# The Next War on Drugs



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

The freedom loving no rules libertarian is about to be duped into an openly drug induced society of mankind. "World Leaders Promote Legalizing drugs" is currently featured on Drudge as a story. 
World leaders call for legalisation of drugs | The Independent

This isn't because "the war" we are waging is being lost. It isn't because we're spending too much fighting it. Those are what you are going to be lead to believe. You are way off.

The "NEW" War will be waged by the winners who are promoting the world leaders. Let me explain the usual suspects in case you are missing the point:

MEDIA: How many dollars are used on "don't use illegal drug ads?" The fact is not that much; but you can bet the rabid expansion of tax induced paid advertisements for "join our program" and "get off drugs" is going to be "HUGE" in the words of a new president - just "HUGE."

NURSES UNION and MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS and HEALTH CARE: Right now people go to these voluntarily and some get sentenced to them by judges and courts trying to get people "clean." Just imagine when it becomes a tax payer paid for entitlement? The expansion here on this "battle front" of the NEW WAR will be quite substantial.

and who are the losers?

POLICE: Hmm who's mad at those guys? Well can you say anti government libertarians and progressives? What do they have in common when it comes to discussing the police? They both hate them, and what a better way to "get some" cops then to end their war on drugs.

INSURANCE COMPANIES: Obamacare is on the ropes; its likely to get its back side kicked in just a few months and those evil capitalist insurance companies "are going to get away with it" and stay in business. How dare they? We can fix them. We can dump a whole new generation of addicts on them and entitle those addicts to drug care. Before you know we'll break those companies and turn to the social medicine that can tax and pay for it all.


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

I've already heard similar sentiments. "The failed war on drugs. Stop filling the jails with nonviolent drug offenders. Blah blah blah." More of the same from the enlightened agenda of most universities nowadays. I'd like to take some of those who argue for legalization to see how some of the drugs actually affect people and their families and see if they still think hard drugs should be legal.

Also 500 posts! Yay me!


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

warrior4 said:


> I've already heard similar sentiments. "The failed war on drugs. Stop filling the jails with nonviolent drug offenders. Blah blah blah." More of the same from the enlightened agenda of most universities nowadays. I'd like to take some of those who argue for legalization to see how some of the drugs actually affect people and their families and see if they still think hard drugs should be legal.
> 
> Also 500 posts! Yay me!


I am for legalization. And I am not worried about anyone in my family being affected by it. If my family members are stupid enough to do drugs, let them. It's their bodies they are destroying. That's no different than alcohol, it's legal and some people drink themselves to death but most don't. I say let's make it legal, tax it and use the money for education, and medical facilities for those who wants out. Let the people make the decision what they want for themselves.

To me, this is similar to surgery. The doctor will cut you up àlmost killing you...so that he could cure you.


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

There's a huge difference between surgery and illegal street drugs. Surgery is yes causing a little harm, but it's for a greater good. Many illegal drugs have been shown to not have any positive medicinal value. It's also not just themselves they're harming. It's their families who are hurt by it too. I've been inside houses of all shapes and sizes where the user is lying there hardly breathing with their small children looking on. There are plenty of statistics out there showing the effect a parent's drug abuse and that those children will grow up to also be drug users. Likewise since their parents are out spending money on drugs they aren't paying for things like food, clothing, heat, rent, etc. The effects of drug use go well beyond the individual user.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The current war on drugs is a failure. An extremely costly failure. More is available today at high quality and lower proces than when I was aa kid in the 60s and 70s. No way the country has the stomach for a zero tolerance execution policy. Legalization is not all that palatable either.


