I thought he was a member of the Democratic party?
Democracy inaction
A cop’s question about the drug war won Obama’s video contest for questions to be addressed. Says the cop:
Mr. President, my name is Stephen Downing, and I’m a retired deputy chief of police from the Los Angeles Police Department. From my decades of law enforcement experience I have come to see our country’s drug policies as a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources
And Dear Reader will not address the question.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
He must be “dangerous” and possibly a “kook” since that sounds like an observation of a Constitutionalist–you know, one of those who thinks government officials and agents should do their duty and obey the Constitution. Hey, maybe it would help some if our highest Federal employee would direct our resources to “protect the States agains invasion” (Article IV, Section 4) since much of the illegal drugs are brought over the southern border.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
We aren’t going to win the war on drugs. I wish our betters would quit bothering people about it.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:40 pm
There are many who are against legalizing drugs because they feel that drugs are bad for you. Leaving aside that this opinion is a left over of the anti drug brainwashing of the 80s, I think that many people confuse the issue.
The issue here isn’t whether or not it is a wise idea to use drugs, but whether or not we should be forcing people to act wisely.
A free society doesn’t interfere with the individual who is making poor decisions.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:57 pm
All I know is that this Administration has Seriously Cracked Down on all the Medical Marijuana places in the Country, DEA Swat teams are going to all the little “Mom and Pop” growers and shooting them, yet they had no problem shipping Guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels.
Guess the Sinaloas and the Zetas can launder more money into the Campaign Funds than Joe Ditchweed, huh? Of course, the “quid pro quo” is that the U.S. competition needs to be eliminated. But hey, it’s an old Chicago Tactic. Just ask Capone.
January 31st, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Would legalization of drug possession and taxation of the sale of pot, coke, heroin, ecstasy, and so on lead to a decrease or an increase in use? What role would the federal and state and local governments play in the legal distribution of drugs – taxation, FDA-type approval or disapproval of manufacturing, sales?
Would legal use lead to more or fewer societal problems, including criminality while under the influence?
Would civil and criminal punishments for harmful behavior while under the influence of legal drugs mirror the path taken by MADD and drunk drivers, where intoxication is defined down to use?
Will a Mormon president be the one to legalize pot?
January 31st, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Not only may not Mormon’s use illicit drugs, they may not use alcohol, coffee or tea. Besides a President, regardless of his religious affiliation, has no “delegated power”, nor does Congress, over such matters.
I want the next President to do the few duties to which he has delegaed powers, such as, reverse the treasonous policy of the last several, and stop the invasion of our country.
January 31st, 2012 at 3:00 pm
People hated George W Bush so much that they painted him brown and voted for him.
Good job guys!
January 31st, 2012 at 3:53 pm
I have to think it would increase the use, which generally speaking is a bad thing, especially now that with Obamacare, your health is every taxpayer’s business.
BUT peripheral crime (most importantly violent crime) associated with drug trade would decrease, so I think you have a win there.
There are people who don’t use drugs because they are illegal. I don’t think there are many people who DO USE drugs because they are illegal. There are many people who commit violent crime in order to protect their “dealing and production” businesses simply because it is illegal.
Yes, generalizations and assumptions, but I think they are pretty safe bets.
January 31st, 2012 at 5:57 pm
We should legalize the downers, and keep the uppers illegal. Meth-heads get active, insane, and violent. Pot users lay back, listen to music, eat chips, and say ‘Oh Wow’ a lot.
Which is the greater problem for society?
January 31st, 2012 at 5:59 pm
+1 Weerd!
Divermedic, i take the same stance as Glenn beck on the issue. Legalize it, but if you have medical problems stemming from the use of a recreational drug, then dont come knocking for any sort of taxpayer funded help.
We need to also learn to step over those in the gutter who will not get out of it after they have been offered help.
January 31st, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Legalization of pot? There would be chaos in the streets. Schools will become free fire zones. Once lawabiding citizens will become raving mad…oh yeah, I forgot. Thats what was suppose to happen when CCW was legalized…
February 1st, 2012 at 5:32 am
@Robert:
“We aren’t going to win the war on drugs. I wish our betters would quit bothering people about it.”
/We/ aren’t going to win. The government has already won. The point wasn’t getting rid of drugs, but increasing the power of the police state to absurd levels.
February 1st, 2012 at 10:15 am
Divemedic: “The issue here isn’t whether or not it is a wise idea to use drugs, but whether or not we should be forcing people to act wisely.
A free society doesn’t interfere with the individual who is making poor decisions.”
BUT…our society then coddles, cares and PAYS for the effects of their “poor decisions”.
I personally know of a man (he recently died) connected to ourfamily. He abused EVERY substance he could, and even fled the country with the DEA on his heels. When his liver failed he came home, and was NOT prosecuted! Instead here in California we kept him alive for 10 years at 100% government expense. NEW liver, all medical care costs (he had no money by the time he returned), and full “disability” payments. The total for the 10 year extension of his life caused by HIS abuse: in excess of $3 million.
He NEVER paid taxes in his life…EVER.
February 1st, 2012 at 11:07 am
@Divemedic: by your logic, we shouldn’t have a law against drunk driving . . . after all, that’s just an individual making poor decisions. Of course, if that drunk driver happens to kill a couple of kids in an oncoming car, well . . . sorry.
Thank you for playing, but your logic fails.
February 1st, 2012 at 11:21 am
It’s telling that when someone points out the costs of drug use, and the fact that society WILL be forced to bear the costs, people have to deflect. So far, legalization advocates seem to follow this path:
1. Legalize drugs
2. Drug users will magically display societally responsible behaviors.
3. A miracle will occur: this country will put in place policies that ensure that consequences for now legal activity are solely the problem of the user.
4. Wanna hide behind alcohol again? Okay. People who destroy their livers or have strokes with alcohol can and are a burden on our health system now. Unless Obama’s death panels start taking action, there they will stay. Using your logic, why would we expect drug users to wind up anywhere else?
Why is Holland moving away from legalization? What do they know that we don’t?
February 1st, 2012 at 11:24 am
No. My path is 1. stop busting in people’s doors at 0 dark thirty and emptying 9mm magazines into their chests over a bag of weed.
February 1st, 2012 at 11:28 am
James, you seem to be the one with a logical disconnect. Alcohol is legal, even though it causes health problems if abused. Can’t protect people from themselves. Making drunk driving illegal protects OTHERS from someones poor decisions, as you yourself pointed out.