• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rethinking strategy key to battling drugs

marduc

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,954
Reaction score
4,503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"If the only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail," said Kerlikowske, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. "That phrase -- war on drugs -- tells you that the only answer is in fact force. ... We want to have a different conversation when it comes to drugs."

The term "war on drugs," coined by President Nixon 40 years ago, does not adequately describe what Obama's strategy will entail, Kerlikowske said.
Click to expand...

Rethinking strategy key to battling drugs - El Paso Times

The war is almost over!!

A little renaming and dropping of terms to be replaced by minor changes in strategy and thinking albeit still along the same decades old theme, and lo and behold.. the new and improved fight will stamp out the problem once and for all.

Thank god we are no longer at war. Now come the years of prolonged occupation trying to stamp out millions of those damned pesky drug using insurgents!

Let's change the name, throw a few more billion at the same failed tactics, tweak them a tad, perhaps dangle a few treatment carrots out there for everyone, and voila The war is no more!!!

Whew.. what a relief!!!
 
marduc said:
Rethinking strategy key to battling drugs - El Paso Times

The war is almost over!!

A little renaming and dropping of terms to be replaced by minor changes in strategy and thinking albeit still along the same decades old theme, and lo and behold.. the new and improved fight will stamp out the problem once and for all.

Thank god we are no longer at war. Now come the years of prolonged occupation trying to stamp out millions of those damned pesky drug using insurgents!

Let's change the name, throw a few more billion at the same failed tactics, tweak them a tad, perhaps dangle a few treatment carrots out there for everyone, and voila The war is no more!!!

Whew.. what a relief!!!
Click to expand...

Holy exaggeration to try and ridicule a positive effort. You might try and not use every single thing as a partisan attack. Let me quote more from your source:

Kerlikowske said his visit to El Paso was part of a national tour to solicit ideas before making recommendations to the president. Once unveiled, Obama's drug strategy will probably include treatment centers, education, drug courts, more cooperation with Mexico and increased law enforcement, Kerlikowske said.
Click to expand...

That damn Obama, getting ideas to be more effective on the issue of drugs. And damn me for actually reading the source material and making your post look foolish.
 
Redress said:
Holy exaggeration to try and ridicule a positive effort. You might try and not use every single thing as a partisan attack. Let me quote more from your source:



That damn Obama, getting ideas to be more effective on the issue of drugs. And damn me for actually reading the source material and making your post look foolish.
Click to expand...


ohh that was a partisan attack huh? oops.. damn me and my partisanship!!

this is a non partisan issue, if i was partisan I would be jumping aboard screaming hallelujah!

regardless, yes they are looking at new avenues to address the problem; however they are still rooted in the same failed policy, and the same persecutorial mindset.

There are some pluses, yes we need to focus on treatment more than incarceration, however they still will be ramping up money towards enforcement, interdiction, and wasted efforts at trying to stamp out a black market, that there is but 1 way to overcome.

yet they fail to consider the 1 single option that would actually end this war: ending prohibition.

We will still be pumping more money than before into the same interdiction efforts, we will still be trying yet again to increase enforcement funding because just maybe.. perhaps a bit more money thrown at this will be the needed difference.

There is some good to be had, yes more treatment is good, education.. good. but despite a change of name and a few new tactics we will be pumping even more money and resources into enforcement and interdiction.

A few tweaks in where we house the victims, and perhaps a bit of education efforts are not going to change the fact that it is an untenable position.
 
OxymoronP said:
Rethinking it?

How about ending this unconstitutional practice.
Click to expand...

All drugs (including currently illegal ones) should be sold with FDA mandated lables detailing their side-effects, overdosage levels, etc.

Then, if you are a moron, it won't be blamed on the drug...It will be blamed on the moron.
 
OxymoronP said:
Rethinking it?

How about ending this unconstitutional practice.
Click to expand...

Not politically practical at this time. Any practical suggestions?
 
OxymoronP said:
Why isnt it practical?
Click to expand...

Because you could never get it past congress, and you cannot get enough people who agree with you voted into congress.
 
OxymoronP said:
that is opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Let's wait and see how long before any new drugs get legalized. I am betting at least 10 years yet before even marijuana gets legalized. It's opinion, but based strongly on the evidence available...ie, no one in power is pushing for it, and neither of the political parties has it as part of their platform.
 
