Time for new drugs policies

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Then Ron Paul would essentially not have much effect on the war on drugs.

At best, he might do what Obama did during the first half of his first term, which is to not go after dispensaries in states that legalize it.

About all Ron could do is bring the troops home, a vast improvement from the last two regimes.

Originally posted by badmoon
More people are incarcerated per capita in the US by far over any other country on Earth. 20% of those incarcerated are for drug offenses.

The drug rate is insane but so is the total rate of incarcerated prisoners. It is time not only to stop imprisoning people for drus sales and possesion, but to change the rate of non violent imprsionment and certainly reduce the length of those prison terms.

Our current approach is barbaric and shameful.

True, we need to make room for health insurance dodgers. 😠

Go gett'em Barry Obama!!!

Originally posted by whodey
About all Ron could do is bring the troops home, a vast improvement from the last two regimes.

Technically he could and that would be great.

I don't think he would though - given the political pressure that may just come to bear. It would be interesting to see how the pro-war republicans somehow deal with an anti-war republican president though.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Technically he could and that would be great.

I don't think he would though - given the political pressure that may just come to bear. It would be interesting to see how the pro-war republicans somehow deal with an anti-war republican president though.

Technically? I thought he was the commander in chief in our make believe scenerio?

Originally posted by whodey
Technically? I thought he was the commander in chief in our make believe scenerio?

Yes he would be and he could.

The problem is that he would have a political revolt on his hands. Not by regular people, but the people who actually matter.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Yes he would be and he could.

The problem is that he would have a political revolt on his hands. Not by regular people, but the people who actually matter.

Do you think a man who wants to do away with the Fed and return to fiscal sanity and bring the troops home really gives a damn about political revolt?

Crazy Ron thinks he can influence the GOP with such stances. 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
Do you think a man who wants to do away with the Fed and return to fiscal sanity and bring the troops home really gives a damn about political revolt?

Crazy Ron thinks he can influence the GOP with such stances. 🙄

So you think people who want to do away with the fed are somehow immune to politics?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So you think people who want to do away with the fed are somehow immune to politics?

Without the Fed the game is over for the fiscally challenged in Washington. It would be like taking Helen Kellar and rearranging her furniture.

Just keep in mind that these mentally challenged people need our help!! 😛

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Yes he would be and he could.

The problem is that he would have a political revolt on his hands. Not by regular people, but the people who actually matter.

Unless voters actually make it a primary reason to win their vote then the war on drugs will continue no matter how stupid it is.

The problem is that he would have a political revolt on his hands. Not by regular people, but the people who actually matter.

Just to grasp your reasoning here I offer your two separate posts above. There are voters, and there are "people who matter" who are not really the voters.

For example, could a political revolt by people who actually matter put a stop to the insane war on drugs? Alternatively, would voters make it a primary reason if people who actually matter framed the issue in terms that were acceptable to them instead of the apocalyptic nonsense currently uttered to secure their acceptance of a policy that not only fails to work but has disastrous consequences?

Just for a start, as the article I cited points out, it would not be tolerable or realistic to have unregulated drug sales because we already regulate most drugs for reasons of public health. Even paracetemol cannot be bought in packets above a certain size or by people under 18 in Britain for example. So any new policy would regulate the sale of any drug - but that is a lot different to making it illegal and criminal to possess and use the drug.

So we could frame a policy of drug regulation instead of a policy of drug criminalisation, while still criminalising illegal sales - so that people had a powerful incentive to accept the regulated sources.

It would also seem desirable to take a greater interest in designing recreational drugs in a way that is less harmful. There is already a legal industry in sales of alcohol and tobacco for heavens sake. I would strongly recommend that people avoid both types of drug, but I would not advocate putting them in prison indefinitely and ruining their life chances for failing to accept my advice.

The one drug I would like to make illegal is the introduction of sugar into so many types of food that it is profoundly harmful to the health of every one of us.

Originally posted by finnegan

Just to grasp your reasoning here I offer your two separate posts above. There are voters, and there are "people who matter" who are not really the voters.

For example, could a political revolt by people who actually matter put a stop to the insane war on drugs? Alternatively, would voters make it a primary reason if people who actually matter frame ...[text shortened]... gar into so many types of food that it is profoundly harmful to the health of every one of us.

Just to grasp your reasoning here I offer your two separate posts above. There are voters, and there are "people who matter" who are not really the voters.

Heh.. I know those were somewhat contradictory so let me explain. I do think that the voters in the end do matter. However, voters usually decide who to vote for based on what their primary criteria is. The primary criteria for most people are things like how they feel the economy is doing and maybe some other things that affect them directly.

If the economy is booming under a given elected official, but that official is pro-prohibition of drugs then the economy wins out. That means that the people who matter on the issue of prohibition are really the lobbyists and the people who have a monetary interest in that issue. Even on economic matters the lobbyists etc.. will usually end up having severe influence on the bills etc..

For example, could a political revolt by people who actually matter put a stop to the insane war on drugs?

Yes. The problem is that you would really have to get a critical mass of people to become very politically active on that issue and make a candidate's views on that issue a primary factor on whether they vote for that person and they have to be willing to phone/write/email/protest that legislator if they threaten to vote against that principle. Otherwise it's the moneyed interests that will dictate the policy.

So we could frame a policy of drug regulation instead of a policy of drug criminalisation, while still criminalising illegal sales - so that people had a powerful incentive to accept the regulated sources.

Agreed. It is more effective to treat drug use as a matter of public health rather than a matter of criminalization.

The one drug I would like to make illegal is the introduction of sugar into so many types of food that it is profoundly harmful to the health of every one of us.

There's another area where maybe some regulation might be in order, but what would be more effective would simply be education. If we get people to actually understand nutrition and promote it then it will affect the market.

This is disturbing - no doubt you are right of course but it takes us in a cynical direction which may be the valid one.

Start with sugar in food. People are indeed being educated - they are being educated to accept the poison sold as food and to complain if threatened with healthy alternatives; especially if their schools are asked to serve only healthy food to children. It causes riots in Britain and I know the US has similar problems. Nobody wants their children to be educated in anything that matters or that might make them healthier or better citizens or more discriminating consumers.

On the drugs war, the damage is primarily in South and Central America. In the US itself the damage can be nicely classified as the wrong sort of people and it seems to be ok to lock up a huge proportion of the population indefinitely rather than remedy social injustice. So one might think there was zero prospect of the voters in the US giving a tinker's curse.

Maybe what is required is a neat reframing of the issue. Since the US voter clearly does not give a tinker's curse, why do they keep supporting such a costly process at their own expense? Why not agree that is is all the fault of moral weaklings and social degenerates and stop fighting it? The taxpayer saves a fortune and the victims get some reprieve from the senseless oppression.

Originally posted by badmoon
More people are incarcerated per capita in the US by far over any other country on Earth. 20% of those incarcerated are for drug offenses.

The drug rate is insane but so is the total rate of incarcerated prisoners. It is time not only to stop imprisoning people for drus sales and possesion, but to change the rate of non violent imprsionment and certainly reduce the length of those prison terms.

Our current approach is barbaric and shameful.

Don't ask me where, but I've seen the number over 50% of US incarcerations are non violent drug offenders.

Just as prohibitions only made criminal syndicates rich, drug prohibitions do the same, in addition to distorting economies in the 3rd world to growing drug crops instead of food.