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

The war on drugs is a very real thing, I spent too much time in South America with SOCSOUTH and our affiliate task forces and partner nations doing counter narcotic operations...if the media/SJWs/edgy kids knew what we did they wouldnt be crying "wahh they are at war with us I hate reagan because he hated black people"

I am for the legalization of MJ, and to a certain extent psychoactive drugs like DMT (ayahuasca) and similar "organic" ones i.e not Molly, X, etc...there is a huge market share and it would create tons of easy tax revenue, lessen burden on federal/state prisons and judicial systems and create thousands of jobs

Honestly Ive listened and read some reports about the for profit prisons and how they benefit as well as breed more system corruption and I am against that

This aligns with my existenial beliefs, we are all individuals and if someone wants to smoke pot and eat shrooms all day let them - Id rather someone consume drugs that are paying a legit business, giving money to taxes versus buying pot from a large supply chain of internarional criminals I did not get a chance to kill, go to prison to line some FPP execs coffers and we sink thousands of tax dollars keeping that person fed.

Plus...maybe itll get the libertariantards to stop shout F the PoPo a little bit

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

If it bothers you a private enterprise would make money to keep someone in prison (paid for by tax dollars) then why wouldn't it bother you to take tax dollars to pay a private health care provider to treat their so called addiction? If anyone thinks the revenue from taxation on currently illegal drugs is even going to sniff the surface of reality on those costs they are smoking too much currently illegal products.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

I'm not arguing for or against but I can say this, I visited the Netherlands a few years ago (where all drugs are legal) and I didn't see people in the streets in a drug induced stupor. The country was very clean and I didn't run into one druggie trying to rob me for their next fix.

Now all the idiots on bikes is another story but I won't go into that.


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Legalization of " pot " would be ok in my book , but when it comes to the other drugs " no way " . I have never seen , heard of someone on pot go out and rob , kill , rape , act crazy . The other drugs , yes , I have seen on the news they say " well I was high on , meth , coke , ect " if I didn't use I wouldn't have done what I did " . What does that tell you ? jmho.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Targetshooter said:


> Legalization of " pot " would be ok in my book , but when it comes to the other drugs " no way " . I have never seen , heard of someone on pot go out and rob , kill , rape , act crazy . The other drugs , yes , I have seen on the news they say " well I was high on , meth , coke , ect " if I didn't use I wouldn't have done what I did " . What does that tell you ? jmho.


Just like all the problems with booze? Are you for prohibited of alcohol? Legalizing drugs is proven to lower use.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> Just like all the problems with booze? Are you for prohibited of alcohol? Legalizing drugs is proven to lower use.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


I like my Jack Daniels , shine , rum , whiskey . but I only have it just a few time a month . I still have a 1/2 5th rum from last x-mas .


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Targetshooter said:


> I like my Jack Daniels , shine , rum , whiskey . but I only have it just a few time a month . I still have a 1/2 5th rum from last x-mas .


Nice i'm pro freedom I'll never tell anyone what to do with their own body. The war on drugs is a massive failure.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> Nice i'm pro freedom I'll never tell anyone what to do with their own body....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


I bet that dumbass college graduate who tried to "hot pot" in an acid thermal spring in Yellowstone wished someone had told him no...:vs_no_no_no:

http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/...ody-dissolves-yellowstone-thermal-spring.html

I don't care who you are that story cracks me up!:vs_laugh:


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> I bet that dumbass college graduate who tried to "hot pot" in an acid thermal spring in Yellowstone wished someone had told him no...:vs_no_no_no:
> 
> http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/...ody-dissolves-yellowstone-thermal-spring.html
> 
> I don't care who you are that story cracks me up!:vs_laugh:


Hahah totally bet that's his right to do dumb stuff like that to himself and we are better off for it.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Judges, Lawyers and Cops love the "War on Drugs" it keeps them gainfully employed.
J Edgar Hoover prohibited his people to get involved w narcotic cases.... Why, because they would be easily corrupted!
Disband the Controlled dangerous substance act put in place by Richard Nixon. Save lots of taxpayer money.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Urinal Cake said:


> Judges, Lawyers and Cops love the "War on Drugs" it keeps them gainfully employed.
> J Edgar Hoover prohibited his people to get involved w narcotic cases.... Why, because they would be easily corrupted!
> Disband the Controlled dangerous substance act put in place by Richard Nixon. *Save lots of taxpayer money*.