Redress said:
Well, yes. Let's wait and see how long before any new drugs get legalized. I am betting at least 10 years yet before even marijuana gets legalized. It's opinion, but based strongly on the evidence available...ie, no one in power is pushing for it, and neither of the political parties has it as part of their platform.
Click to expand...

It only needs to be decriminilized not legalized. I say it will be an avalanche in the next administration.
 
OxymoronP said:
It only needs to be decriminilized not legalized. I say it will be an avalanche in the next administration.
Click to expand...

Which potential candidate actually supports decriminalization? I don't know of a single mainstream candidate who supports that.
 
Redress said:
Which potential candidate actually supports decriminalization? I don't know of a single mainstream candidate who supports that.
Click to expand...

Arnold governator, Ventura, Ron Paul, Booker, Obama, and many who are on the fence but with the right conditions which are coming will appear as if falling from the sky. Look how fast Prohibition was stopped, almost overnight.
 
OxymoronP said:
Arnold governator, Ventura, Ron Paul, Booker, Obama, and many who are on the fence but with the right conditions which are coming will appear as if falling from the sky. Look how fast Prohibition was stopped, almost overnight.
Click to expand...

Obama has said he is against it, and the rest are not electable.
 
I'm sure alcohol and tobacco lobbyist don't want it legalized, they would lose a lot of money.Plus the prison guard union probably feels the same way,if they cut 1 million non-violent drug offenders loose they could reduce prisons and guards.Not to mention the lawyers.
 
Sounds more like they're rethinking the name than the policy. I'll wait until I see just how this is different before breaking out the bubbler........I mean bubbly
 
Redress said:
Which potential candidate actually supports decriminalization? I don't know of a single mainstream candidate who supports that.
Click to expand...

A question for those advocates of marijuana legalization on this board... are you as vocal about your position of marijuana in the real world? Would you discuss your opinion in favor of legalization with your boss and coworkers? Would you go on the local news, sign petitions, and/or protest or carry signs? Wear tee-shirts or bumper stickers?

How many are open supporters and how many are 'closet' supporters?

:confused:
 
Grateful Heart said:
A question for those advocates of marijuana legalization on this board... are you as vocal about your position of marijuana in the real world? Would you discuss your opinion in favor of legalization with your boss and coworkers? Would you go on the local news, sign petitions, and/or protest or carry signs? Wear tee-shirts or bumper stickers?

How many are open supporters and how many are 'closet' supporters?

:confused:
Click to expand...

To answer your question, I am very vocal and very open about it. Why is there reason to be in the closet on this issue? I don't see it, the only thing to be ashamed of that I see is the failure of the last 40 years.

Hell I even have converted my parents views on the subject, and they do not get more staunchly in the "drugs are horrific" camp then that.

Why do you ask this question? I don't get why you think that a pro-legalization stance is something that people potentially feel the need to be ashamed of.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Sounds more like they're rethinking the name than the policy. I'll wait until I see just how this is different before breaking out the bubbler........I mean bubbly
Click to expand...

basically.

It sounds like a few domestic tweaks such as more treatment (and the corresponding drug courts to make sure that everyone gets the treatment they deserve) instead of incarceration, and most likely a new and improved education campaign and anti youth usage initiative, yet the same laws on the books with more money towards enforcement, and a ramped up international involvent with more money backing that as well.

The biggest change is the name. But lets see what these proposed changes will be as they are announced.. all indicators point strongly to a lot more of the same under a new label.
 
OxymoronP said:
I didnt say anything about his "stance".
Click to expand...

You said Obama was "fully behind decriminalizing drugs". That is a stance, and one you have made without offering any evidence for it. I can find no evidence you are right, and I can find evidence you are wrong.
 
Redress said:
You said Obama was "fully behind decriminalizing drugs". That is a stance, and one you have made without offering any evidence for it. I can find no evidence you are right, and I can find evidence you are wrong.
Click to expand...

no a stance is what you put forward publicly, but based on his history and his own words he definately wants to decriminalize them.
 
OxymoronP said:
no a stance is what you put forward publicly, but based on his history and his own words he definately wants to decriminalize them.
Click to expand...

I would say a "stance" was what you actually thought, and that what you put forward publicly would be a "public stance".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom