see:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22court+historians%22

***

By Kate Monaghan, CNSNews.com Correspondent

July 02, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Following sharp declines in violent crime in the U.S. between the mid-1990s and 2004, the trend has begun to reverse and a former official with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) places the blame on the Bush administration's budget cutting efforts.

"The current administration's overall anti-drug budget has been slashed by over one-third from $19.2 billion in 2001 to $12.7 billion for 2007," stated Robert Weiner, former spokesman and director of public affairs at the ONDCP during the Clinton administration. Weiner's op-ed on the subject was published Thursday on a website called commercialappeal.com, based in Memphis, Tenn.

"This reduced budget ... is a genuine threat to our national security," Weiner wrote.

But a current spokesman for the government agency, which is commonly known as the drug czar's office, insisted that there have been no budget cuts. "There's no spin here involved in this. That's what it is," ONDCP Deputy Press Secretary Rafael E. Lemaitre told Cybercast News Service.

FBI statistics released on June 12 show that the incidence of violent crime increased by 2.5 percent last year, following dramatic decreases in the previous decade. Justice Department statistics show that the incidence of violent crime dropped in every year between 1994 and 2004 except one - 2003. Violent crime incidents in the U.S. totaled 4,190,000 in 1993, but only 1,648,100 in 2004, a 154 percent decline.

Despite the increase in violent crime in 2005, Lemaitre said Weiner's premise is false. "It's completely bizarre and flat out wrong," he said.

Not only are the cuts false but the anti-drug budget has actually increased, according to Lemaitre. "The anti-drug budget has gone up every year. The drop that's stated there --between $19 billion and $12 billion -- that was because we stopped counting programs that did not have a full anti-drug nexus within our budget."

The Bush administration has also "asked for increased funding in the national youth anti-drug campaign," Lemaitre said. "The [Weiner op/ed] states that we've slashed it ... [however] Congress has continuously decreased the amount of funding for it. We're very enthusiastic about it and we want to increase funding for it but Congress hasn't given us the money."

Weiner told Cybercast News Service that he anticipated the ONDCP's reaction to his op/ed. "I knew they would say that because the figures that we've quoted are proposed ... through testimony and so they're going to say how Congress has restored this and that funding. No thanks to them."

The Bush ONDCP "tried to cut the programs and slash them and disintegrate them and so they cannot take credit for final figures when they tried to keep them low," Weiner argued.

He concluded that while the ONDCP may claim to have asked for more funding, this is not really the case and is "disingenuous and unfair to the nation's fight against drugs."

According to the ONDCP website, the anti-drug media campaign focused on America's youth will receive an increase of $21 million in Fiscal Year 2007, for a total of $120 million.

Copyright: 2006 Cybercast News Service

Here's the one thing in common about "illegal drugs". You can get arrested for them. That's a risk. That's a risk for all of them, regardless of their particular effect or safety independent of the legal system.

There is no saying that other than that fact, anything sensible compares cannabis and heroin to other things. Cannabis doesn't compare in the same way as heroin does. They aren't the same thing. They don't do the same thing. They have different effects and safety considerations. Completely different. One is actually very safe. One actually is not. See?

Arguments for prohibition

Health

A common reason given for banning drug use is that drug use is perceived to be unhealthy, with possible effects ranging from lowered intelligence to insanity to death by overdose, or little or no health effects at all. Some illegal drugs are statistically more dangerous than other unhealthy things. Unlike alcohol, many illegal drugs were once legal until their health problems and addictive properties were realized. [edit]

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

Some proponents of drug prohibition, such as members of the Temperance movement, support drug prohibition on the basis that many of the perceived problems or flaws of society are caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents often call for prohibition of alcohol. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if prohibitions are legalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some prohibitions may cause harmful behaviour), much as drunk criminals do sometimes. [edit]

Commercial exploitation of drug addiction

Some people, especially those who might otherwise support drug legalization, are against it because of the impact upon society of the commercial exploitation of the addictive potential of drugs. The basic concept is that tobacco and alcohol are extremely popular even though they are relatively more dangerous than many illegal drugs and are subjectively less pleasurable. This, critics say, is attributable to the large marketing campaigns of tobacco and alcohol companies. If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then chances are even more people would become addicted. This genre of critics is pessimistic that a system could ever be created whereby drugs could be legalized but not be commercially exploited. They often call for reinstated prohibition of alcohol. One factor critics point to is the tremendous lobbying power of alcohol and tobacco companies, as well as the large areas of commerce that are already related to illegal drugs, such as t-shirts about drugs, or songs about drugs. These critics also dismiss the idea that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper, pointing to the fact that most brands of alcohol are more expensive than most illegal drugs for an equivalent level of inebriation (this might be true in the USA, UK, Scandinavian, Muslim and some other countries, but is not true in many other, most, countries; also, prescription drugs, as opioids, are much cheaper, when legally bought, than similar illegal drugs). Many of these critics feel that those involved in the production of certain currently legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription opioids are already profiting off of the addiction of their users. This criticism is directed not only toward the commercial exploitation of physiological addiction, but also of psychological addiction, which in addition to drug use can occur in relation to many types of behavior, for example gambling, overeating and economic consumption. [edit]

Moral and religious

Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morraly unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind. [1]

-----------------

They can say now whatever stupid, deceptive things they like to make themselves feel better about the "work" they did in their lives, but the above is what they set out to do, and at that goal the war on drugs has utterly failed.

