The War On Drugs

Right. In point of fact, the ONLY commonly used drug whose use, not prohibition, is associated with violent crime, is alcohol. We know alcohol prohibition is a bad idea, but it is a better idea than prohibition of other commonly used drugs.

 

You have evidence of that? And that "evidence" can have no connection at all to the prohibition of alcohol (I've explained why).

 

drug use and abuse has been with mankind for thousands of years, having addicts register with a health provider and receive pure and reasonably priced dosages is the best overall method to deal with the issue over one hundred years of a "war" has done nothing to reduce demand, or supply except worsen things

 

China eliminated the Opium problem in their country.

Sure it was brutal but it did work.

 

i am not sure of the exact history, but china eased access to Rx drugs as well, they are more loosely monitored, more like Mexico, if you can buy oxycodone, you dont need heroin, or opium before making these grand proclamations please look into the details more closely

 

Your explanation was abject nonsense but no worries.. Less people in jail .. less going through court .. less negative police interactions.

Its all good in the hood .. Won't have no Capone's running around har har har ...

I love your utilitarian justification for law though D .. That Collectivist Blue Color suits you very well ... goes with your hatred of essential liberty .. and Republicanism.. but well with your love of authoritarianism..

 

Keep lying about me @Giftedone. It is all you are proficient at. ][/QUOTE]

 

<sigh> No, Captain Illogical. Without the PROHIBITION we wouldn't have the drug dealers and gangs. Do we have drug dealers and gangs selling highly addictive but not prohibited cigarettes? Do we have drug dealers and gangs selling highly addictive but not prohibited alcohol? Are we thinking yet?

 

That's called "an absurd and disingenuous strawman fallacy."

Oh, really? I'd call destroying the lives of millions of innocent people in several countries pretty much really trying.

 

How have we "destroyed the lives of millions of innocent people in several countries"?

We don't even put MILLIONS of Americans in prison for drug offenses.

 

By corrupting their governments with drug money, encouraging violent conflict over the drug trade, locking them in prisons, etc.

Well, we can add that to the long and rapidly growing list of your baldly false claims, as proved here:
"During the period from 1993 to 2011, there were three million admissions into federal and state prisons for drug offenses. Over the same period, there were 30 million arrests for drug crimes, 24 million of which were for possession."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/

And that does not count local and county drug imprisonments.

 

They are only "criminals" and "commit crimes" because they pursue their happiness (which they naively assumed they had a right to do) in ways that violate no one else's rights, but that evil, lying scum have made into crimes for no defensible reason.

 

Ignoring the obvious:

Almost no one goes to prison ONLY for drug possession.

 

What part of, "the pursuit of happiness" are you having trouble understanding?

 

i have two numbers one from the 1970s and one for the 80s...almost three years altogether, and they had no effect whatsoever ..possession

 

No, that is merely another bald falsehood from you:
"The picture is clear: Drug crimes have been the predominant reason for new admissions into state and federal prisons in recent decades. In every year from 1993 to 2009, more people were admitted for drug crimes than violent crimes. In the 2000s, the flow of incarceration for drug crimes exceeded admissions for property crimes each year."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/

No, that is merely another bald falsehood from you.

 

In all likelihood drug possession is simply an easy justification for incarcerating people when in fact they committed other, harder to prove crimes.

 

Uh, have you ever given any kind of source for any of your baldly false claims....?

 

In all likelihood, you just made that up because you know that you have been proved objectively wrong again.

 

Like which one?

 

Cute. The Economist is paywalled, and the National Review has no search function....

I think you have made it abundantly clear that you are no kind of sleuth, or even particularly interested in the facts.

 

ANY.

 

Please be specific, otherwise how can provide sources?

 

back when i did time 77 and 87 i was in medium security and virtually everyone had some drug issue, but many were sentenced for robbery or B and E most commonly for a few year sentence

 

Canada legalized pot four years ago. There is not the slightest indication that it has been in any sense a "disaster."