International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s?

by lewwaters

The older I get, the more absolutely astonished I become at the level of stupidity that we human beings stoop to. The bleeding hearts seem to have turned the world upside down. Good is bad, up is down, black is white and it just gets crazier all of the time.

Nothing symbolizes that more than discovering that right here in America, we have chapters opening up of a relatively new “union” designed to give drug addicts a stronger presence in the “discussion” over health care.

The group falls under the International Network of People Who Use Drugs or, as I prefer to label them, the International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s. Their website and explains their position, they choose to walk through life high on drugs and expect wide acceptance from the rest of us.

This advocacy group came to my attention through an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, Drug users’ union in San Francisco part of growing movement where we read of different drug users, current and former who strive to feel good about using drugs.

The group meets regularly in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, “not for treatment, but to discuss public health policy and share their experiences free from shame or blame.”

We read of the groups’ plan “to testify before a city panel on housing discrimination,” one member speaking of her arrest record for “being high in my own house” that has prompted landlords to renting to her. Imagine that!

Indicating the movements beginning in Europe some years ago, University of Connecticut anthropologist Merrill Singer states the movement is getting a late start in America “because of racism and class discrimination, which are intimately bound together in our conception of drug users.”

The group doesn’t care much for the terms “addict” or “abuser” and neither encourages nor discourages drug use. They do discourage dealing during meetings, telling attendees, “You can be high, but don’t be disruptive.”

One user explained it as, “People say, ‘you’re a drug user, you brought this on yourself. Do people say that when you’re 300 pounds with heart problems from eating McDonald’s every day?”

As a matter of fact, they do, from Michelle Obama’s goal of forcing people to eat better to what must be called the “war on obesity.”

Claiming to advocate “reducing disease, injury and death among drug users without passing judgment or demanding abstinence,” it also admitted two goals, “to put a face on those whom most people despise” and decriminalization.

The International site lists as their mission,

“INPUD is a global peer-based organization that seeks to promote the health and defend the rights of people who use drugs.”

“We will expose and challenge stigma, discrimination and the criminalization of people who use drugs and its impact on our community’s health and rights.”

“We will achieve this through processes of empowerment and international advocacy.”

Left to be read between the lines, it appears more that these addicts simply want others to pay for their drug habit and accept them for walking around stoned. Do I even need to cover the hazards of stoned people walking and driving around our communities? Don’t we have a hard enough time trying to stop drunk drivers?

And, since alcohol too is a drug, would such a move undo efforts to curb drunk drivers and alcoholism?

Seeking to capitalize on what many believe to be Portugal’s successful decriminalization of drugs, these addicts fail to recognize the Portugal drug program isn’t quite the wine & roses they believe.

Ed Miliband, British Labour Party Leader Bob shot down an effort in Britain to “decriminalize” drugs in 2010. Bringing this out in a Dec 2010 UK Telegraph article it is driven home,

“Would the problems caused by drugs be easier to solve if all criminal penalties for their use, cultivation and trade were removed? Advocates of that policy insist that if the drug trade was in lawful hands, it could be taxed, so the vast revenues would flow not to thugs but to the state. Prices would fall, they say, and to levels low enough to mean that addicts would no longer have to steal in order to feed their habits. That would lead to a drop in the amount of property crime, and allow police officers to spend their time arresting people for serious crimes – rather than trivial ones such as possession of cannabis.”

“It all sounds wonderful – but it’s not credible. The reason is simple: making an activity legal does not necessarily stop there being a colossal illegal market. Sex between adults is legal, but that has not prevented the development of a huge sex industry, controlled by criminal gangs who kidnap, rape and enslave the girls involved.”

While Portugal is often touted as such a success, with the experiment in decriminalization, drug advocates ignore Sweden’s Zero Tolerance of drugs, including marijuana. Sweden also has the lowest illegal drug usage in Europe.

The International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s seems to fail to notice that.

Drug addiction, like I or not, is a choice. A very bad choice. We all have problems, we all have troubled times. Forming an advocacy group in order to get taxpayers to pay for their habit and to seek “normalization” of their inability to cope with life and to force others to be openly acceptable of their bad habits is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard of in years.

