Let's Privatize the War on Drugs

[Aargh]

How much time do you think someone gets when they're arrested with 207 pounds of medical grade marijuana in their jet that landed in Iola, KS? To give you some concept of penalties for possession in Kansas, possession of any amount (even a trace) is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $2,500 or both. So what do you get for 207 pounds?

One year. Yep. That's it - one year. Of course he forfeited his jet, $450,000 in cash found in his house in Denver, his Bentley, and his BMW. He pled to one count of possession with intent to distribute.

Law enforcement really likes the forfeiture laws. Anything "suspected" of being gotten through drug distribution can be seized.

Link: http://www.denverpost.com/trailmix/c...as-gets-1-year

[tropicalshox]

Law enforcement really likes the forfeiture laws. Anything "suspected" of being gotten through drug distribution can be seized.

Link: http://www.denverpost.com/trailmix/c...as-gets-1-year

Gee, do you think this might have anything to do with where law enforcement officials stand on War of Drug issues?

[shockmonster]

Why talk so much about marijuana. While it is an addictive substance for significant numbers of people, meth, heroin , oxy-codone, and other pain killers is where you addict people quickly and make the most money. For libertarians, this is a no brainer.

[Kung Wu]

Why talk so much about marijuana. While it is an addictive substance for significant numbers of people, meth, heroin , oxy-codone, and other pain killers is where you addict people quickly and make the most money. For libertarians, this is a no brainer.

This doesn't make sense to me. Libertarians want decriminalization, not legalization. Their intent is to decrease drug use and drug crime, not to increase drug use by simple legalization. I think legalize + tax is more of a liberal platform.

[shockmonster]

That may be true for you KW, and maybe for most on here but I think that at least some, maybe more, want legalization.

[Kung Wu]

That may be true for you KW, and maybe for most on here but I think that at least some, maybe more, want legalization.

I didn't give my opinion. I'm only explaining the Libertarian/libertarian platform. That was an old platform, maybe it has changed in the last decade, but I doubt it.

[WuDrWu]

The only 2 arguments I've seen for legalization are freedom to choose (I'm kind of on board with that) and we allow alcohol and tobacco and they are bad for you so why not drugs. I call this LCD thinking.

I cannot for the life of me understand that thought process.

Legalizing drugs will, without a doubt, get to kids and negatively affect them. That alone should be enough reason not to legalize them. There are 2 things we, as a society, have to stop doing.

We have to stop using the least common denominator for determining where to set the bar. If John F. Kennedy were alive today we'd choose to go to Hawaii not because it is hard but because it is easy.

And we have to quit thinking of me and start a lot more thinking of the other guy. There's a thing called paying it forward that's gotten some press at like Starbucks where a person will pay for the order of the next person and so on.

Why in the world would anyone get the warm fuzzies paying for someone's $7 Latte? Does that even make sense? Am I the only one that sees the stupidity in that?

Like I'm doing some kind of good buying a woman's scone and $6 ice tea she's taking to her 16 year old daughter who was late to school because she forgot to put gas in her in her BMW?

DO IT forward. Stop paying it forward (at least stop at Starbucks. You want to pay it forward, go to Aldi's.) If we could shift to more doing and less paying we'd all be better off.

My .02 for the day. Back to your regularly scheduled discussions.

[Play Angry]

I would enjoy hearing from those who oppose both decriminalization and legalization - what specific reforms do you support to fix the current system? Or should we simply stay the course because, in your opinion, it is adequately accomplishing the legislation's intended goals?

[WuDrWu]

I would support decriminalization for anyone that isn't distributing as long as they are stripped of their welfare status if they take any and perhaps with community service, I'm not sure. I do not think putting users in jail is doing much good. I think putting dealers in jail is something that shouldn't change.

And I would like to see anyone selling drugs to minors put in jail for life.

