The "War" on Drugs

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 10, 2006
2,124
2
0
48
#2
This is a partial start of who benefits from the War on Drugs

Doctors--they must be compensated for medicinal needs
Physicians--same as above
Lawyers--more case loads
Judges--More case loads
Police Officers--got to keep plenty of troops
Prison Guards--got to guard the prisoners
Parole Officers
Probation Officers
Prison and Jail Construction Workers
The elite business who profit from slave wages of prisoners

We could get a very long detailed list posted if we needed to. And most of these groups WILL vote to maintain their profiteering off of the injustice of others. Lets see how this pans out as the innovators take away their harvest from the monster.
 
Sep 25, 2005
1,148
1,075
0
44
#4
This David Simon from the Wire, I heard him talkin on NPR yesterday.

Article from TIME magazine

The Wire's War on the Drug War
By Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, David Simon Wednesday, Mar. 05, 2008
Ed Burns, David Simon, and George Pelecanos at the corner of North Bond and North Patterson In Baltimore, Maryland
David Johnson for TIME
ENLARGE +

* Print
* Email
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Twitter
o Linkedin
o Permalink
* Reprints
* Related
*
*

We write a television show. Measured against more thoughtful and meaningful occupations, this is not the best seat from which to argue public policy or social justice. Still, those viewers who followed The Wire — our HBO drama that tried to portray all sides of inner-city collapse, including the drug war, with as much detail and as little judgment as we could muster — tell us they've invested in the fates of our characters. They worry or grieve for Bubbles, Bodie or Wallace, certain that these characters are fictional yet knowing they are rooted in the reality of the other America, the one rarely acknowledged by anything so overt as a TV drama.
Related
Stories

* Connecting the Dots

More Related

* A Big Arrest Could Revive Medellin Drug War
* Mandatory Sentencing: Stalled Reform
* Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

These viewers, admittedly a small shard of the TV universe, deluge us with one question: What can we do? If there are two Americas — separate and unequal — and if the drug war has helped produce a psychic chasm between them, how can well-meaning, well-intentioned people begin to bridge those worlds?

And for five seasons, we answered lamely, offering arguments about economic priorities or drug policy, debating theoreticals within our tangled little drama. We were storytellers, not advocates; we ducked the question as best we could.

Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones. To what end? State and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict. A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated. That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.

The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too. In cities where police agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime — murder, rape, aggravated assault — have declined. In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.

What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain.

Our leaders? There aren't any politicians — Democrat or Republican — willing to speak truth on this. Instead, politicians compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right," wrote Thomas Paine when he called for civil disobedience against monarchy — the flawed national policy of his day. In a similar spirit, we offer a small idea that is, perhaps, no small idea. It will not solve the drug problem, nor will it heal all civic wounds. It does not yet address questions of how the resources spent warring with our poor over drug use might be better spent on treatment or education or job training, or anything else that might begin to restore those places in America where the only economic engine remaining is the illegal drug economy. It doesn't resolve the myriad complexities that a retreat from war to sanity will require. All it does is open a range of intricate, paradoxical issues. But this is what we can do — and what we will do.

If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.

Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.

The authors are all members of the writing staff of HBO's The Wire, which concludes its five-year run on March 9
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#6
This is a partial start of who benefits from the War on Drugs

Doctors--they must be compensated for medicinal needs
Physicians--same as above
Lawyers--more case loads
Judges--More case loads
Police Officers--got to keep plenty of troops
Prison Guards--got to guard the prisoners
Parole Officers
Probation Officers
Prison and Jail Construction Workers
The elite business who profit from slave wages of prisoners

We could get a very long detailed list posted if we needed to. And most of these groups WILL vote to maintain their profiteering off of the injustice of others. Lets see how this pans out as the innovators take away their harvest from the monster.
Bingo!

I have been saying that for years... Its big business to the government.
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#8
Its Big business AND Gonverment

Its Corporatism

America is not capitalism or socialism
Well our administration and currant liberal government are actually epic capitalists but reflect socialism on its citizens they represent because it builds government capital.

Our government is actually a business, is run like a business and acts like a business.

I dont even know where to begin.

However drugs are just another example of how the profit via legislation.

Most laws are writ and passed only because the government can profit off of them, knowing people will break the law, when the people do they will have to pay the price $$$$
 

MAVA

Sicc OG
Jul 18, 2005
4,228
16
0
www.gifsoup.com
#9
Well our administration and currant liberal government are actually epic capitalists but reflect socialism on its citizens they represent because it builds government capital.

Our government is actually a business, is run like a business and acts like a business.

I dont even know where to begin.

However drugs are just another example of how the profit via legislation.

Most laws are writ and passed only because the government can profit off of them, knowing people will break the law, when the people do they will have to pay the price $$$$
most of you said was true but its the liberals and conservatives that are just puppets. Read Noam Chomsky
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#10
most of you said was true but its the liberals and conservatives that are just puppets. Read Noam Chomsky
I agree with that and disagree at the same time.

I think there some politicians that are firm on their ideologies and are truly sincere with their beliefs and want to do the right thing, whatever they think it might be. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin would be a good example of that.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#15
The war on drugs is fundamentally immoral because no one should have the power to dictate what I choose to put in my body other than myself.
So in other words, no one should have the power to dictate to a pregnant mother, that just happened to inhale a $20 piece that, doing so will not only damage her body but also that of her unborn child?

Yeah I think killings would decrease if drugs were legalized too. Look at what happened before, during, and after prohibition as a good example.
Do you know how many violent crimes are commited while people are on drugs?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#16
So in other words, no one should have the power to dictate to a pregnant mother, that just happened to inhale a $20 piece that, doing so will not only damage her body but also that of her unborn child?

No because in that situation the mother is hurting/endangering the unborn child (all fetus debates aside) and that would be something where the government should protect the rights of the unborn child. If the woman was not a mother than she should be free to do what she wants.



HERESY said:
Do you know how many violent crimes are committed while people are on drugs?
The violent crimes should be illegal, not the drugs.

Many people would tell you and statistics show that unsatisfying and dead ends jobs increase the probability of violent crime; should we ban unsatisfying jobs?
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#17
No because in that situation the mother is hurting/endangering the unborn child (all fetus debates aside) and that would be something where the government should protect the rights of the unborn child. If the woman was not a mother than she should be free to do what she wants.
If this is the case, how then can you say the war on drugs is fundamentally immoral? So according to you, if she was not pregnant she should be free to do whatever she wants, but what if her use of drugs allow her to be taken advantage of sexually or someone elses use of drugs causes her to suffer a ruptured eye socket/eye? And since you would like to see people doing as they please, does this also extend to free speech and a person yelling "FIRE!!!!!!!!!!" in a store? I mean afterall, people should be allowed to do what they want right?

The violent crimes should be illegal, not the drugs.
Once again, Do you know how many violent crimes are committed while people are on drugs? A simple yes or no will suffice, and if you do not know, I can link you to the sources where this information may be found (and even provide you with isbn's to books I own where you can find even more information.)

Many people would tell you and statistics show that unsatisfying and dead ends jobs increase the probability of violent crime; should we ban unsatisfying jobs?
I think your words are a bit misleading. Many people would probably say unemployment or severe economic depressions, not "unsatisfying" or "dead end jobs", lead to violent crime. With that being said, we shouldn't ban "unsatisfying jobs" as a jobs "satisfaction" is in the eye of the beholder. What may seem like a dead end job to you may be a life long dream for someone else, so if you're going to talk about social mobility (specifically intra-mobility) your argument would be better suited if you addressed why there are so-called "unsatisfying" or "dead in jobs" in the first place.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#18
If this is the case, how then can you say the war on drugs is fundamentally immoral?
Because it infringes on one the basic fundamental rights we have as living organisms that we should be free to do with ourselves what we want as long as we don't hurt anyone else.

So according to you, if she was not pregnant she should be free to do whatever she wants, but what if her use of drugs allow her to be taken advantage of sexually or someone elses use of drugs causes her to suffer a ruptured eye socket/eye?
The person who took advantage of her sexually or ruptured her eye socket should be held accountable for their negative inflictions just as they would be if they were done without drugs.


And since you would like to see people doing as they please, does this also extend to free speech and a person yelling "FIRE!!!!!!!!!!" in a store? I mean afterall, people should be allowed to do what they want right?

Yes people should be able to yell fire in a store because the act of yelling fire itself does no damage to anyone else. That person should then be responsible for any negative consequences that arise in the aftermath if it was done without indication of an actual fire being present.

If we could make a direct correlation and say that every time some yells fire, someone will be injured than that would be a case to say that people should not be allowed to do that because we know with 100% certainty that it will create negative consequences.

We can't make that correlation, however, and I am sure there are many instances that someone can yell fire and nothing will happen.

HERESY said:
Once again, Do you know how many violent crimes are committed while people are on drugs? A simple yes or no will suffice, and if you do not know, I can link you to the sources where this information may be found (and even provide you with isbn's to books I own where you can find even more information.)
No I do not know they the exact number of violent crimes committed while on drugs. You are welcome to link me to sources with that information, but frankly I wouldn't care if all violent crimes were committed while on drugs, because as long as some people did drugs and did not commit crime, the correlation would not be strong enough to say that drugs should be illegal because if you do drugs you will commit violent crime.

It has been proven that you can do drugs and not commit violent crime.

I agree that drugs may increase the probability of committing violent crime (although I also think the very illegal and illicit nature of the drugs contributes to that statistic in addition to the actual so chemical response so we would see a drop in violent crime while on drugs if they were legal and not illegal) but just because something increases the possibility of a negative response, does not mean that we should make it illegal, especially if it infringes on an individuals right to choose what they want to do with their own person.

HERESY said:
I think your words are a bit misleading. Many people would probably say unemployment or severe economic depressions, not "unsatisfying" or "dead end jobs", lead to violent crime. With that being said, we shouldn't ban "unsatisfying jobs" as a jobs "satisfaction" is in the eye of the beholder. What may seem like a dead end job to you may be a life long dream for someone else, so if you're going to talk about social mobility (specifically intra-mobility) your argument would be better suited if you addressed why there are so-called "unsatisfying" or "dead in jobs" in the first place.


We don't need to identify universally or intrinsically dead end or unsatisfying jobs for them to exist. The nature of an unsatisfying job may be relative but when people are in seemingly hopeless situations the probability of violent crime increases. Just like some people can do drugs and not commit violent crimes, some people can do unsatisfying work and not commit violent crimes as well.

The argument I was making was not about the lack of satisfaction in the work place, and focusing on that distracts from the real point that there are many factors that can contribute to an increase in violent crime, but as you have said yourself they are relative to the individual.

People have been arguing for years that violent movies and video games increase violent crime, are we ready to ban those?

Studies have shown that people are more likely to commit violent crime both based on temperature and time of day, should we regulate peoples ability to expose themselves to warmer weather and go out at night because it may increase the probability the commit violent crime?

Alcohol has been shown to increase violent crime, domestic abuse, etc, are we ready to make that illegal again?

Drugs increase violent crime, hot weather increases violent crime, video games increase violent crime, alcohol increase violent crime etc, etc.... why make just one illegal if they all increase the chance of the same undesired result?
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#19
Because it infringes on one the basic fundamental rights we have as living organisms that we should be free to do with ourselves what we want as long as we don't hurt anyone else.
We shouldn't be free to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The problem with drugs, like anything else that can be used to control, is that people go overboard with it. No matter how you slice it, drugs isn't a victimless crime.

The person who took advantage of her sexually or ruptured her eye socket should be held accountable for their negative inflictions just as they would be if they were done without drugs.
But in each case, drugs were a direct factor in whatever it was that happened to her. And I'm not suggesting that if drugs were eliminated that she probably wouldn't have been raped or beat up, but the chances of such a thing happening are increased when drugs are involved.

Yes people should be able to yell fire in a store because the act of yelling fire itself does no damage to anyone else. That person should then be responsible for any negative consequences that arise in the aftermath if it was done without indication of an actual fire being present.
So allow them to do it but then hold them responsible if someone is hurt?

If we could make a direct correlation and say that every time some yells fire, someone will be injured than that would be a case to say that people should not be allowed to do that because we know with 100% certainty that it will create negative consequences.

We can't make that correlation, however, and I am sure there are many instances that someone can yell fire and nothing will happen.
Sane people tend to perceive fires, or someone yelling fire, as a threat that requires ones immediate evacuation from the scene. The fact that people may possibly be injured as a result of panic is enough to justify such laws. Does a person yelling fire in a store know how each person in that store is going to react? Regardless of how he or she feels, do they know how each person is going to react?

No I do not know they the exact number of violent crimes committed while on drugs. You are welcome to link me to sources with that information, but frankly I wouldn't care if all violent crimes were committed while on drugs, because as long as some people did drugs and did not commit crime, the correlation would not be strong enough to say that drugs should be illegal because if you do drugs you will commit violent crime.

It has been proven that you can do drugs and not commit violent crime.
You're confusing correlation and causation, and you need to look at your example again.

I agree that drugs may increase the probability of committing violent crime (although I also think the very illegal and illicit nature of the drugs contributes to that statistic in addition to the actual so chemical response so we would see a drop in violent crime while on drugs if they were legal and not illegal) but just because something increases the possibility of a negative response, does not mean that we should make it illegal, especially if it infringes on an individuals right to choose what they want to do with their own person.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/contents.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

Also, you keep missing the point about a persons drug use impacting the life of people or society. There is no way a person can take drugs and not impact someone elses life, whether indirectly, or directly, someone or something is being impacted. Cocaine habit? Sure, snort as many lines as you want, but what about the innocent girl that got smacked with a bullet because cartels were fighting for trade routes and distribution for the nose candy?

We don't need to identify universally or intrinsically dead end or unsatisfying jobs for them to exist. The nature of an unsatisfying job may be relative but when people are in seemingly hopeless situations the probability of violent crime increases. Just like some people can do drugs and not commit violent crimes, some people can do unsatisfying work and not commit violent crimes as well.
No one is denying the fact that economic restrictions lead to crime. However, you were the one who asked, "Many people would tell you and statistics show that unsatisfying and dead ends jobs increase the probability of violent crime; should we ban unsatisfying jobs?" and I was showing you that unemployment or severe economic depressions, not one's view of the job they are presently employed in/at is of more concern and leads to crime.

--Refer to my previous statement about causation and correlation.

The argument I was making was not about the lack of satisfaction in the work place, and focusing on that distracts from the real point that there are many factors that can contribute to an increase in violent crime, but as you have said yourself they are relative to the individual.
No work, not the lack of satisfaction, has more of an impact. That is also a point I was making.

People have been arguing for years that violent movies and video games increase violent crime, are we ready to ban those?
Some people have advocated the banning of such things. However, there are three things to consider when you ask this question: 1. Has there been enough crime to warrant such a ban? If so (or not so), how much is enough? 2. Are there other variables like economics, education, or societal factors that have been overlooked? 3. Considering these things are new forms of media, have enough studies/time/resources been allocated to the topic?

Studies have shown that people are more likely to commit violent crime both based on temperature and time of day, should we regulate peoples ability to expose themselves to warmer weather and go out at night because it may increase the probability the commit violent crime?
Again, refer to the comment I made about correlation and causation. The increase of crime due to warm temperatures and time of day are directly linked to the fact more people are out. Moreover, you have to look at who is doing the crime. Are we talking teen-agers/juveniles or adults? In any case, there are other variables to look at. And no, the person who is the victim should not suffer from victim blame. That's like saying because a woman dressed like a slut that she asked to be raped. However, in some cases we do restrict what we can and can't do during the seasons (and sometimes even not in the seasons.)

Alcohol has been shown to increase violent crime, domestic abuse, etc, are we ready to make that illegal again?
Refer to the links I gave you.

Drugs increase violent crime, hot weather increases violent crime, video games increase violent crime, alcohol increase violent crime etc, etc.... why make just one illegal if they all increase the chance of the same undesired result?
Because the variables are different, there is a misunderstanding between correlation and causation, and some increase more than others which leads to an impact on society not just the individual.