Then again, 10 years ago I’d say the thought of two men marrying was just as ridiculous.

There is no doubt in my mind that is the ultimate goal of the International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s, normalization and becoming a protected status class.

It seems one day the only unprotected class left will be those hard working people who look out for their loved ones and families and try to make the country a better place.

I shudder to think what group will next seek normalcy and acceptance.

56 Comments to “International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s?”

  1. “Sex between adults is legal, but that has not prevented the development of a huge sex industry, controlled by criminal gangs who kidnap, rape and enslave the girls involved.”

    Specious argument by Milliband Lew. PAID consensual sex is not legal except in parts of Nevada. Comparing it to non-paid consensual sex is erroneous.

    The reality is that prohibition didn’t work in the 1920’s and it doesn’t work now. The “War on Drugs” should be re-labelled “the Full Employment for Prison Guards, Prison Equipment Manufacturers, and Mexican Drug Lords Act.”

  2. Do Conservatives support the “War on Drugs”? (If not – who does?)

  3. Tom, just about any town you go to you will find a Red Light district, or prostitutes walking down the side of the road. You also have a thriving sex industry as well as sex trafficking.

    Sodomy laws are gone, so sex is just about as legal outside of marriage as it can get.

    That being said, Sweden’s zero tolerance seems to be working better than Portugal’s decriminalization.

    If someone needs drugs to get through life, they have a serious problem and that goes for alcohol too.

    If it were up to me, I’d mandate compulsory treatment for users and execute pushers on the spot.

    The “if it feels good, do it” attitude only hurts our nation and security. Better to deal with why people feel they must walk around and drive stoned.

    I never trusted any guard in Vietnam if I discovered the smoking weed. I relived them on the spot and let the CO deal with them. I wouldn’t want a drunk watching my 6 either.

  4. I would assume Jack is not a “Drug War” person because he !HATES! “Government” because they try to tell people what to do and not do. How about it, Jack, what’s your take on Government preventing people from taking drugs?

    p.s. I expect you to admit it if you’re a hypocrite on this issue.

  5. I would like to remind the global network of drug users and their supporters that the operative word in their statement is “Choose”. For their infomation, as a member of the same free society they are tryingto exploit, I, if given the choice, “choose” to not support their use, provide them with medical care attributed to their use or require others who do not “choose” to associate with them, rent to them or hire them until they “Choose” or attempt to “Choose” how to get clean.

    And so it goes

    Larry Patella

  6. You’re right Martin, I’m not a “drug war” person. I think the government’s stance on drugs is not only totally stupid, but compared to the other vices that the government has legalized, totally hypocritical as well.

  7. I’m actually really glad you said that, Jack.

  8. Government has a “place” Martin, but it sure as hell isn’t micro-managing everybody’s life. That’s where the government gets itself into major trouble.

  9. “Do Conservatives support the “War on Drugs”? (If not – who does?)”

    That’s easy. In no particular order:

    (1) Prison guard unions.
    (2) Manufacturers of prison equipment ranging from fencing and motorized gates to surveillance and alarms.
    (3) CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) and their competitors including state and federal prisons and their administrative staff.
    (4) Manufacturers of militarized gear for civilian police forces including body armor, light tanks, helicopters, light semi and full automatic weapons, etc.
    (5) Manufacturers of long-range “virtual fence” surveillance gear as well as drone aircraft for example Boeing and Northrop.
    (6) Gulf cartel, Sinaloa Cartel, La Familia Cartel, Juarez Cartel, etc.
    (7) manufacturers of the weapons used by the above, esp. the Chinese mfg AK47s and various M4 & AR15 subtypes.
    (8) Corrupt Mexican and Guatemalan police and politicians who double-dip and siphon off moneys from US foreign aid targetted to the War on Drugs, and well a payoff from the cartels.

    And I’ve certainly left out a few categories.

    “Better to deal with why people feel they must walk around and drive stoned.”