What savings? All you are doing is shifting the money from LE, Judges and Corrections to nurses unions, doctors, government agencies that deal with "social services" and of course the lame stream media. There is not going to be any savings; in fact I dare say its going to cost you plenty more. Show me a LE budget, court or correction budget that comes anywhere near that of a social services, medical care and treatment budget. Look at who wins when the "war" shifts from one front to the other.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

So long as there's money in it, the good guys and the bad guys get intermingled.
Tax it and control it , that eliminates the bad guys and keeps the good guys honest.
Treatment to be paid with the drug tax. Win, Win, Win.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Sasquatch said:


> I'm not arguing for or against but I can say this, I visited the Netherlands a few years ago (where all drugs are legal) and I didn't see people in the streets in a drug induced stupor. The country was very clean and I didn't run into one druggie trying to rob me for their next fix.
> 
> Now all the idiots on bikes is another story but I won't go into that.


What? All drugs are legal in the Netherlands. OMG... There must be a lot of drug addicts there... And murders, drive by shootings.... What about rival drug dealers killing each other over turfs. How about the cops, I bet a lot of them are killed by drug dealers....


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

warrior4 said:


> There's a huge difference between surgery and illegal street drugs. Surgery is yes causing a little harm, but it's for a greater good. Many illegal drugs have been shown to not have any positive medicinal value. It's also not just themselves they're harming. It's their families who are hurt by it too. I've been inside houses of all shapes and sizes where the user is lying there hardly breathing with their small children looking on. There are plenty of statistics out there showing the effect a parent's drug abuse and that those children will grow up to also be drug users. Likewise since their parents are out spending money on drugs they aren't paying for things like food, clothing, heat, rent, etc. The effects of drug use go well beyond the individual user.


People will do drugs and there is nothing you could do about it. Street drugs, narcotics you name it. Hell, kids are known to Huff glue, Are we going to ban that too. I say let them do drugs, if they OD that's their problem. Growing up, just about everyone around me are druggies. They look like they were a day away from death. I did not want to be like that so I didn't do it. I drank alcohol, but I maintained control. When I felt a buzz, I stopped drinking. This is why I got drunk 1 time. I was so ashamed which is why I promised myself never again to drink to the point that I'm drunk.

Legalization takes away profits of the criminals. Which will put them out of business, which will prevent murders.


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

6811 said:


> People will do drugs and there is nothing you could do about it. Street drugs, narcotics you name it. Hell, kids are known to Huff glue, Are we going to ban that too. I say let them do drugs, if they OD that's their problem. Growing up, just about everyone around me are druggies. They look like they were a day away from death. I did not want to be like that so I didn't do it. I drank alcohol, but I maintained control. When I felt a buzz, I stopped drinking. This is why I got drunk 1 time. I was so ashamed which is why I promised myself never again to drink to the point that I'm drunk.
> 
> Legalization takes away profits of the criminals. Which will put them out of business, which will prevent murders.


We obviously don't see eye to eye on this, which is fine. But simply legalizing drug use isn't going to stop people's lives from being ruined. Alcohol is legal but how many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? How many women are abused because the man they live with beat them when they were drunk? How many children are suffering from the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome?

You say if they OD let them, that's their problem. Say that to the children whose parents are only alive because I showed up in my ambulance and gave them Narcan to reverse their heroin OD. It's not in my nature to just give up on people like that. It's why I put on my uniform every night and show up when someone calls 911. Are there better options than simple throwing them in jail? Quite probably. But no I will not support a law that allows people to poison themselves in the ways I've seen them do it and then have the effects on their families I've seen as well.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

warrior4 said:


> We obviously don't see eye to eye on this, which is fine. But simply legalizing drug use isn't going to stop people's lives from being ruined. Alcohol is legal but how many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? How many women are abused because the man they live with beat them when they were drunk? How many children are suffering from the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome?
> 
> You say if they OD let them, that's their problem. Say that to the children whose parents are only alive because I showed up in my ambulance and gave them Narcan to reverse their heroin OD. It's not in my nature to just give up on people like that. It's why I put on my uniform every night and show up when someone calls 911. Are there better options than simple throwing them in jail? Quite probably. But no I will not support a law that allows people to poison themselves in the ways I've seen them do it and then have the effects on their families I've seen as well.


