International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Would a Bigger Police State Win the Drug War?
Source:
Future Of Freedom Foundation
URL Source: http://fff.org/2015/03/04/bigger-police-state-win-drug-war/
Published: Mar 6, 2015
Author: Jacob G. Hornberger
Post Date: 2015-03-06 05:22:44 by Deckard
Keywords: War on Drugs, Prohibition
Views: 1347
Comments: 18
Most everyone would agree that China is not a free society. It is ruled by a brutal communist regime, one that has absolutely no regard for civil liberties and such criminal-justice principles as due process of law, trial by jury, right to counsel, and habeas corpus. When the state wants to go after someone, there are no institutional barriers that stand in its way. China has something else: the war on drugs, the same war that the U.S. government has been waging for decades. According to an article in the New York Times, despite a fierce, unrelenting war waged against drugs, drug use in China remains as big a problem as ever. Why is that important to Americans? Two reasons. One, it shows that drug laws are part and parcel of tyrannical regimes. It is only in genuinely free societies that people are free to ingest any substance they want without being punished by the state for it. In other words, the United States has the same type of governmental program as the brutal and tyrannical communist regime in China. Two, the China experience shows Americans that no matter how much more the federal government were to crack down in the war on drugs, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. People would continue to ingest drugs, even while a large percentage of them were being incarcerated or otherwise punished. In other words, if the U.S. government were to impose the same type of totalitarian police state as China as part of the war on drugs, it would destroy freedom without achieving the desired result. According to the article, China has some of the world’s harshest drug laws: those caught trafficking large amounts of drugs can face the death penalty, and the police have the authority to send casual drug users to compulsory drug rehabilitation centers, which human rights groups say are little more than labor camps. Nonetheless, “Liu Yuejin, director general of the government’s anti-narcotics division, estimated the actual number of addicts at 13 million.” In one week alone, Chinese police arrested 60,500 people suspected of drug-law violations. By the middle of December 2014, an estimated 180,000 drug users had been punished, with almost a third of them being sent to government-run rehab centers. As we can see with China, drug laws are part of tyrannical regimes, not free societies. Moreover, even if a total police state were imposed here in the United States as part of the war on drugs, as is the case in communist China, it wouldn’t bring about the desired result anyway. So, what’s the point of the drug war here at home? Americans should be leading the world to freedom and tolerance, not following the well-trodden road toward tyranny and oppression. What better place to start than by ending the war on drugs?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The logic being: -- China is a tyrannical regime.
...the China experience shows Americans that no matter how much more the federal government were to crack down in the war on drugs, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. People would continue to ingest drugs, even while a large percentage of them were being incarcerated or otherwise punished. In other words, if the U.S. government were to impose the same type of totalitarian police state as China as part of the war on drugs, it would destroy freedom without achieving the desired result.
... that no matter how much more the federal government were to crack down This is no reason to abolish our laws against murder. Oh, and don't kid yourself. If the DEA really cracked down on drugs, use would decrease. And the opposite is true -- legalize drugs and use will increase.
Obviously, no law eliminates that crime in a FREE SOCIETY. That's the rule of thumb you need to go by to determine how free we are... when people violate a particular law, at will, literally hundreds of thousands of times a year... like drug laws, we are not a police state and VERY FREE. We lose the "war" on any crime because we are free. The reason we lose the "war on drugs" so much more than all our other "war" on crimes, is because there is no ramifications or consequences for breaking a drug law. Too many other WORTHLESS and ineffective plea offers like, probation, parole, and the most worthless at all, rehab and drug court. I spent 20 years dealing with the same filth over and over and over again. Most people that have a drug felony in their criminal history HAVE AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY for other crimes... and they get off easy on those because they blame the addiction. We can't win the "war" on any crime... but if you want to at least curb the drug use, sales and drug related crime (like burglary, robbery and larceny)... You've gotta stop feeling sorry for addiction,stop trying to rehab it or rehabilitate it... and incarcerate for long full terms... and run a clean controlled correctional facility... where they are forced to do a long long prison term without drugs. Almost every extensive drug felon I've ever dealt with, was on some level of social service. If I've gotta FUND them to live, let them live in jail.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
They would not be "drug felons" if the 'war' ended. Pure addictive drugs should be sold at cost by druggists to encourage overdoses. Then you wouldnt have to "FUND them to live" and addicts could die happy, -- not in jail. It'd be cheaper for everyone concerned.
Are you kidding? Just before I retired, they were talking about training officers in administering NARCAN. Your bleeding heart liberal peers will keep them alive and addicted. They'll feed them and keep them high. Too much business and power in it. It's a good thing I retired. I'd have refused to save one of them.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
There would not be "drug felons" if the 'war' ended. Pure addictive drugs should be sold at cost by druggists to encourage overdoses. Then you wouldnt have to "FUND them to live" and addicts could die happy, -- not in jail. It'd be cheaper for everyone concerned. No, it sounds like you bleeding heart pussy cops would obey the liberals, and would do that. Yep, cops who fail to obey their constitutional oaths are a big part of the problem. Ya sure, you're quite the rebel...
There would not be "drug felons" if the 'war' ended. Pure addictive drugs should be sold at cost by druggists to encourage overdoses. Then you wouldnt have to "FUND them to live" and addicts could die happy, -- not in jail. It'd be cheaper for everyone concerned. Are you kidding? Just before I retired, they were talking about training officers in administering NARCAN. Your bleeding heart liberal peers will keep them alive and addicted. No, it sounds like you bleeding heart pussy cops would obey the liberals, and would do that. They'll feed them and keep them high. Too much business and power in it. Yep, cops who fail to obey their constitutional oaths are a big part of the problem. It's a good thing I retired. I'd have refused to save one of them. Ya sure, you're quite the rebel... You always seem to turn any conversation unpleasant. I'll leave you to your 80 year old grumpiness. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Your inability to counter my observations may make the conversation unpleasant, but only for you. Cheer up lad. You're learning...
We were nicely talking about how nice it would be if addicts overdose... and how LE is keeping them alive to overdose another day and the next thing I know, you're ranting about "pussy cops" and "constitutional oaths". You call that a "countering observation"? I call that bipolar disorder. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You conveniently 'forget' your nasty little comments at #6, that PREceded mine: --- You call that "nicely talking"? I call you, on your self evident ability to diagnose yourself.
It's a good thing I retired. I'd have refused to save one of them. tpaine ~ "You conveniently 'forget' your nasty little comments at #6, that PREceded mine: ---" Calling your peers "bleeding heart liberals" is nasty? Come on, suck it up... you either are an emotional wreck, or a poster looking to pick a fight. lol Us having civil discourse is solely up to you.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You bet. They're not MY peers. Your silly 'lol' doesn't make your 'emotional wreck' remark any less nasty either. I see, - you can accuse me of picking a fight, but if I complain of your idiotic comments, -- I'm the one being uncivil.. Do you really believe you're being rational?
Bullshit. You can't pick and choose who your peers are. Any one of those kookifornian libtards could SIT ON A JURY FOR YOUR FELONY CRIME. Like it or not, they are your peers. When I was a shift supervisor or even just a shift member, the actions of my peers reflected ON ME. If I wasn't part of the solution to help curb the behavior that made all LE look bad, then I was part of the problem. Same when you were in the military. Your inability to accout for your peers actions is the mechanism for which you can live amongst them, fund them, without feeling like you are part of the problem. You are.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You bet. They're not MY peers. You're being irrational again. -- I can't pick and choose who my fellow citizens are, but I damn well choose who I consider my peers. No, they are citizens, obligated to serve on juries. Hopefully, they would be my peers, AFTER jury selection. Your belief that you are part of the problem is just fine with me. -- But I disagree. And so do my peers, who believe that if our constitution was honored, as per our oaths, most of our problems would be resolved.
I don't disagree, I seldom do. But, IF my Aunt had balls.... I Speak in reality... this causes your uncivilness. Those moronic Californian peers of yours are yours... especially since you refuse to leave it.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I Speak in reality... this causes your uncivilness. Those moronic Californian peers of yours are yours... especially since you refuse to leave it. Please, -- babble on in your unreal way.. It's amusing...
Please, I speak of the way things are TODAY... and that's unreal? lol You speak of a TODAY being lived like 1776... and that's real. You are void of reality... but that should be the medication needed to cope with the most nanny state of them all... while you willingly live in it... and complain about everyone elses level of constitutional love.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
"One, it shows that drug laws are part and parcel of tyrannical regimes."
-- China has drug laws.
-- The U.S. has drug laws.
-- Therefore, the U.S. is a tyrannical regime.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
The logic being:
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
in the war on drugs murder, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. People would continue to ingest drugs murder.
#4. To: Deckard (#2)
#5. To: GrandIsland, .misterwhite, Y'ALL (#4)
Almost every extensive drug felon I've ever dealt with, was on some level of social service. If I've gotta FUND them to live, let them live in jail.
#6. To: tpaine (#5)
Pure addictive drugs should be sold at cost by druggists to encourage overdoses. Then you wouldnt have to "FUND them to live" and addicts could die happy,
#7. To: GrandIsland (#6)
Are you kidding? Just before I retired, they were talking about training officers in administering NARCAN. Your bleeding heart liberal peers will keep them alive and addicted.
They'll feed them and keep them high. Too much business and power in it.
It's a good thing I retired. I'd have refused to save one of them.
#8. To: tpaine (#7)
#9. To: GrandIsland (#8)
You always seem to turn any conversation unpleasant.
#10. To: tpaine (#9)
Your inability to counter my observations
#11. To: GrandIsland (#10)
We were nicely talking about how nice it would be if addicts overdose... and how LE is keeping them alive to overdose another day and the next thing I know, you're ranting about "pussy cops" and "constitutional oaths".
Are you kidding? Just before I retired, they were talking about training officers in administering NARCAN. Your bleeding heart liberal peers will keep them alive and addicted. They'll feed them and keep them high.---
You call that a "countering observation"? --- I call that bipolar disorder. lol
#12. To: tpaine (#11)
GrandIsland~ "Are you kidding? Just before I retired, they were talking about training officers in administering NARCAN. Your bleeding heart liberal peers will keep them alive and addicted. They'll feed them and keep them high. Too much business and power in it.
#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)
Calling your peers "bleeding heart liberals" is nasty?
Come on, suck it up... you either are an emotional wreck, or a poster looking to pick a fight. lol
Us having civil discourse is solely up to you.
#14. To: tpaine (#13)
You bet. They're not MY peers.
#15. To: GrandIsland (#14)
(Edited)
Calling your peers "bleeding heart liberals" is nasty?
Bullshit. You can't pick and choose who your peers are.
Any one of those kookifornian libtards could SIT ON A JURY FOR YOUR FELONY CRIME. Like it or not, they are your peers.
When I was a shift supervisor or even just a shift member, the actions of my peers reflected ON ME. If I wasn't part of the solution to help curb the behavior that made all LE look bad, then I was part of the problem. Same when you were in the military. --- Your inability to accout for your peers actions is the mechanism for which you can live amongst them, fund them, without feeling like you are part of the problem. You are.
#16. To: tpaine (#15)
Your belief that you are part of the problem is just fine with me. -- But I disagree. And so do my peers, who believe that if our constitution was honored, as per our oaths, most of our problems would be resolved.
#17. To: GrandIsland (#16)
But, IF my Aunt had balls....
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
Please, -- babble on in your unreal way... It's amusing.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]