Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Osborn F Enready]

For those of you who think the Drug War is a good idea, please click and watch the link on the web-page below. This video is put together by ex-DEA, ex-Sheriff, ex-Police and current law enforcement groups to explain to the public (minus the bureaucracy of government go-betweens) the lies of the Drug War, the failure it has become, and the faults of the logic. They explain it as ONLY they could, since they were THE enforcers of THE laws in question.

http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm

Even the enforcers understand what damage this prohibition is doing to our citizens and kids, as they see it each day with their own eyes.


STOP the war on drugs, STRIP the unconstitutional laws from the books, and PUT police, military and government back to the job they are supposed to be doing.

Read the mission statement from LEAP themselves:
http://leap.cc/about/index.htm


We must stop this 69 BILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR FAILURE! :(

( $69,000,000,000.00 per year equates to $230.00 PER HEAD in the nation at 300,000,000 people. NOT WORKING people, but PEOPLE, PER YEAR!!!!!! )

Absolute madness!!! :rolleyes:

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I couldn't agree with you more Osborn. Few realize the valuable resources we'd save, from billions and billions of dollars to an immense amount of manpower that could be used elsewhere. It would make our law enforcement more efficient and more unified. We wouldn't be so hated in South America, possibly lowering terrorist threats. There are so many positives that come out of this.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree, and you forgot to mention the respect it would earn from those who witnesses the change toward a MORE RESPONSIBLE government by all those who have been against prohibition since the outset.

I know people who lived through the late 60's and 70' peace and love era that smoked pot then, and still smoke pot now, and many of them still don't think it will become legal due to all the bureaucracy in Washington and the corporate ties to stop hemp from being legalized. Hasn't stopped them from smoking a single day though.....

[Osborn F Enready]

How many "anti-druggers" out there clicked on the movie link?

Change your minds, or not honest enough to view the opposition for its merits?

[Milton Bradley]

How many "anti-druggers" out there clicked on the movie link?

Well, I certainly don't fall into that catagory, but I did like the link.


The lesson to be learnes, as articulated in the link, is that after all is said, and done, the same 1.3 percent of the population that had drug problems before the War on Drugs are still reflected in the latest numbers. There has been zero reduction in the amount of users.


Drugs still get into the country ( those that are not domestically produced anyway ), and the Black Market created by prohibition still profits from drug trafficking 60 years after it's creation.


It's time for the government to confess that it has created another monster, and the War on Drugs is not the solution to that problem, or to the drug "problem" if you insist on using that terminology.

[Chancellor]

While I agree that the drug war has not worked, and I agree that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to engage in that war, what do you propose to do about the people who are addicted to these various substances? Do you propose (as the leftists would) to provide free treatment programs? Do you propose that people should be responsible for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choosing to use such substances (for which the leftists would accuse you of being cold, cruel and heartless)?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

While I agree that the drug war has not worked, and I agree that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to engage in that war, what do you propose to do about the people who are addicted to these various substances? Do you propose (as the leftists would) to provide free treatment programs? Do you propose that people should be responsible for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choosing to use such substances (for which the leftists would accuse you of being cold, cruel and heartless)?

Saving 69 billion dollars, you could easily do all of that...

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Why not legalise and tax? The "gangs" would immeadiatly lose income. Yes other means of exploitation would be found.

Most of the "fun" of taking them will be surpressed as it is no longer breaking the law. As with alchohol introduce testing and those whom are deemed unfit penalised.

Treatment programmes could be intialy funded from the gained taxes.

It is likely violent drug related crime would reduce.

[Chancellor]

Saving 69 billion dollars, you could easily do all of that...

Yes, but why should the government do any of it? Where does the Constitution give the government the authority to protect us from ourselves? Why should the taxpayers pay for the consequences of someone's choice to use such substances?

[Chancellor]

Why not legalise and tax? The "gangs" would immeadiatly lose income. Yes other means of exploitation would be found.

Most of the "fun" of taking them will be surpressed as it is no longer breaking the law. As with alchohol introduce testing and those whom are deemed unfit penalised.

Treatment programmes could be intialy funded from the gained taxes.

It is likely violent drug related crime would reduce.

Again, though, why must the government fund treatment programs?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Yes, but why should the government do any of it? Where does the Constitution give the government the authority to protect us from ourselves? Why should the taxpayers pay for the consequences of someone's choice to use such substances?

Is that a joke? Do you want to take away the CIA, FBI, local/state police, etc.? That is a great example of the government protecting us from ourselves...we need that protection from ourselves. Let's not lie to ourselves either, humans are unpredictable.

A lot of it involves the environment you grow up in. Addiction occurs too quick and before you know it, you're spending all your money on booze, cocaine, and herion. A chance at a program could even spur the economy as well as help our own people. No one wants to get addicted to drugs or alcohol.

[Chancellor]

Is that a joke? Do you want to take away the CIA, FBI, local/state police, etc.? That is a great example of the government protecting us from ourselves...we need that protection from ourselves. Let's not lie to ourselves either, humans are unpredictable.

A lot of it involves the environment you grow up in. Addiction occurs too quick and before you know it, you're spending all your money on booze, cocaine, and herion. A chance at a program could even spur the economy as well as help our own people. No one wants to get addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Taking away federal law enforcement isn't a bad idea. The purpose of local law enforcement is to protect law-abiding citizens from the criminals.

It doesn't matter that people don't want to become addicted to drugs or alcohol (or tobacco or caffeine, for that matter): show me where the Constitution says it's the government's responsibility to treat people who have become addicted to substances they chose to take.

As for the environment in which one is raised, I was one of those Welfare kids who ran the streets unsupervised. I didn't start using drugs when I was 11, I stopped using them when I was 11 - and without the help of some government program.