Judge Jim Gray - our drug laws have failed

[Duncan]

Side note : O'Reilly is anti 10th Amendment .. he is just not smart enough to know it ... or he doesn't care .
Duncan

Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed - End War On Drugs

Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - Book

FREEDOM SUMMIT 2010 SPEAKER


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH1pcrtsYc8&feature=related]YouTube - Judge Jim Gray on The O'Reilly Factor - On the War on Drugs[/ame]

 

[Security122]

I like O'Reilly a lot, but he interrupts too much and doesn't allow guests to respond to statements he makes.

 

[radonc73]

But then we would have tons of out of work DEA agents and the police could concentrate on the real criminals.

 

[x10]

I'm so on the fence of this one, I just don't know,

cops are going after a couple of joints and speeders

while low lifes are molesting kids and breaking into homes,

I really don't have the answer on this one, It comes down to personal responsibility and values,

again I'm not helping here I'm just saying there are lots of people who are lost on this issue and I'm one of them

 

[88GT]

Same result as the war on poverty: failure to achieve the objective and unintended consequences with far more disastrous effects.

If that's not a failure, I don't know what is.

 

[AJMD429]

I'm just saying there are lots of people who are lost on this issue and I'm one of them

It's pretty simple, really:




A. Drug Prohibition is not Constitutionally allowed,

• so even if such laws are enacted, it is not within the scope of the federal government's charter.
• use of any food or drug item should in fact be a freedom the federal government would prevent the states from infringing, not mandate that they do infringe.

B. Drug Prohibition does not significantly reduce drug abuse;

• do you really know many people who don't abuse drugs simply because it is illegal, vs. because they think it is stupid?
• they're simply not that hard to get, even for the average school-kid; all prohibition does is inflate the price, and reduce the safety of the product.
• so, those who don't use drugs, simply don't want to, and those who want to, already are.

C. Drug Prohibition causes 99% of the 'crime' attributed to 'drugs',

• by making them so expensive that even 'occasional' users can't afford them
• users are assigned 'criminal' status for choosing pot vs. whiskey as their relaxant after work
• thus, you have people who are 'unemployable' and even expelled from college due to their choice of relaxants
• and the extreme profit-margin artificially supported by prohibition leads to many young people selecting a high-paying 'pusher' job vs. actually doing something productive for society

D. Drug Prohibition creates dangerous precedents,

• by allowing 'exceptions' be made to the Fourth Amendment.
• by allowing 'exceptions' be made to the Fifth Amendment.
• by allowing 'exceptions' be made to the Second Amendment.
• by allowing 'exceptions' be made to due process.
• by establishing the 'fact' that government can prohibit behaviors which do NOT harm other individuals.
• if they can prohibit LSD, why not Marijuana?
• if they can prohibit Marijuana, why not Alcohol?
• if they can prohibit Alcohol, why not Coffee?

So - Drug Prohibition is illegal, it doesn't work, it actually increases crime, and sets precedents which have led to serious infringements on the freedoms of those who don't even use drugs.

All it does is force the 'morality' of one group of citizens on another group, and while the intent is nice, THINK ABOUT WHAT 'MORALITY' REALLY IS...

Morality is the process of making a moral CHOICE; a man who doesn't steal because he can't break open the safe is not making a moral decision, nor is a man who doesn't smoke dope because it's illegal. If the whiskey drinkers are all that bent out of shape that their neighbor smokes pot instead of drinking whiskey, they need to go over and (without a baseball-bat) convince him of the virtues of their method of relaxation, and the dangers of his. They do NOT need to use MY tax dollars to send cops over there to risk their lives hauling him off to jail, to be housed and fed and 'counselled' with my tax dollars, and given a 'criminal record' so that instead of an actual job, the best he'll be able to do is go on some kind of welfare or disability, again on my tab.

All this kind of nonsense is create a culture of 'distrust-the-cops', and where breaking the law is almost the norm. People who haven't harmed anyone at all are labeled, and many of them figure 'what the heck', and just stay on the wrong side of the law after that. What a ridiculous cycle, and ridiculous way for a civil society to act.

Maybe next time the laws we're wanting to repeal will be ones against alcohol - then it will be whiskey (once again) that lands you in jail, and the cops are getting shot at for trying to interfere with use and distribution of whiskey - does that mean whiskey 'causes crime'?


A government which has turned 'prohibition' into a self-sustaining industry, complete with government-dependent 'counselling' centers, prisons to fill with those who imbibe, or provide, or distribute whatever the latest Deodand is, is far more dangerous to us all, than all the dope-heads out there combined. Drug prohibition makes our streets less safe, and our society less stable, as do pretty much all 'nanny-state' programs, so why do we allow it? Just because some folks get warm fuzzies at the thought of telling their neighbor what to do, and what not to do? Because some citizens are so naive that they actually think the drugs themselves are more dangerous than living in the kind of police-state needed to 'control' drug use? Because many citizens are 'embedded' into the 'drug-culture', whether as drug dealers, or drug enforcers - both of whom have a vested interest in keeping drugs 'illegal'?


