow been confused about it’s meaning and mistakenly accused them of it. Or, occam’s razor might actually apply and the judge knew what he was talking about and you are intentionally being dishonest. That they were convicted of espionage rather than treason does not alter or change the fact that what they did was treason, and that the entire world knew that they committed treason and were executed for it.

That you continue to attempt to parse words here on this again only demonstrates how intellectually dishonest you are.

As to the Dutch, Will not issue any more licenses for cannabis coffee shops and are forcing the shops to close and not allowing them to reopen, once again intellectual dishonesty on your part, while accusing other of lying.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

I’m in favor of legalizing all narcotics
. Should have asked for clarification instead of assuming.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

And you call me sick in the head. Dude, look in the mirror.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 9:08 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM

The disrespect for the Constitution is strong with this one.

That they were convicted of espionage rather than treason does not alter or change the fact that what they did was treason

Treason is a specific criminal charge. I don’t care if the judge called them Martians… they ain’t from Mars. In this country (much to your apparent disdain), people are innocent of crimes until proven guilty of them, by due process of law. The Rosenbergs were never convicted of treason. Therefore, they are innocent of treason. QED.

The only way they are guilty of treason is if we, as you clearly advocate for, dismiss the Fifth Amendment. As anyone but a Constitutional ignoramus could see.

As to the Dutch, Will not issue any more licenses for cannabis coffee shops and are forcing the shops to close and not allowing them to reopen,

As to the Dutch, who are still selling legal cannabis in legal coffee shops, they prove that the person who claims that they

just repealed the whole thing

is a filthy liar, fit only for company with Barack Obama.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:14 PM

ouch

SWalker! you gonna let him diss you like that? ah, heeeeeell no!

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM

That way the drug cartels would be subject to liability lawsuits.

Snake307 on July 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Just like the Mafia is when they sell you a defective toaster that fell off the back of a truck?

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Glad you made that analogy. It makes legalization arguments all the more solid.

Lots of people could purchase that black-market toaster, at a significant discount. Most wouldn’t. Many, because they are genuinely honest people. But most would hesitate to engage in a black-market transaction, because once you do so, you lose the protection of the law. Which, in fact, has very real and calculable value.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM

as a general rule, avoid drugs that make you lose your teeth.

do heroin your whole life, you’ll look just as good as Mick Jagger.

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:19 PM

But most would hesitate to engage in a black-market transaction, because once you do so, you lose the protection of the law. Which, in fact, has very real and calculable value.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM

So there wouldn’t be much of an illegal market for cigarettes, or DVD’s, electronics, prescription drugs, sneakers, etc because people wouldn’t buy from those bad men? I ask because as we stand here today there is such a market for those legal products.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5