From time to time, like you, I also put on a uniform. Sometimes to arrest drug dealers, some drug users and sometimes to respond to a homicide/shooting of a kid. Whether the kid is dealing or a good kid hit by a stray bullet. My argument is this... Back in the 20's or 30's there was no drugs. The choice of poison was alcohol, and it was illegal back then. But guess what, people that wanted to drink where drinking regardless of the penalty. The gangsters flourished and they were killing people like it was some sort of sport, kinda like today. Drugs are illegal but people still abuse it regardless of the penalty. If we are not going to execute the drug dealers and users, we might as well legalize it and take away the profits from the dealers. Because decriminalization sure won't help. Making it legal will reduce murders.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I am opposed to jailing people for drug use/abuse...

I am for jailing people for assault, breaking and entry, robbery, etc

I am for destroying the product in the fields - no matter what country it is in
I am for jailing manufacturers and sellers.

we do not need to legalize it we just need to decriminalize its use and possession. I understand it is strange to make it illegal to make/import but not illegal to use... I am a strange guy. I think drugs mess things up but I want to attack the source and the sources distribution. 
Spray mexico, burn in afganistan, bomb Columbia... make it deadly to make money from it


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

6811 said:


> My argument is this... Back in the 20's or 30's there was no drugs.


Another person who does not know history. The easiest is the Coca-Cola brand. Do you know how the name came about? One of the ingredients was cocaine. "The pause that refreshes", hmmmm. Opiates and heroine were available at the local pharmacy and included in many products. Marijuana was widely available too. Here is a brief history.

drug addiction and drug abuse: History


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> I am opposed to jailing people for drug use/abuse...
> 
> I am for destroying the product in the fields...
> Spray mexico, burn in afganistan, bomb Columbia... make it deadly to make money from it


We already do this, counter narcotic missions happen quite a bit and I have unfortuantly participated in them...innocent people get killed, the people making the raw product are desperate and typically have no choice

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

inceptor said:


> Another person who does not know history. The easiest is the Coca-Cola brand. Do you know how the name came about? One of the ingredients was cocaine. "The pause that refreshes", hmmmm. Opiates and heroine were available at the local pharmacy and included in many products. Marijuana was widely available too. Here is a brief history.
> 
> drug addiction and drug abuse: History


Coca cola did have cocaine when it first came out. Drug addiction was going on in the US way before the 30's. In fact It started around the time the Rail Roads were being built. I think the Chinese had drug dens where people got high. So yes, people did get addicted to these drugs, but no drive by shootings. No innocent bystander getting killed over gang/turf wars. Now I wonder why? Same drugs, same addicts... But drugs today is more violent. Now let's talk about alcohol. Same thing.... Same alcohol, same drunks.... But alcohol in the past was violent. AL Capone and his thugs killed people like they were modern day drug dealers.

So here are the results..... Alcohol in the 30's is illegal.... The result, violence. Drugs in the late 1800's are legal.... The result, no violence. Alcohol after prohibition.... No more violence. Drugs made illegal, lots of violence. So when there is prohibition, there is violence, regardless when it is, Modern days or the the past.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> I am opposed to jailing people for drug use/abuse...
> 
> I am for jailing people for assault, breaking and entry, robbery, etc
> 
> ...


Legalization is good.... Decriminalization is worst than being illegal. Decriminalization would not take out illegal drug dealers out of the equation. Users are not punished, but when users want to do drugs they still have to buy them from drug dealers who are the big problem in this issues. The dealers cause violence not much the users.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

inceptor said:


> Another person who does not know history. The easiest is the Coca-Cola brand. Do you know how the name came about? One of the ingredients was cocaine. "The pause that refreshes", hmmmm. Opiates and heroine were available at the local pharmacy and included in many products. Marijuana was widely available too. Here is a brief history.
> 
> drug addiction and drug abuse: History


When I wrote there was no drugs in the 30's I meant there was no drug violence like what they had with alcohol.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

6811 said:


> When I wrote there was no drugs in the 30's I meant there was no drug violence like what they had with alcohol.