    That is absolutely true. Unfortunately, we instead (mostly) waste trillions on keeping Nos 1-8 in the above list happy.

  10. And left ignored is Sweden’s success with a Zero Tolerance policy.

  11. I don’t know the details of how Sweden implements its policy, but Sweden, very much like Japan and Singapore, is a highly homogenous and relatively insular society. What works in such places isn’t as likely to work here in the U.S. melting pot.

  12. I don’t think that the U.S. is much of a “melting pot” any more. Too many people hate being American but love the “benefits”.

  13. What do you have other than your desire to legalize drugs to support Sweden’s policies wouldn’t work in the US, Tom?

  14. As I said, policies that work well in conformist homogeneous societies like Japan, Singapore, and Sweden, don’t necessarily work well in societies such as ours. Having trouble reading plain English this evening Lew?

  15. Tom, do you have trouble supporting your comment?

    You expressed an opinion, not a fact.

  16. Sweden is a Socialist state with a capital “S.” Their “prisons” are islands with facilities that resemble a retirement community, police officers don’t carry weapons, and drugs are treated as a disease with everyone totally taken care of by their FREE healthcare system.

    And, folks, like most socialists, the people behave like robots. American sure as hell ain’t Sweden.

  17. Sweden is not quite as socialist as it once was http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/16/20070616-080932-5740r/?page=all

    Sweden’s Police are indeed armed, they carry the SIG-Sauer P225 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P226#Users

    And that socialized healthcare pays for treatments in Sweden is another reason it will not be legalized in America. Even Ron Paul supporters wanting legalized drugs do not want socialized health care.

    Acts like Robots? Not the Swedish citizens I have met.

    So what’s left, give up? Just let everybody be stoned and non-productive? Accept drug addicts as just another protected class?

  18. Lew, I love Sweden, and have been there several times. Whenever I say “if I’d been born in a socialist state I’d probably be a socialist,” it’s Sweden I’m thinking of, but I was born American… This is the Big Show – where the players live. Drugs are simply a side effect – their illegality is ridiculous because it turns a huge portion of the population into criminals.

    There are countries that can get away with making alcohol illegal but America isn’t one of them.

  19. As I’ve said before, Martin, criminalizing users isn’t the best approach. Better to uncover the root cause of why they feel they must remain stoned to get through life.

    And of course, if left up to me, I’d execute drug pushers on the spot.

    Think about it, would you want the surgeon performing open heart surgery on you to be snorting cocaine during surgery?

    Do you want to guys flying the airplane carrying you somewhere to be hitting a bong during flight?

    How about the jury in a trial, should they be freely injecting heroine during a trial?

    No, legalizing drugs isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (no pun intended)

  20. Lew, those are all the same arguments that a prohibitionist would use. Anyway, mass use of super-powerful, legal medical marijuana makes illegality of other drugs a hypocritical travesty.

    Legal drug use could and would be handled in a rational, responsible fashion. Do you think addicts would choose to be crack ho’s, live in filth, and use dirty needles if something better was available?

    p.s. That was a funny pun!

  21. Martin, tell us how well legalization efforts in America performed.

    How did Alaska do after the 1975 ruling by their Supreme Court decriminalizing marijuana? Yes, I know NORML poo poo’s it, but the fact remains drug use (marijuana is a drug too) increased in underage teens.

    Remember decriminalization efforts in 1979? How have they decreased drug use?

    Remember back when voting and drinking age was lowered to 18? Why was it raised back up to 21?

    Drunks & drug addicts both seem to think they can perform just fine while stoned. They can’t! And it’s often the rest of us that pay for it.

  22. Lew, of course it’s a choice between awful and worse.

  23. Yes, so why choose to make it worse?

    I advocate a different approach, but normalizing and granting drug addicts a class of distinction for their choice to remain stoned is asking for trouble.

    We have enough problems getting drunks off of the road. No need to add stoners into it.

  24. Lew… The drug addicts and stoners are already on the road. Is it your contention that drug use will go up if it’s legalized? 20 million people used illegal drugs LAST MONTH! (And way more than that used legal marijuana.) We’re talking upwards to third of the adult population of the United States – every 3rd driver! My goodness, man, do you think it’s going to get worse!?

  25. Lew, there are many laws on the books already prohibiting operating a motor vehicle, or aircraft, or surgery, while impaired, and those laws should continue to be vigorously enforced, regardless of whether drugs (including alchohol) are decriminalized.

    As to your question:

    “So what’s left, give up? Just let everybody be stoned and non-productive? ”

    I would argue that those who want to be stoned will be, regardless of the legal or illegal status of drugs. And I am tired of wasting trillions of taxpayer $ on Item 1-8 in my list above, deluding ourselves that it’s going to change the behavior of addicts. The only thing the War on Drugs does is increase the street cost to the addict to the point where they go out and commit crimes to get the $ needed to buy their drugs. It sure doesn’t stop them. So at the end of the day, we try to educate / treat / redirect those we can, and yes, we give up on the rest and do what we can to prevent them from causing problems for the rest of us.

    If you believe God gives us free will, then you have to believe that includes the free will to make poor choices, even as the rest of us find those choices distasteful and regrettable, so long as you don’t damage the lives or property of others.

  26. The fallacy of your point, Tom, is that even with laws on the books, adding more people operating vehicles not in full control of their faculties is not a fix of anything.

    Where does “free will” end? Only if harm can be shown to others? Hate to burst your bubble, but drug addicts do hurt others. Even if they got their drugs cheaper, their families lose out, employers don’t want to give jobs to druggies, property owners do not want to rent to them, knowing their property will not be maintained. So, they are likely to be low income, homeless and unemployed and that costs the rest of us.

    Are you unaware of the effort this last legislative term to decrease penalties on “medicinal” marijuana users caught driving, while they sought to increase penalties against those caught driving drunk?

    In the case of stoned or drunk drivers, when they cause wrecks, who ends up getting hurt? The other person. Yes, they will be prosecuted and maybe jailed. Should they be allowed to indulge in their habit will incarcerated? Their “free will” to make those “poor choices” does hurt others. Should we do away with traffic signals and speed limits, just as long as you don’t run into another car? Where does the argument of “free will” to make poor choices end?

    I grew up with a Dad who depended on pain medication. When he was cut off of that, he became a drunk. I’ve seen first hand the harm it does.

    Everywhere legalization has been tried, users increased, not decreased. Free will or not, we do not need to compound the problems we already have.

    Even Portugal, who is touted as having the greatest decriminalization ever, still has crimes associated with drugs.

    If you legalize drugs and grant addicts their “basic human right” to remain stoned, how do you continue with smoking bans and keeping underage people from obtaining drugs or alcohol? As Alaska’s experiment showed, the greatest increase in marijuana use was in the age group below the legal age of use.

  27. Here’s the link to the 20 million people use illicit drugs (not marijuana)

    http://alcoholism.about.com/od/drugs/a/nsduh_drugs.htm

    Here’s the link to 20 million people who smoke marijuana.

    http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr4/2Usage.html

    Here’s the link to half of all people take legal drugs!

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/usmedicated.htm

    About a third of our population is under 12, so easily a third of everybody on the road is “high on drugs,” as you put it Lew.

    Why would you accept alcohol being legal but drugs not!? It’s the exact same problem. Prohibition does NOT work!

  28. Martin, why would you want more people walking around stoned or in a stupor?

    Everywhere drugs have been legalized, the recreational use increased, including in under age groups.

    I’m not sayiong the current approach is best, but to just throw open the doors to any and all drug use to curb a problem is a fallacy.

    As you say, “easily a third of everybody on the road is “high on drugs,” so why make it two thirds?

    And, if you didn’t notice when you invited me over for the barbecue, I don’t drink.

  29. This is one of those rare issues where I expect you to change your position, Lew. You don’t have to go all the way to “legalize drugs” but I think you’re too far out on a limb and it affects how people consider your other opinions.

    p.s. I don’t take drugs (even legal ones)

  30. Martin, you should know me well enough by now to realize that I am not one to stick my finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

    And don’t forget, I grew up in an environment of drug abuse (prescription) and alcohol abuse. My position is not due to what someone told me, it’s what I saw day after day until I left home at 18 years old.