And they know it.

These smelly old farts have so much of their blood racing through their teeny weenies that their brains have stopped functioning. LOL

If your pee pee doesn't work anymore, try getting off of the 10 or more "prescriptions" that you're taking, instead of just adding another pill to your system.

Or, at the very least, just shut your mouths and stop saying stupid things that hurt other people.

To say that the US government has WON the war means that we must have LOST the war, and we all know that hasn't even come close to happening. We win little battles every day. In fact, knowing that I may be helping to prevent cancer by firing up a phatty is proof that it is not the U.S. that has won the war on cannabis, but rather it's US, you and I, that are the winners.

Placing career soldiers in the roles of handling social issues has been a colossal failure, and in the end these warriors have no choice but to lie about their success, for this is the only way to secure more money for their failed cause and perpetuate this war that they say is over, yet are fighting harder and bloodier against the innocent than ever before.

Actually, I bet these old farts haven't walked or drove down an inner city street lately.

You do not have to subdue that which is not there. It is hard for me(and likely all the posters here) to imagine what it would be like to have no remorse for wrongdoing. I feel bad when I accidentally squash a bug sometimes. Now being that sensitive, it is hard to imagine what it would be like to not care. Accidents happen but I fear what would happen should I lose compassion ever for the smallest of critters.

Anyone who can continually advocate the drug war must either be ignorant of the reality, or have no remorse for the damage they are causing. In the course of my life I have encountered people with no remorse for the wrongs they have done. No conscience, no remorse.

They're delusional. They want it both ways.

Insanity [is] ... Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein

Any 20th century US history buff can prove the guy dead-wrong about the facts of the 20s alcohol prohibition. The only well established fact in this article is the point about heroin being the real problem for Vietnam vets. So, after they basically fixed that problem, why the hell did they have to go after mary-jane? Imo, if they had simply left mary-jane users be, instead of treating them all like axe-murderers, crack-cocaine probly never would have become the problem it did in the 80s.

The real problem isn't illegal drugs, the real problem is drug-warriors always looking for another drug and new drug-users to make war with, just so they'll have a job to pay their rent.

Yes, time to cut the funds. If the "Drug War" is over, then the US taxpayer can save lots of money, or funds can be re-allocated to hurting social programs!

Oh wait, we can't pull them out. That would be 'cutting and running', wouldn't it? Has an eerily familiar ring to it. We'll never learn, will we?

One thought did occur to me. I saw two names missing from that list: William Bennett and John Walters. Do they agree that the War has been won? Walters would be out of a job if he said yes. And Bennett... well we all know what a jackass HE is. After all, he is the one who claimed last year that the crime rate would drop if we started aborting all black babies (see link below). He would never say the war is over, because fighting wars and spreading hate is all he knows how to do.

I wasn't a bit surprised to see McCaffrey on that list. Didn't he say a while back that most drugs have been decriminalized? How arrogant and detached can these people really be, anyway?

Claiming victory while wretching in the agony of being torn apart by the Jaws of Truth. Pitiful, isn't it?

I'm filing this one with the first Prohibition claim that alcohol prohibition will end when a mouse flies to the moon with the Washington monument tied to his tail. Did anyone get videos of that happening?

Lombar's already hit upon the main points of this slanted puff-piece. But the obvious fact remains that if victory has been achieved, then there is no further need for the DrugWar, and it can be dismantled...oh no, wait, it can't be. We still somehow need the drug laws. Even though the prohibitionists won. They say they've won, anyway. Has anyone told the cartellistas that they've lost, and they can stop sending shipments, now?

The capacity for self-delusion in the present government is breathtaking, sometimes.

Oh? What was the name of the organisation? Who were the founders? What were the names of the children with fried brains?

Prohibitory laws can work. Historians have established that the 1920s experiment in alcohol prohibition was successful and was repealed in 1933 only because of a massive, well-financed propaganda campaign.

Funny, for a historian, this guy sure doesnt know much about history. The original people who pushed for the amendment to prohibit alcohol in the USA were the same ones who fought to repeal it.

Now the drugs issue trails many other problems.

Like fixed voting machines, 9/11, lies that led to war and deaths of thouasands of people, the looting of the treasury, the loss of jobs overseas, illegal immigrants, pollution, global warming, looming energy crisis... yes sirreee bob, things are so much better now.

" Laws against murder provide hope to control the problem, not abolish murder."

Laws against murder are based on the notion that murder is immoral, wrong. There is a victim and an assailant. Laws against drugs do not control the problem, it cedes it to the ruthless and/or criminal elements of society. When people can honestly compare murdering someone to smoking cannabis I have to wonder how. Murder, rape, robbery, fraud, all involve non-consentual action, a clearly wronged party and a wrong-doer. Two people sharing a bong is consensual action between adults, someone selling a joint to someone else is also consentual. No victim, no person to complain to the police.

There's another argument "If you want to legalize pot, you might as well legalize 'murder' (insert heinous crime here)." It is an indirect ad-hominem attack, it attempts to call into question the legalization advocates morality.