This is true. The violence comes from the amount of money to be made. Alcohol was another one of those things changed by a minority of people. They made the illegal alcohol industry quite profitable and hence the violence.

I agree that decriminalizing drugs would be a start. But, what's the correct answer to cartel's? That's way above my pay grade. All I can do is speculate and most likely I'll be wrong.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

AnotherSOFSurvivor said:


> We already do this, counter narcotic missions happen quite a bit and I have unfortuantly participated in them...innocent people get killed, the people making the raw product are desperate and typically have no choice
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


I have to say BS... innocent people do not make drugs and there is always a choice!!! Even the Germans had a choice to serve hitler. Think Dietrich Bonhoeffer

and frankly, I would not be raiding any fields, I would drop agent orange or another substance like that would kill the weeds.

Whenever somebody is doing something "because there is no choice"..the real reason is that the right choice might cause them harm or discomfort


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> I have to say BS... innocent people do not make drugs and there is always a choice!!! Even the Germans had a choice to serve hitler. Think Dietrich Bonhoeffer
> 
> and frankly, I would not be raiding any fields, I would drop agent orange or another substance like that would kill the weeds.
> 
> Whenever somebody is doing something "because there is no choice"..the real reason is that the right choice might cause them harm or discomfort


These are farmers who are cultivating the raw products in Columbia and elsewhere in South/Central America...you are okay with a task force dropping Mk81s on grow sites with women and children? Because that is what happened.

I had no issue intercepting and destroying targets runnng finished products and arms...but glassing a coca plant field and lying about the BDA is abhorrent and that is exactly what happened

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

I wonder what would happen if tobacco is made illegal? Would people just stop smoking? Or would this be a new cash cow to the gangsters and cause violence?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

AnotherSOFSurvivor said:


> These are farmers who are cultivating the raw products in Columbia and elsewhere in South/Central America...you are okay with a task force dropping Mk81s on grow sites with women and children? Because that is what happened.
> 
> I had no issue intercepting and destroying targets runnng finished products and arms...but glassing a coca plant field and lying about the BDA is ****ing abhorrent and that is exactly what happened
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


easy fix. fly over, drop leaflets warning about what is coming and then kill the corp... and you do not need too swear to have a debate.. in my mind as soon as you start using foul language you are losing

I want to protect americans and americans are my concern... if somebody in columbia, mexico, afganistan, etc is growing something that is killing americans... the math is easy


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> easy fix. fly over, drop leaflets warning about what is coming and then kill the corp... and you do not need too swear to have a debate.. in my mind as soon as you start using foul language you are losing
> 
> I want to protect americans and americans are my concern... if somebody in columbia, mexico, afganistan, etc is growing something that is killing americans... the math is easy


No way it's their country let them grow all the stuff they want to. We have zero business attacking them. I wouldn't want someone bombing our country because they are too stupid to keep get their people off drugs.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OakOwl said:


> No way it's their country let them grow all the stuff they want to. We have zero business attacking them. I wouldn't want someone bombing our country because they are too stupid to keep get their people off drugs.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Thats what I LOVE about america.. everybody can have an opinion

so you are ok with any country that wants a nuclear weapon having one?



OakOwl said:


> "because they are too stupid to keep get their people off drugs."


SO, explain how a SMART country keeps their folks off of drugs


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> SO, explain how a SMART country keeps their folks off of drugs


Is there such a country?????