[Play Angry]

So generally, the issue with the current system of enforcement is that the punishments are not harsh enough? Sincere question - I am trying to understand the arguments which are against decriminalization/legalization, coupled with whether and how those arguments address the macro issues the current system creates.

In a perfect world of course families would raise their kids to not participate in vice, but in a perfect world we also wouldn't need a military so I guess we are kinda stuck.

[WuDrWu]

So generally, the issue with the current system of enforcement is that the punishments are not harsh enough? Sincere question - I am trying to understand the arguments which are against decriminalization/legalization, coupled with whether and how those arguments address the macro issues the current system creates.

In a perfect world of course families would raise their kids to not participate in vice, but in a perfect world we also wouldn't need a military so I guess we are kinda stuck.

Excellent last point. Let me say I'm so not the guy to talk about this...I'm not even sure why I continue to weigh in. I'm nowhere close to being an expert and I know I'm biased.

Nevertheless, I seem to keep yapping about it.

Which do I think is worse...putting some extra drug users behind bars or dealing with an almost certain increase in users and addicts? I'll admit a stubbornness there.

There are always going to be unintended consequences. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem. Some problems (over crowded prisons, budget overages for instance) will be erased or at least minimized while new problems will most certainly crop up.

Should we change course just to migrate from one set of issues to the next? That seems a little self defeating to me.

I'm not saying the problem isn't the punishments are not harsh enough. Yes, I think we should be tougher on people that deal, and specifically, deal to children.

You take advantage of an innocent, you should pay a heavy price. We're starting to get it right with pedophiles, we need to be harsh with drug dealers. Preying on our kids cannot be allowed.

Like I said earlier, I'm all for exploring decriminalizing the user that isn't harming others or dealing. I don't think you should be allowed to use drugs in public and be a nuisance. I'm not married to the idea of public service as a punishment if you were, but I do think if we began to migrate to a thinking of a hand up instead of a hand out we might start seeing some more victories. And I think that's what most of us want...am I right? Don't we all want to see people not using drugs and being productive members of society? We can argue all day and night about Billy who sits at home and gets high while mom and dad take care of his every need. **** Billy. I don't care about him. He can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't get behind the wheel and ruin someones life. The point should be the person that is asking for help or worse, that the government says needs help. We have to figure out a better way to end or least head in the other direction of creating this underclass we have for the last 50 years or so.

[ShockTalk]

Excellent last point. Let me say I'm so not the guy to talk about this...I'm not even sure why I continue to weigh in. I'm nowhere close to being an expert and I know I'm biased.

Nevertheless, I seem to keep yapping about it.

Which do I think is worse...putting some extra drug users behind bars or dealing with an almost certain increase in users and addicts? I'll admit a stubbornness there.

There are always going to be unintended consequences. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem. Some problems (over crowded prisons, budget overages for instance) will be erased or at least minimized while new problems will most certainly crop up.

Should we change course just to migrate from one set of issues to the next? That seems a little self defeating to me.

I'm not saying the problem isn't the punishments are not harsh enough. Yes, I think we should be tougher on people that deal, and specifically, deal to children.

You take advantage of an innocent, you should pay a heavy price. We're starting to get it right with pedophiles, we need to be harsh with drug dealers. Preying on our kids cannot be allowed.

Like I said earlier, I'm all for exploring decriminalizing the user that isn't harming others or dealing. I don't think you should be allowed to use drugs in public and be a nuisance. I'm not married to the idea of public service as a punishment if you were, but I do think if we began to migrate to a thinking of a hand up instead of a hand out we might start seeing some more victories. And I think that's what most of us want...am I right? Don't we all want to see people not using drugs and being productive members of society? We can argue all day and night about Billy who sits at home and gets high while mom and dad take care of his every need. **** Billy. I don't care about him. He can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't get behind the wheel and ruin someones life. The point should be the person that is asking for help or worse, that the government says needs help. We have to figure out a better way to end or least head in the other direction of creating this underclass we have for the last 50 years or so.

I think you're yapping just fine, Doc.