Okay, I'll repeat myself. But this is the last time, so listen really close okay Forest? Drug use and abuse rates for places which have decriminalized drugs are lower than that of the United States. From what I could find Mexico, one year ago now, decriminalized drugs to some extent to combat police corruption, and to avoid excessive and pointless expenditures on incarcerating and prosecuting drug users, because it wasn't doing anything to reduce drug use. Other facts, the war on drugs is an epic failure which costs billions per year, we also spend billions incarcerating people which have harmed no one, we have horrific problems with regard to drug enforcement as well. If there were a regulated free market for drugs, like there is for most other goods, this would remove the power from vicious drug smugglers and corrupt law enforcement. If taxed, just like alcohol and tobacco, it would procure billions in revenue- just like alcohol and tobacco, instead of spending billions on a hopeless "war on drugs", and the incarceration and prosecution of millions who haven't hurt anyone. We would also create thousands of jobs in the process. Your unreferenced piece of information merely suggests that the legal status of drugs has no effect on violent crime. I've made my point several times now, and for some reason you can't seem to understand it. Perhaps you feel so strongly about drugs because you are a burnout who has suffered brain damage? My point has been made and substantiated, and you have yet to refute it. Now, care to quit acting like a little whiny bitch, make an actual point and have a discussion? Or would you rather keep stomping your feet and having a little temper tantrum?
Oh, looky herre: Now if I'm not mistaken, those facts seem to suggest that you've bumped your head and got yourself a real boo boo. I've got a nice CCM helmet for you that will keep you safe from your future tumbles and keep your current brain damage from becoming much worse.
Funny how you never cite sources for these erroneous points you try to make... But, whatever flimsy arguments you are trying to make by using unreferenced quotes, the experts and the drug cartels themselves actually agree with me. Crime, terrorism and social order Experts such as Andreas von Bülow and Milton Friedman concede that almost every serious crime of terrorism is funded by illegal drugs but they don't agree that prohibition can reduce these phenomena. In fact the prohibition protects the drug cartel insofar as it keeps the distribution in the black market and creates the risk that makes smuggling profitable.[89][90] As former federal narcotics officer Michael Levine states in relation to his undercover work with Colombian cocaine cartels, "I learned that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found U.S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U.S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction program. On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for the drug war, calling it âa sham put on for the American taxpayerâ that was actually âgood for businessâ.[91] Critics of drug prohibition often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake".[92] When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.[93] Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terrorism.[94] While politicians blame drug users for being a major source of financing terrorists,[21] no clear evidence of this link has been provided. US government agencies and government officials have been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions in events such as the Iran-Contra Affair, and Manuel Noriega but the isolated nature of these events precludes them from being major sources of financing.[89]
Not to mention the fact that children are drawn into the drug trade by these shady smuggling rings..... Children being lured into the illegal drug trade Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets".[97] Additionally, drug dealers show off expensive jewelry and clothing to young children.[98] Some of these children are interested in making fast money instead of working legitimate jobs.[99] Drug decriminalization would remove the "glamorous Al Capone-type traffickers who are role-models for the young".[100] The lack of government regulation and control over the lucrative illegal drug market has created a large population of unregulated drug dealers who lure many children into the illegal drug trade. The U.S. government's most recent 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reported that nationwide over 800,000 adolescents ages 12â17 sold illegal drugs during the previous 12 months preceding the survey. [2] The 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that nationwide 25.4% of students had been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug by someone on school property. The prevalence of having been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property ranged from 15.5% to 38.7% across state CDC surveys (median: 26.1%) and from 20.3% to 40.0% across local surveys (median: 29.4%).[3] Despite more than $ 7 billion spent annually towards arresting and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in 2005, the federally-funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85% of high school seniors find marijuana âeasy to obtain.â That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys.[4] Not to mention the overwhelming fiscal and economic blunder that the "drug war" has been... Economics The United States efforts at drug prohibition started out with a US$ 350 million budget in 1971, and is currently (in 2006) a US$ 30 billion campaign.[131] These numbers only include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $ 30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, are factored in.[132] The war on drugs is extremely costly to such societies that outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, the inability of law enforcement to pursue mala in se crimes, and social inequality. Some proponents[133] of decriminalization say that the financial and social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed the damages that the drugs themselves cause. For instance, in 1999 close to 60,000 prisoners (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws were behind bars at a cost to taxpayers of some $ 1.2 billion per year. In 1980, the total jail and prison population was 540,000, about one-quarter the size it is today. Drug offenders accounted for 6% of all prisoners. Today drug offenders account for nearly 25%. It has been argued that if the US government legalised marijuana it would save $7.7 billion per year in expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Also, that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if it were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if it were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.[134] [edit] The creation of drug cartels Mass arrests of local growers of marijuana, for example, not only increase the price of local drugs, but lessens competition. Only major retailers that can handle massive shipments, have their own small fleet of aircraft, troops to defend the caravans and other sophisticated methods of eluding the police (such as lawyers), can survive by this regulation of the free market by the government [â¦] it is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true. âMilton Friedman[90]
Also, whether or not you like it the Netherlands STILL has lower rates of drug use, drug abuse, AND violent crime than the USA by FAR... Social Indicator Comparison Year USA, Netherlands Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% 1 17.0% 2 Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% 1 3.0% 2 Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% 1 0.4% 2 Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 3 100 4 Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 â¬379 5 â¬223 5 Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 6 1.51 6 Sorry, but the statistics directly refute your claims, you are wrong yet again. Guess you are getting used to it by now though.... http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67 So, not to make you wet your diaper any more... but the Netherlands method is working alot better than ours....
Well another idiot bites the dust.... anyhow, these figures aren't acceptable to any fiscal conservative. This whole prison colony/war on drugs scam is another bloated, expensive, big government blunder at the price of your tax dollars and freedom. Enough is enough. It's time we acknowledge that the "solution" is worse than the problem...
It's nice to see how some of <b>my</b> wikipedia contributions have somehow survived 4 years of editing! <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2833717>