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> Thats what I LOVE about america.. everybody can have an opinion
> 
> so you are ok with any country that wants a nuclear weapon having one?
> 
> SO, explain how a SMART country keeps their folks off of drugs


Only a fool would attack other countries to try and solve their own problems. That just incites the rest of the world to attack them.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> ...as you start using foul language you are losing


Now you tell me...lain:


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OakOwl said:


> Only a fool would attack other countries to try and solve their own problems. That just incites the rest of the world to attack them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


I am far from being a fool. I am a patriot that values America folks over that of other countries. I realize that it is easy to call people names online..but this forum has rules about people that act like feckless bovine breeders with tendency towards willful ignorance

and if you knew history, you would know that being strong has never been a major caused for others to attack you.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> I am far from being a fool. I am a patriot that values America folks over that of other countries. I realize that it is easy to call people names online..but this forum has rules about people that act like feckless bovine breeders with tendency towards willful ignorance
> 
> and if you knew history, you would know that being strong has never been a major caused for others to attack you.


Well if slaughtering woman children and farmers would of won the war on drugs it would of been over decades ago. I can't imagine the toll that inflicts on a person's soul. Knowing that what your doing is evil and will not stop the thing you're fighting. Everyone knows that legalizing drugs will save many more lives but profits and ignorance keeps them illegal.
There is nothing strong about murdering people to try and solve your problems.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

Well I agree with sof- been there done that but one thing he hasn't mentioned is follow the green machine and that is the new supply line.
We're were we in the 70's and 80's what was the drug of choice? Where were we in the 90 's what was the drug of choice? Now we're has the fight been and the drug of choice came from were? Money follow the money.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

I don' t think legalizing it or not is going to effect the outcome only change the hands that make the money.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I'd left the army and was attending school at Troy State University. Because of my background and mentality, I found myself starting each day drinking coffee and shooting the breeze with the chairman of the Criminal Justice Department - Dr. Charlie Jones.
If you want to learn more about that great man, Google Charlie Jones with Operation Butterfly. You'll learn one of the reasons I feel fortunate, not because of anything I did but because of the people God allowed me to know.

Anyway, during one class, an empty-headed kid blurted out, "Anyone who dealing with drugs ought to be shot!" or something to that line. Now, Dr. Jones would not inject his opinion in class, but he would use me. "Anyone have a counter point to offer?" he said before calling on me as if I had raided my hand. I knew what to do.

"Where do you start killing? Do you kill the farmer who grows the coca plant? He is being paid more money to grow that plant instead of coffee, an he has a family to feed. 
Maybe you want to kill the ones who carry the leaves to the lab where the leaves are used to create cocaine. No need, as they are chewing on the leaves for energy along the way. They'll burn out soon enough.
"Maybe you want to kill those who are using the leaves and other chemicals to create the drug, cocaine. Why? They are only creating a product. They create the product, not the demand.
"Do you want to kill those who are responsible for the transportation of the product from the manufacturing place to the point of sale in the United States?
"Or, maybe you want to kill those who are responsible for the sales and distribution of the product in the U.S. Are you wanting to shoot in the head those who are working the streets, providing the product to the users.
"Or, are you wanting to kill those who are the purchasers of the product.
"Tell me; who do you want to kill, first?"

As you can imagine, no sensible response was offered.

Without a demand, there'd be no supply.

I suppose you imagine my point of view to this problem, right?


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm not pointing fingers but..... There is a indirect CIA involvement in the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's and the contra war in south america. America has been involved in Afghanistan for 15 years. We have had a major spike in heroine use in the last few years. Where does opium come from? Just something to think about.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

keith9365 said:


> I'm not pointing fingers but..... There is a indirect CIA involvement in the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's and the contra war in south america. America has been involved in Afghanistan for 15 years. We have had a major spike in heroine use in the last few years. Where does opium come from? Just something to think about.


A war on drugs? ... if you say so, I see it is more for appearances and a selective pursuit that is in line with a political self serving agenda. If you want a real war on drugs, the United States Government must stop participating in drug trafficking for political and profit driven gains.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OakOwl said:


> Well if slaughtering woman children and farmers would of won the war on drugs it would of been over decades ago. I can't imagine the toll that inflicts on a person's soul. Knowing that what your doing is evil and will not stop the thing you're fighting. Everyone knows that legalizing drugs will save many more lives but profits and ignorance keeps them illegal.
> There is nothing strong about murdering people to try and solve your problems.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Why do you think I recommend dropping leaflets prior to spraying the plants. WHy do you think we keep killing (and lets me honest killing and murder are different) the leaders of terrorist groups... if you keep cutting off the head sooner of later it will die...

AND if you keep spraying the crops and killing the plants sooner of later the farmers will stop...

you have turned this into slaughter and murder, I never recommend that.. although if you have people growing crops that kill americans, I see them as murderers and worthy of death.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Denton said:


> I'd left the army and was attending school at Troy State University. Because of my background and mentality, I found myself starting each day drinking coffee and shooting the breeze with the chairman of the Criminal Justice Department - Dr. Charlie Jones.
> If you want to learn more about that great man, Google Charlie Jones with Operation Butterfly. You'll learn one of the reasons I feel fortunate, not because of anything I did but because of the people God allowed me to know.
> 
> Anyway, during one class, an empty-headed kid blurted out, "Anyone who dealing with drugs ought to be shot!" or something to that line. Now, Dr. Jones would not inject his opinion in class, but he would use me. "Anyone have a counter point to offer?" he said before calling on me as if I had raided my hand. I knew what to do.
> ...


Sure without a demand the supply would go away.. it is also true that with no supply the use would go away. I reject the idea that killing the sales guy will fix the problem. But I retain the right to go after the growers that are knowing growing a corp that they know destroys families, and causes crimes.

We put tariffs on things coming into our country because they hurt business(s).. crack, cocaine, and other drugs do more then kill the steel plants.

We can not tariff drugs...but we can stop it from growing


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> Sure without a demand the supply would go away.. it is also true that with no supply the use would go away. I reject the idea that killing the sales guy will fix the problem. But I retain the right to go after the growers that are knowing growing a corp that they know destroys families, and causes crimes.
> 
> We put tariffs on things coming into our country because they hurt business(s).. crack, cocaine, and other drugs do more then kill the steel plants.
> 
> We can not tariff drugs...but we can stop it from growing


You reserve a right you do not have.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> Sure without a demand the supply would go away.. it is also true that with no supply the use would go away. I reject the idea that killing the sales guy will fix the problem. But I retain the right to go after the growers that are knowing growing a corp that they know destroys families, and causes crimes.
> 
> We put tariffs on things coming into our country because they hurt business(s).. crack, cocaine, and other drugs do more then kill the steel plants.
> 
> We can not tariff drugs...but we can stop it from growing


You can't stop it. Believing so is ignorant. The war in drugs has killed way more people than drugs have. Fighting drugs isn't helping. Repeating a tactic that isn't working is foolish. Other country have proven that legalizing lowers drug use and crime. So pull off your blinders and embrace change.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OakOwl said:


> You can't stop it. Believing so is ignorant. The war in drugs has killed way more people than drugs have. Fighting drugs isn't helping. Repeating a tactic that isn't working is foolish. Other country have proven that legalizing lowers drug use and crime. So pull off your blinders and embrace change.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


you think that more people have died because of the war on drugs then the drugs themselves have killed... show some stats on that pease


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Denton said:


> You reserve a right you do not have.


in my world I have the right to retain that right as a right worth retaining


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OakOwl said:


> You can't stop it. Believing so is ignorant. The war in drugs has killed way more people than drugs have. Fighting drugs isn't helping. Repeating a tactic that isn't working is foolish. Other country have proven that legalizing lowers drug use and crime. So pull off your blinders and embrace change.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


legalizing drugs lowers use and crime..

even a small amount of research will show that legalization will lower drug costs which will reduce crimes committed to get money to buy drugs but it will not decrease the use of drugs... 
and of course if it was legal the fact is those crimes would disapear

lets remember we are a nation of 360 million not denmark

and denmark saw a huge increase in drug use Drug Use Soars in Denmark - Eurad

and please note... denmark is trying for supply reduction....New Drug Strategy - GO FIGURE

The government has now launched a 19 point policy for *supply-reduction*, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation which includes more outreach programs, treatment programs in prison and focus on mental health issues.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> in my world I have the right to retain that right as a right worth retaining


Problem is, it isn't a right. 
Want to stop the flow? Do it within your own borders. 
Either way, it is an artificial control. The real problem is the societal disease and the use of drugs is nothing but a symptom.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

There is no easy answer.

Decriminalizing would slow down the syndicates though, or at least it should. That should make the profits a whole lot less and stop much of the gang fights, at least over drug territory.

Drugs have been documented at least as far back as 400BC in Egypt. How do you fight that?

They tried outlawing alcohol, boy that worked well, didn't it? Even though it's legal you still have to deal with alcoholism. I don't think you can ever stop the addictions no matter what sort of mind altering concoction it is. So what do you do?

Denton is correct in that this is a societal issue. But, the question is, how do you deal with it?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

How much money has been squandered on the so-called war on drugs? Could the money have been better spent? I'll bet we could have closed the southern border and then some. Of course, there'd be no overreaching, expensive DEA that comes with all the unconstitutional regulations. That's the most important thing, after all; another agency that reaches out of D.C. and into every state.

Look around at this sick and dying culture. Our children watch filth on their TVs and the smart phones and need "safe spaces" in schools. They know all the words of the songs performed by their Luciferian entertainers, but can't recite a single verse from Proverbs (or any other book of the Bible). They believe slaughtering unborn children is a "right" but not only do they not know the Bill of Rights but also know little about the One who endowed them their rights. You'd better not mention Him in school, either. If you do, you'll be chastised for forcing your beliefs on others. Meanwhile, Islam is glorified and the Official Church of Secularism and Liberalism is pushed down our children's throats.

What needs to be done should have been done when our culture was being undermined in the first place. We should have balked at the very first sign of God being removed from our schools. We should have had a collective fit over the entertainment industry churning out society-destroying garbage. Not only should we have raised our voices in unison, we should have made our point with our wallets. Now, the enemy is running our schools, the TV programming, the radio station lineup, etc., and a lot of our fellow countrymen's loyalty is with the enemy.

Wouldn't you do drugs if you thought you came from an amoeba, viewed the songs of screwed up entertainers as your philosophy and voted for globalists like Hillary?


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

inceptor said:


> There is no easy answer.
> 
> Decriminalizing would slow down the syndicates though, or at least it should. That should make the profits a whole lot less and stop much of the gang fights, at least over drug territory.
> 
> ...





Denton said:


> How much money has been squandered on the so-called war on drugs? Could the money have been better spent? I'll bet we could have closed the southern border and then some. Of course, there'd be no overreaching, expensive DEA that comes with all the unconstitutional regulations. That's the most important thing, after all; another agency that reaches out of D.C. and into every state.
> 
> Look around at this sick and dying culture. Our children watch filth on their TVs and the smart phones and need "safe spaces" in schools. They know all the words of the songs performed by their Luciferian entertainers, but can't recite a single verse from Proverbs (or any other book of the Bible). They believe slaughtering unborn children is a "right" but not only do they not know the Bill of Rights but also know little about the One who endowed them their rights. You'd better not mention Him in school, either. If you do, you'll be chastised for forcing your beliefs on others. Meanwhile, Islam is glorified and the Official Church of Secularism and Liberalism is pushed down our children's throats.
> 
> ...


There is an answer ...... a whole lot of people need Jesus.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> There is an answer ...... a whole lot of people need Jesus.


In a nutshell.

This nation's first battle cry was, "No King Save King Jesus!" That was the Revolutionary War.

Is the Cultural War lost, or should that battle cry be the hue and cry, yet again?

What say ye, who have children in the public schooling systems who are being taught Johnny Has Two Mommies, how to put a condom on a banana and how socialism is the way? Time for a change, do you think?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

By the way, @watchman, you'll want to listen to tonight's podcast. Don't share it with your PC friends. They'll just end up quivering in their safe spaces if they listen.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> There is an answer ...... a whole lot of people need Jesus.


No argument from me :vs_clap:


----------