Remember - just because something is stupid does not mean it should be illegal, and everyone's definition of "stupid" varies - some would argue that marijuana is far safer than tobacco, for instance. Even if it is not 'safer', neither is riding a motorcycle safer than riding an automobile. Should we ban that, too? I preach at patients all day long about risks to not take, whether it be trans-fats, sedentary lifestyles, babies choking on small toys, or whatever. I tell them smoking anything is pretty dangerous, and that getting intoxicated on anything has risks. If they need an 'escape' that badly they might want to re-think what they're doing with their life. Same for caffeine and sugar and taurine and all that - use with caution, and an awareness that using them to enable a burning-the-candle-at-both-ends lifestyle is not wise. STILL - it should be the patient's decision, not some bureaucrat whose nephew owns a brewery, neice works for the DEA, and brother-in-law runs a half-way house.

The 'drug war' is nothing more than a 'price support program for drug dealers', run at the cost of many innocent lives, lost educational opportunities, lost jobs, and a huge diversion of tax dollars away from far more constructive activities.


Finally - think about this - if someone thinks it's ok for the Republicans to take away our right to make our own MORAL decisions, how is that any different from the Democrats desire to take away our right to make our own FINANCIAL decisions? In fact, how is either one all that different from the idiocy of those who want to ban firearms...?


Until we man-up and cease our asinine preoccupation with 'the war on drugs', and quit our materialistic obsession with 'redistributing wealth', we will NEVER regain the freedom our ancestors in many cases DIED to preserve.

We're always telling those who disapprove of 'guns', "If you don't like the idea of owning a 'gun', then. . . don't own one...!"


So. . . "If you don't like the idea of using 'drugs', then. . . don't use them. . . Duhhh...!"


Nobody's going to force you to. (Ha; well except for those mandatory vaccines, and that ADD kid we're going to make take Ritalin, etc... )

 

[mike8170]

If the whiskey drinkers are all that bent out of shape that their neighbor smokes pot instead of drinking whiskey, they need to go over and convince him of the virtues of their method of relaxation, and the dangers of his. They do NOT need to use MY tax dollars to send cops over there to risk their lives hauling him off to jail.

Guess someone doesn't like whiskey. Please don't use one vice to promote another. I drink whiskey, bourbon, rum, and really don't care if someone smokes dope, etc. Not my issue. I really can't stand it when this excuse is used for the drug argument. Maybe drug users can get these laws repealed using this argument. BTW, I completely believe that the "war on drugs" is a complete sham that does nothing but waste taxpayer monies, when that is a local problem, to be taken care of at a local level, not Federal.

 

[XMil]

It's pretty simple, really:




A. Drug Prohibition is not Constitutionally allowed,

Good points, but let me fill in some of the usual, idiotic responses so we can get them out of the way.

1) ZOMG! Why do you want children to have free access to drugs?!?

2) You're just mad because you want to get high!!!!

3) But, but, it is THE LAW, if you don't like it, work to get it changed or STFU!

4) It's really not a victimless crime! It destroys families!

5) I know some roofers, who were great citizens that somebody tricked into trying evil mary-wanna, and since every body that tries it turns into full-blown meth heads, their lives are now ruined!! They should all be banned!!! Now, back to getting government out of my life.

6) My preacher told me every time somebody pollutes their temple with with demon weed, God stomps a kitten.

 

[Lucas156]

I think one of the common arguments would also be

1-what about the people making meth next door-what if they blow their house up along with ours!?

and contamination of houses as far as meth goes

 

[Pocketman]

I realize it may not be this simple, but the way we're currently fighting the drug "war" isn't working. Regulate drugs like alcoholic beverages. Allow people to harvest, process and sell it in the open market. Government could collect taxes and those profiting on the sales would also be paying income taxes. The cartels, etc. would naturally dry up. We'd save money by reducing the prison populations.

 

[XMil]

I think one of the common arguments would also be

1-what about the people making meth next door-what if they blow their house up along with ours!?

and contamination of houses as far as meth goes

That's one of the dumb things that happen BECAUSE they are illegal. Nobody would have to worry about that if they were made be Eli Lilly, by people that know what they are doing. It probably wouldn't be meth though, I can't know of course, but I'd bet a lot of money people would choose better drugs if they were available.

The only reason that crap got popular, is that it is easier to make that stuff, than it is to smuggle coke in from South America. You can thank the drug-warriors for meth.

 

[AJMD429]

Good points, but let me fill in some of the usual, idiotic responses so we can get them out of the way.

1) ZOMG! Why do you want children to have free access to drugs?!?

2) You're just mad because you want to get high!!!!

3) But, but, it is THE LAW, if you don't like it, work to get it changed or STFU!

4) It's really not a victimless crime! It destroys families!

5) I know some roofers, who were great citizens that somebody tricked into trying evil mary-wanna, and since every body that tries it turns into full-blown meth heads, their lives are now ruined!! They should all be banned!!! Now, back to getting government out of my life.

6) My preacher told me every time somebody pollutes their temple with with demon weed, God stomps a kitten.

1. They do already. Legal sudafed is harder to get than 'illegal' methamphetamine, if you're a 12-year-old.

2. I've seen the medical effects of abused drugs too closely to even consider it.

3. Not "S'ing-TFU" is part of getting those (immoral, unconstitutional) laws changed!

4. Far fewer families are destroyed by the drugs than by the prohibition of them. Just like far fewer innocents are killed using firearms in areas where they are 'easily available', vs. 'highly restricted'.

5. Yep. If they banned regular tobacco, guess what, it would become the new 'gateway' drug, as the same 'distributors' would be pushing it as do the LSD.

6. Never liked cats, anyway (not true, actually, just spent enough money to buy an AR on a dog-wounded cat).