    We have enough problems now, no need to compound it.

    Better to begin addressing the root causes of why some people think they must have drugs or alcohol to get through life.

  31. Well, Lew, if you’re going to take me there…

    It’s no coincidence that 27 million people take perscription antidepressants, which is similar to the number of those who take drugs. America’s a great place to live if you have intelligence, luck, talent, and mental fortitude – and it sucks if you don’t. Everything in America is magnified: success, fame, criminals, losers.

    Telling the losers (many 10s of millions of people) that they all belong in jail should make you ill.

    Liberty is a bitch.

  32. And how, pray tell, would making heroine and cocaine availability easier help that, Martin?

    Yes, liberty is a bitch and nothing you do will ever give equal and guaranteed outcomes.

  33. “And how, pray tell, would making heroine and cocaine availability easier help that, Martin?”

    Lew the answer, of course, is that it doesn’t help that. Ending prohibition didn’t help alcoholism either. But it was still a good idea. Other, far more effective and less expensive ways of dealing with alcoholism were developed instead. The same thing needs to happen with drugs.

  34. Then, we just give up on alcoholism, smoking bans and such?

    Do you honestly believe drug abuse will decrease? It hasn’t anywhere else.

    And, for someone who believe in decreasing government, do you not realize these drugs you want will be regulated and verified by he FDA and manufactured by big pharmica?

    Lessen crime? Not hardly, where do you think the underage kids will get theirs? They won’t be able to buy legally, so guess who they turn to? And don’t forget, Alaska’s experiment with legalizing pot led to an unbelievable increase in pot use in the underage groups of kids. That is why they banned it once again.

    Victimless? Far from it. Families of druggies are who will suffer. Even with drugs at a lower price, who will employ someone stoned most of the time? Already courts have ruled employers can deny employment to tobacco users, why would they be required to employ crack heads? Who would rent to a drug addict? So where do their families and children go?

    And do you think that offspring will not have the addiction passed down to them at birth from a drug addict mother? Legalizing won’t stop that and with more people using drugs, you can expect the birth of addicted babies to increase. Don’t we have enough problems with babies born to alcoholic mothers?

    Alcohol is bad enough as is tobacco, why add heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD and yes, even marijuana to the mix?

    You and Martin can giggle when I asked if you would want your airplane pilot, police officers, doctors and other stoned when you needed them, but neither of you actually answered. Diverting it by saying that is the argument used over ending prohibition doesn’t get it either. And yes they are dealing with those under the influence of alcohol in control of aircraft, cars, trucks, ships, but all too often AFTER they injured or killed an innocent third party. You want to add to that?

    You say less expensive ways were developed to deal with alcoholics. Saying the same thing needs done with drugs doesn’t make it happen. And, who would develop them? Government, of course. Treatment would be expensive prior to any development of less expensive ways, so you have the perfect recipe for socialized medicine, which I also believe is opposed by Libertarians.

    It’s a fallacy that there were no drug problems before they were outlawed. What do you think led to their being outlawed in the first place? The problems associated with them were far worse alcohol and many were legal throughout prohibition, adding more to the country’s problems.

    NO, you’re just compounding the many problems we already have.

    Drug Legalization: Why It Wouldn’t Work in the United States

    Legalization Of Drugs: The Myths And The Facts

    You can argue yourself blue in the face or post any pretty little pictures you want, I experienced it firsthand growing up. You will not convince me.

  35. “Some people you just can’t reach.”
    – from Cool Hand Luke

    BTW, when I’m traveling overseas (no other Americans), I always tell foreigners who ask why Americans are like they are to watch 3 movies:
    1) The Outlaw Josie Wales
    2) Cool Hand Luke
    3) Apocalypse Now

  36. “Some people you just can’t reach.”

    I’m surprised you make that admission, Martin ;-)

    As for your movies, do you really think Americans are anything like those 3?

    The Outlaw Josie Wales, a good western but perpetuates the myth of the wild lawless west and was based upon a book with some very loose bases to real people and events, very loose.

    Cool Hand Luke was also very good movie, but very heavily dramatized view of Southern Life in the late 40’s and into the 50’s.

    Apocalypse Now? Pure unadulterated bull shit. One massive lie piled on other lies. The only credit it deserves is for filming in the Philippines and using some of the actual equipment (borrowed from the Philippine Army) that we did in Vietnam. Other than a realistic background, absolutely no basis in reality, especially in the Redux version.

    I have no idea why you would recommend those films to foreigners for them to understand Americans. All 3 are anti-war/anti-military to a degree, extremely obvious in Apocalypse Now. But I also fail to see how dramatized fables represent us in any degree.

    Perhaps that is a major problem in America, people put too much stock on propaganda movies instead of realizing they are simply entertainment, an escape from reality for 90 minutes or so.

    Just look back at how the Grapes of Wrath propagandized in favor of the government late in the Great Depression or how movies like Bonnie & Clyde glamorized common murderers.

    Surely you can do better when traveling, Martin.

  37. Stubborn to the point of perversity, lack of faith in authority, self-sufficiency – that’s American.

    Socialists are flabbergasted by these traits.

  38. Comments inline below:

    Then, we just give up on alcoholism, smoking bans and such?

    No, and I have never proposed that. I propose giving up on an approach that (a) costs a fortune,(b) doesn’t work and (c) results in non-stop corruption and slaughter (often of innocents) south of the border.

    Do you honestly believe drug abuse will decrease? It hasn’t anywhere else.

    No, as I have already stated, it will NOT result in that. Other things can and should be developed that will. it’s insane to keep doing the same non-working thing and expect a different result.

    And, for someone who believe in decreasing government, do you not realize these drugs you want will be regulated and verified by he FDA and manufactured by big pharmica?

    They already are., and that is a sunk cost, larghely unrelated to volume.

    Lessen crime? Not hardly, where do you think the underage kids will get theirs? They won’t be able to buy legally, so guess who they turn to? And don’t forget, Alaska’s experiment with legalizing pot led to an unbelievable increase in pot use in the underage groups of kids. That is why they banned it once again.

    It will certainly result in less property crime since addicts won’t have to steal everything that’s not nailed down and sell it to scrap dealers and on ebay to feed their habit. And don’t forget the tens of thousands dying south of the border.

    Victimless? Far from it. Families of druggies are who will suffer. Even with drugs at a lower price, who will employ someone stoned most of the time? Already courts have ruled employers can deny employment to tobacco users, why would they be required to employ crack heads? Who would rent to a drug addict? So where do their families and children go?

    Some of the wasted money on the current “war on drugs” should be redirected to deal with these issues. I’m not a psychologist, family therapist or social worker, so I will freely admit to not knowing the details of how this would work. But there are experts out there who do. I just know that what we are doing now does NOT work.

    And do you think that offspring will not have the addiction passed down to them at birth from a drug addict mother? Legalizing won’t stop that and with more people using drugs, you can expect the birth of addicted babies to increase. Don’t we have enough problems with babies born to alcoholic mothers?

    See my comment above. And also recognize that the current approach doesn’t prevent drug or alchohol abuse, it just makes it more $ expensive for the addict.

    Alcohol is bad enough as is tobacco, why add heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD and yes, even marijuana to the mix?

    You and Martin can giggle when I asked if you would want your airplane pilot, police officers, doctors and other stoned when you needed them, but neither of you actually answered. Diverting it by saying that is the argument used over ending prohibition doesn’t get it either. And yes they are dealing with those under the influence of alcohol in control of aircraft, cars, trucks, ships, but all too often AFTER they injured or killed an innocent third party. You want to add to that?

    Lew your scare tactics are over the top and don’t work with me. As a licensed pilot I certainly don’t giggle about this subject. The FAA and airlines have well-developed mechanisms in place for dealing with this issue. When was the last time you heard of an injury or fatality on an US commercial flight related to a drunk pilot?

    You say less expensive ways were developed to deal with alcoholics. Saying the same thing needs done with drugs doesn’t make it happen. And, who would develop them? Government, of course. Treatment would be expensive prior to any development of less expensive ways, so you have the perfect recipe for socialized medicine, which I also believe is opposed by Libertarians.

    I don’t oppose spending public funds on this. Any conceivable amount would be way less than we spend now.

    It’s a fallacy that there were no drug problems before they were outlawed. What do you think led to their being outlawed in the first place? The problems associated with them were far worse alcohol and many were legal throughout prohibition, adding more to the country’s problems.

    I never said there were no drug problems before, only that the prohibition approach doesn’t solve those problems.

  39. And once again, you can close your eyes and plug your ears and call my logic scare tactics, but you even admit that drug use will increase. How does that have any benefit to society? What makes you think some of the very professions my “scare tactics” addresses won’t fall prey to them as well? You ask, “When was the last time you heard of an injury or fatality on an US commercial flight related to a drunk pilot?”

    There have been recent reports of drunken or hung over pilots removed prior to a flight. A lot of that is due to what? Efforts to stop the use of drugs and alcohol. With you agreeing that drug use will increase if legalized, what barrier will there be to those who are in such high risk professions to not be using them?

    You really think crime will go down? As I said, where will the underage users obtain their drugs? They won’t be able to buy them at any store or pharmacy. Or do you fail to realize that a large number of current users are below the legal age?

    There is also the problem, along with increased use, of how drugs affect someone’s behavior and conduct. Several crimes are committed by users, not to obtain drugs, but because of how the drugs have affected their brain and day to day behavior.

    From the link I gave you above,

    “Joseph Califano, the author and a member of President Johnson’s cabinet, stated: “Drugs like marijuana and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous.” The DEA reports that six times as many homicides are committed by persons under the influence of drugs than those looking for money to buy drugs and that most arrestees for violent crimes test positive for drugs at time of arrest.6 Speaking to a Congressional subcommittee on drug policy in 1999, Donnie Marshall, then deputy administrator of DEA, spoke of drug use, crime, and violence. He said that there is “a misconception that most drug-related crimes involve people who are looking for money to buy drugs. The fact is that most drug-related crimes are committed by people whose brains have been messed up with mood-altering drugs.”

    Or, as former New York Mayor Ed Koch put it, “drug legalization is the equivalent of extinguishing a fire with napalm.”

  40. Oh come on Lew. The DEA has an axe to grind. There’s a saying that goes something like “It’s hard to get someone to understand something when their job depends on not understanding it.” If that applies to anyone, it applies to the DEA, who is absolutely in love with the current “War on Drugs.”

    As to the larger issue, I’ve repeatedly aknowledged that ending drug prohibition will not result in lower drug use. Just as ending prohibition in the 1930’s did not result in lower alcoholism, in fact it (temporarily) increased.

    The issue of why some folks are drunks and drug addicts needs to be addressed, as you yourself have suggested, and I’m completely open to spending taxpayer money toward that goal. But I’m completely against spending it on things that don’t work well, or at all, and/or have extraordinarily severe unintended consequences.

  41. “I’ve repeatedly aknowledged that ending drug prohibition will not result in lower drug use.”

    Then why in the world do you advocate an increase?

    I don’t need the DEA to tell me how bad drug abuse, legal, illegal, prescription or even alcohol can be for families, I grew up in it! I know how that crap affects the mind of the user and places others in danger.

    I have never said the war on drugs is the right approach and have admitted it is flawed. But throwing open the doors, knowing how drug use will increase is foolhardy.

  42. Lew, the bottom line is making 10s of millions of people into criminals is MUCH WORSE than drug use. It leads to selective enforcement, extortion, separates them from police protection, and makes them prey to real criminals & exploitation.

    The fact that you think these symptoms plus all the criminality that goes along with illegal distribution are acceptable is appalling.

  43. Did you miss the times I said I would put users in treatment and execute dealers on the spot? That hardly qualifies as “acceptable” where I come from.

