|
|
| War On Drugs |
|
Posted by FoM on June 15, 2001 at 08:51:40 PT Editorial Source: Dallas Morning News 
It has become fashionable in elite circles to claim that the United States is losing the War on Drugs when the truth is that we may be winning some battles. According to the most recent report of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the overall rates of drug use are lower now than they were 15 years ago. In 1985, there were an estimated 23.3 million monthly users of illegal drugs in the United States. In 2000, there were 14.8 million. Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #11 posted by arcturus on June 16, 2001 at 03:35:18 PT |
| We still cling to racist stereotypes about what drug users look like and where they live, preferring to think that the plague is limited to minorities in the inner city when it has long since made its way to affluent and mostly white suburbs. The author makes an attempt at political correctness by denouncing the racist urge to stereotype drug users, but then he/she asserts that the "plague" came from the inner city by "making its way to affluent and mostly white suburbs." Still hangin' on to Uncle Harry's racism from the 30's. Nice try. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Tim Stone on June 15, 2001 at 17:39:50 PT |
| During alcohol Prohibition in the U.S., there were millions of Americans for whom alcohol use was just not a big part of their lives. When Prohibition was enacted, they just gave up their occasional hard cider, or traditional drink on New Year's and Easter. You can then say that alcohol "use" went down, and declare this to be a great victory for Prohibition, and proof that the U.S. was winning the war on alcohol. But of course, those casual users who stopped drinking were not part of the problems that caused Prohibition to be enacted, and never would have been. So, as far as the actual problems go, you haven't accomplished a darned thing. All you've done is needlessly molest a bunch of peacable citizens who weren't a problem and never would be. The parallel here with drug prohibition seems clear. A bunch of harmless pot smokers got older, or just lost interest in smoking. Assuming the gov't stats are accurate, which is a whole other argument) But pot smokers never had anything to do with the substance abuse problems that produced drug prohibition back in the 20s. The serious substance abuse problems have only gotten worse, exacerbated by the problems of prohibition. Cocaine and heroin are purer and cheaper than fifteen years ago; you all know the litany. The drop in drug use stat, if true, is a distinction that makes no difference. That's why this slim reed the prohibitionists cling to as proof of the winnibility of the drug war is, and always will be, a steaming crock. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by DdC on June 15, 2001 at 13:21:17 PT |
| Who is really behind the Partnership For A Drug Free America http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/swallowtail/204/partner1.htm Response to the War Zeolots PDFA The Partnership: Hard Sell in the Drug War Partnership for a Drug-Free America? Assassins of Youth Dutch Reality v Partnered DEAth Costa Rica Studies Cannabis is Safe Free the POW's SCAPEGOATING - Blaming social problems on a cultural, racial, or behaviorial group. PREJUDICE - Selling the public on the idea that all members of the targeted group are 'bad' people. LIES - 'Facts', which cannot be verified, and pseudo-scientific studies are used as propaganda against the targeted group. History is NO PUBLIC DEBATE - "These people have no right to have their viewpoiunt aired." and " Anyone who disagrees or questions us DEHUMANIZATION - Characterizing all members of a targeted group as subhuman and typically capable of monstrous deeds and/or PROTECT OUR CHILDREN - "They corrupt, seduce and/or destroy our children." CIVIL LIBERTIES SACRIFICED - "We must give up some of our freedoms, liberties, and rights in order to combat this menace to LEGAL DESCRIMINATION - Laws criminalize members of targeted group and they may be denied jobs, the right to own property INFORMERS - Citizens are urged to 'turn in' friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members. SECRET POLICE - Non-uniformed police squads set up to wage war on targeted groups utilizing deception, infiltration, espionage and CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY - Property and assets are seized from people who are members of targeted group. Property may be REMOVAL FROM SOCIETY - Prisons, rehabilitation camps, 'hospitals', executions and genocide ("zero tolerance") Analysis of DARE DARE to be Honest DARE doesn't work, study finds DARE is ineffective Anti-Drug Pledge of Allegiance Stirs Controversy CannabisNews DARE Articles & Archives: The DARE Program and a Parent's Concerns Study Questions Effectiveness Of DARE http://google.com/search?lc=&num=10&q=cannabisnews+DARE+site:cannabisnews.com Dare has stranglehold on Drug education! DARE Impaired Just Say No to DARE The assassins of youth...DARE/PFDA [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on June 15, 2001 at 13:03:21 PT |
| Notice how the author uses the term "the plague" to refer to illegal drugs. That's the very mindset which causes the plague, as an earlier article posted today entitled "legalize heroin" pointed out so dramatically... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by jAHn on June 15, 2001 at 12:37:18 PT |
| Did the "person" who wrote this piece use the statistics of Drug Addicts STILL-IN -JAIL---I just know that these "people" shortchange ANY and MOST of their "Statistics." It seems hard to believe, to me as a User of AN Illicit Substance,((And POT doesn't even BELONG in the "Illicit" category--at least, NOT AS BAD AS RAID or Sharpie brand Markers!)) that these "people/Prohibs" are even using REAL-LIFE NUMBERS, not fake/play numbers, to "Prove" their "Mathematical Point." Having a hard time reading the lie? They understand...It's their Job!, DUH.... [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by Pontifex on June 15, 2001 at 10:13:33 PT:
|
| You make some excellent points. A comparison of U.S. drug use statistics with those from other countries immediately gives the game away. Also, the nebulous definition of "victory" and the Who ever heard of fighting a war at dinner tables And since when does government have a role to play in As for the anonymous nature of this editorial, I'm afraid The proper response is probably a letter to the editor. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by aocp on June 15, 2001 at 10:07:13 PT |
| And when teenagers who don't use drugs are asked why they don't, a majority cite a reluctance to disappoint their parents. More than jail time, the most effective deterrent to drug use is an involved parent. I bet. So, tell us again how jailing consenting adults for [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Doug on June 15, 2001 at 10:04:42 PT |
| Statistics on use go up, statistics on use go down. And people try to make a correlation between the change in use with whatever the drug policy is at the time. But of course it is all nonsense. Even is one accepts these statistics (which of course one should not) they are never compared with figures from other countries, which show much the same variation, without of course our draconian drug policiies. That alone should show that whatever we are doing or not doing has no influence on drug use. But the whole idea of victory in the drug war is total nonsense. What do these people actually think they can achieve? Do they believe that if no high schoolers use any drugs then that is victory? No, it is better to leave the definition of victory as unspecified, since that way you can always believe that victory is just around the corner. Anyone with some knowledge of history should know that elimination of drugs is impossible, and that all we do is make the situation worse. These facts are incontrovertible, and have been for decades. So one has to ask. what do these people really think they're doing? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 15, 2001 at 09:26:18 PT |
| Hi Rambler, Sometimes I think people don't really believe what they are writing and don't want their names attached to the article. I could be wrong but I bet it happens more often then we think. Anyone who gives the drug war any serious thought knows it is a failure. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Rambler on June 15, 2001 at 09:23:07 PT |
| Why would the author not want to take credit for this stinky piece of cruddy journalistic effluent? It's a dead giveaway. Are we supposed to assume that Nope,I can think of only one reason why a publication would [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by Pontifex on June 15, 2001 at 09:03:33 PT:
|
| It's nice to have the honor of being the first to excoriate this article. The PDFA's statistics on drug use are suspect and 1) Surveys relying on self-reporting of illegal activity are 2) The PDFA's budget depends on the War on Drugs. 3) Even if drug use has declined over the past 15 years, Notice, though, that even this prohibitionist article There's plenty of red meat here for the other [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |
