In my opinion we’re letting criminals in the US (drug users) make life for us that much worse by making it that much harder to win in Afghanistan.

I think the problem all starts when we make criminals out of drug users. The act of using drugs of itself is not a crime no matter how you look at it. It isn’t in the same level as killing or stealing. But somehow, through the power of govt mandate, it has been successfully criminalized.

IMO, our life is much, much harder and complicated not because of these drug users, but because we allow govt to dictate and regulate our lives no end, as though we cannot act and think for ourselves like rationale human beings.

The War on Drugs has been lost a long time ago. It’s simply a rehash of Prohibition on a much more bigger and deadlier scale. If we look at the last 25 years and measure what that war has to show, there’s really nothing to see but collateral damage. It has miserably failed in discouraging drug use. It has only enriched criminals, militarized the police force, destroyed traditional institutions, and made America a prison planet. Yes, there are more prisoners in the US for every 100 people than in China or Russia, and many of them govt-criminalized drug users.

The only real and practical solution is to abolish the War on Drugs just as Prohibition was abolished. Govt has no business regulating what people can or cannot take. It’s only real business is going after thieves and murderers, and making sure the mail is delivered on time.

Word, Sol.

I’m also disturbed by the use of “the war on…” (fill in the blank: Povery, Drugs, Terror). This casts a societal or political problem in military terms, giving people the false hope that the problem can be solved if only we apply enough force against it. It’s an illegitimate government marketing slogan.

The act of using drugs of itself is not a crime no matter how you look at it. It isn’t in the same level as killing or stealing.

Well I’d agree it isn’t on par with killing or stealing but I’m more loath to say it isn’t a crime. I tend to be more Libertarian than most on this issue but am not quite willing to adopt the full Libertarian position.

The Taliban isn’t going to allow them to grow poppies either, so the article is a bit confusing to me.

The fact that we initially turned a blind eye to poppy production was an indication to me that the war was poorly planned. A similar indication occurred early on in the Iraq war: the fact that we allowed the looting of the antiquities in Iraqi museums. Both wars have been very poorly executed.

“based on their culture”

Hmmm…

You mean the culture where they burn women to death in soccer stadiums for dressing immodestly?

Or was it the culture where they punish a man who commits adultery by having the entire tribal council rape his wife?

Oh, that culture!

We just didn’t know how good we had it under the Taliban!

Does that extend to legalizing cocoa (spell check?) production in Ecuador and Columbia?

Umm. Cocoa is legal in Ecuador and Columbia. We’re actually thinking seriously about getting some Ecuadorian beans for a chocolate bar we’re making in a few months.

You know, the cocaine-making plant… you silly fellow you…

Ah. Yeah. Totally different word and plant. (And in case anyone is slow at reading, no we’re not putting cocaine in the chocolate and for everyone else, you don’t need worry about getting too jittery when drinking your chocolate milk)

Don’t know WW,

But watch cultures like Afghanistan and you’re tempted to think that maybe the “Enlightened Imperialists” of Victorian England had the right idea when they spouted on about the virtues of imposing “British civilization” upon the “ignorant savages.”

Not that I’m advocating that approach. But the world does frustrate, ya know?

The Hegelian Dialectic, or Conflict of Opposites. One can’t implement an unacceptable thing unless it is put forth as a solution to something far worse. I don’t know about terrorism yet, but I’m pretty sure “the drug problem” was a created boogeyman in order to implement its “solution,” ie the “War On Drugs.”

Look at all that the War On Drugs has gotten us. Sol, in comment #1, points out some. Other things that we never would have accepted, without a War On Drugs, were asset siezure prior to conviction (RICO etc), zero tolerance policies, no knock raids (loss of 4th Amemdment rights).

During both the Reagan/Bush years, and the Clinton years, congress passed “Crime Bills” that further chipped away at rights that had existed since this country was founded. Heck, prior to 1968, you could walk into almost any hardware store and buy a handgun or rifle without ID or a background check. YIKES! How did we ever survive back then? Prior to 1968 you could buy a rifle via mail order.

Sure, lots of people say “We don’t _need_ those so-called ‘rights’”, but look at the famous Niemoller (sp?) quote, “first they came for the…. and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a ….. bla bla bla, etc, etc, then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up.

The Patriot Act has further eroded privacy and 4th amendment rights. Now we have searches and wire-taps without court order.

So basically, under every president since Reagan we’ve lost rights and privacy in big ways.

Remember that airplane that exploded near New York over Long Island Sound, or there abouts? They proved it wasn’t terrorism, but from that time on, no one could every fly again anonymously. You couldn’t resell your ticket, or use someone else’s ticket, and you had to show ID.

Try buying a one-way ticket to FL, and pay with cash, and see what happens.

G. Gordon Liddy goes into this further in his book “When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country.”

I’m in my 40’s and have been paying attention for a while, and I decry the loss of freedoms that we had when I was younger.

Oh, and Clark (comment #3), drugs (heroin, marijuana, cocaine, etc) were not illegal in the US until the 1930’s. Somehow, we survived as a country from 1776 to 1930 without having to make drugs illegal. I think it was Hearst, the Geraldo Rivera of his day, who did an expose’ of illegal Mexican immigrants getting high on pot, and Chinese opium dens in California, that prompted Congress to make drugs illegal. On supposed motivation he had was that products (including paper) made from hemp fibers (marijuana plants), was competing with his paper mills and wood products mills.

I don’t know if that last part is true, about Heart’s motivations. But look at all the freedoms we’ve lost in the last 60 years over the War on Drugs, and tell me you don’t see the Hegelian Dialectic in play.

Now look at the War on Terror, and the Patriot Act, and tell me you don’t see parallels.

Well I’d agree it isn’t on par with killing or stealing but I’m more loath to say it isn’t a crime. I tend to be more Libertarian than most on this issue but am not quite willing to adopt the full Libertarian position.

Why is drug use a crime if it isn’t on the same basket as murder and theft? How does it exactly offend? I mean, there must be some kind of offense against someone if this was a real crime.

As for being libertarian, how are you more libertarian (as opposed to what position? conservative? liberal?) and yet not a full-blown libertarian on the issue? I get confused by the labels sometimes. In fact, most of the time, the labels don’t mean anything anymore. Nowadays, I find conservatives more willing to kill people than anyone else. ‘Twas a time when I thought that it’s the liberals who are more liberal in shedding blood.