    And as I said to Tom, with increased stoners getting high on mind altering drugs, crime will increase due to their actions while high.

  44. Lew, if you’re just measuring crime levels, right now it’s 100s of millions of crimes… Crime will certainly be MUCH LESS if drugs were legalized! (By maybe 100 million “criminals”!)

  45. And how, pray tell Martin, will crimes committed by those under the influence of mind altering drugs decreases when we all acknowledge the use of those drugs will increase?

    Those charged with using will definitely go down, but those who commit crimes due to their brains being so out of whack on drugs have to increase along with the increased use.

  46. Lew, everyone who uses an illicit drug is a criminal now. Everytime they use, it’s a crime. The Statute of Limitations is 5 years, so the reservoir of potential charges is in the 100s of millions!

    I simply don’t see how you’re doing the math?

    Anyway, I accept you won’t adjust your views. I’m done here.

  47. Martin if you practice criminal law maybe you should be in favor of the status quo. And since I’m in the hi-tech industrial video surveillance biz, so should I. Between all the status criminals you cite, and the current and potential customer base in my list 1-8 above, our financial future looks bright indeed. What was I thinking?

  48. There is no easy solution to the drug problem. I wish there was. It’s too bad there isn’t a big island where people who want to do drugs could go so they couldn’t affect everybody else.

  49. John Stossel’s show on Fox Business News has a piece tonight about the devastating effects of Obama’s DEA on one California town. Note that the previous two presidents did not touch this squeaky-clean operation:

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/22/illegal-jobs-tonight-9pm-fbn

    “In October 2011 Fox Business News came to Fairfax and filmed on premise at MAMM all day after the Obama DOJ threatened the landlord with forfeiture in order to shut down MAMM. Those reports were aired live to a nationwide audience. Last week Stossel’s crew again contacted Shaw with an offer to fly her to New York City to film a follow up to the aftermath of the heavy handed shut down of her facility.

    She will be discussing the widespread medical crisis that hundreds, if not thousands, of her patient-members are experiencing since the shutdown. Overloaded public health services and packed emergency rooms are a direct result of the lack of safe, permitted access in Marin County.

    Closing the dispensary also caused an instant problem of fraudulent dope peddlers claiming to be working for Lynnette Shaw, using her sterling reputation to entice patients to buy their unregulated, untested and inferior marijuana on the street corners of Fairfax, as well as all over Marin County. She is pursuing legal action to stop the identity theft.

    The Town of Fairfax has also been devastated financially since the closure of the Marin Alliance on December 17th. The MAMM sales tax contribution was in the top-three income stream for Fairfax for fifteen years.

    The segment will be aired on Fox Business News at 9 pm on Thursday, March 22nd, and re-broadcast on Fox News over the weekend of March 24th and 25th.”

  50. Tom, why the false front of “medicinal weed?

    Why not just come right out and fight for full legalization without the pussyfooting around the real intent?

  51. Why do you think it’s a false front? There are people who do favor full legalization, however this group was not among them so far as I know. They certainly didn’t behave as tho they were, according to local police and officials.

    As you know, there are many other drugs that have various medical benefits, but are available by prescription only. I don’t think most folks would accuse the developers and manufacturers of those drugs of secretly favoring over-the-counter sales.

  52. If it isn’t a false front, can you explain why the only way to get the medicinal benefits is to smoke it?

    And I am sure you are aware of many “doctors” prescribing solely because people want it to get high.

  53. It isn’t. Vaporizers work far better than smoking which damages your lungs. If the FDA didn’t have its head where it’s 98.6, it would be available in pill form too (actually a very inferior synthetic version is legally available in pill form, but it has nasty side-effects so no-one wants it and most MDs are afraid to prescribe it).

    And I am aware of the abuse you’re describing. Happens with all prescription drugs, not just cannabis.

  54. While vaporizers undoubtedly would work better, that is not how most are using it, is it?

  55. Unfortunately no, probably for the same reason so many folks smoke rather than chew Nicorette :-)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers

%d bloggers like this: