(January 6, 2018 at 11:37 am)Jane2d Wrote:

(January 6, 2018 at 11:14 am)Minimalist Wrote: Of course you have to remember that the "drug war" was never about safety.... or drugs.  It was about Nixon and his war machine.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/j...index.html

Yes and no.  It is much older than that.

http://jackherer.com/emperor-3/

There is a difference between state/local regulations and Nixon's "War on Drugs" which resulted in the creation of the DEA.



Gee.  I wonder what the difference may have been?

(January 7, 2018 at 1:05 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I'd have far fewer problems with the war on illegal drugs if there were more focus on keeping the really nasty shit out and rehabilitating those caught up in the drug trade and less emphasis put on locking them all up.

It would also be nice if the feds would spend at least as much keeping radiologicals out as they waste on their ineffective war on drugs.

The war on drugs is an expensive failure. You have tax and regulate and legalize that will solve the drug problem.

(January 7, 2018 at 1:06 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 6, 2018 at 11:37 am)Jane2d Wrote: Yes and no.  It is much older than that.

http://jackherer.com/emperor-3/

There is a difference between state/local regulations and Nixon's "War on Drugs" which resulted in the creation of the DEA.
Gee.  I wonder what the difference may have been?

quote from article:
Marijuana’s placement in Schedule I did not happen in a vacuum, historians note. Overt racism, combined with New Deal reforms and bureaucratic self-interest are often blamed for the first round of federal cannabis prohibition under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which restricted possession to those who paid a steep tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications. (Cannabis was removed from the official U.S. Pharmacopeia in 1942.)

The Tax Act’s mode of federal cannabis prohibition became illegal in 1969 with the case Leary v. United States, which found that purchasing a marijuana tax stamp amounted to self-incrimination. The verdict spurred Congress to repeal the Tax Act and replace it with the more comprehensive Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
/quote

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...marijuana/

See, it is a congressional mess to fix.

(January 7, 2018 at 1:05 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I'd have far fewer problems with the war on illegal drugs if there were more focus on keeping the really nasty shit out and rehabilitating those caught up in the drug trade and less emphasis put on locking them all up.

It would also be nice if the feds would spend at least as much keeping radiologicals out as they waste on their ineffective war on drugs.

Explain please.

(January 7, 2018 at 9:06 am)dyresand Wrote:

(January 7, 2018 at 1:05 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I'd have far fewer problems with the war on illegal drugs if there were more focus on keeping the really nasty shit out and rehabilitating those caught up in the drug trade and less emphasis put on locking them all up.

It would also be nice if the feds would spend at least as much keeping radiologicals out as they waste on their ineffective war on drugs.

The war on drugs is an expensive failure. You have to tax and regulate and legalize that will solve the drug problem.

there fixed it.  No amount of cracking down on illegal drugs will solve jack shit. prohibition failed it always fails. the church and south and the government cracked down on alcohol calling it bad because men were being men they drank alcohol a lot. This is just very basic spark notes so you had females and the church along with government ban it. In the south, there is a thing called moonshine if you make it the wrong way it will kill you and or make you blind. So you had a lot of bootleggers selling the stuff and when prohibition ended it solved the problem just let people drink  And here is how i feel about it if you want to do drugs you should be able to just not out in the public with a crack pipe all i am saying is it should be legal and it should be treated like public intoxication instead of being thrown into jail for years. Taxation of illegal drugs and regulations will get rid of the dangerous stuff we should be happy krokodil isn't a problem here in the U.S. yet.

(January 7, 2018 at 11:52 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 7, 2018 at 1:05 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I'd have far fewer problems with the war on illegal drugs if there were more focus on keeping the really nasty shit out and rehabilitating those caught up in the drug trade and less emphasis put on locking them all up.

It would also be nice if the feds would spend at least as much keeping radiologicals out as they waste on their ineffective war on drugs.

Explain please.

The feds spend way more money on technologies to keep out drugs than they do on technologies to keep out nukes. Last i heard it was on the order of 100:1

(January 7, 2018 at 3:03 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(January 7, 2018 at 11:52 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Explain please.

The feds spend way more money on technologies to keep out drugs than they do on technologies to keep out nukes. Last i heard it was on the order of 100:1

OK, thanks. I was on a completely different path. 

So you're talking about "keeping out" terrorist nukes?

(January 7, 2018 at 4:27 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 7, 2018 at 3:03 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: The feds spend way more money on technologies to keep out drugs than they do on technologies to keep out nukes. Last i heard it was on the order of 100:1

OK, thanks. I was on a completely different path. 

So you're talking about "keeping out" terrorist nukes?

Yep. Imagine the carnage if a terrorist nuke found it's way onto a boat headed into Los Angeles harbor. Or New York, or New Orleans, or...

While it may not be an eminent threat, it is certainly a viable threat and the feds spend a pittance on it compared to "securing" the borders against drugs.

(January 7, 2018 at 7:19 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(January 7, 2018 at 4:27 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: OK, thanks. I was on a completely different path. 

So you're talking about "keeping out" terrorist nukes?

Yep. Imagine the carnage if a terrorist nuke found it's way onto a boat headed into Los Angeles harbor. Or New York, or New Orleans, or...

While it may not be an eminent threat, it is certainly a viable threat and the feds spend a pittance on it compared to "securing" the borders against drugs.

Drugs are the least of our worries in this country