Author Topic: War on Drugs  (Read 107955 times)

Offline silver 5 star

  • Mistter Gramatticle. Heell corecct you're spelinng mistaikes
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,882
  • BUILD A NEW STADIUM - NO GROUNDSHARE!!!
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #400 on: December 24, 2012, 11:20:50 pm »
That is an idea that could only be floated by a complete fucktron.
Couldn't have put it better
Fuck me, it's Stalin!

Don't know what a fucktron is - however any silly c*nt using words like "fucktron" could only be a complete fucking gobshite.

Brett Hitman Hart - hmm, if you like him you must have the mind of a child. Give it back and put the rocking horse's back in.

Stalin? Hmm. Unlikely.

However, Merry Christmas c*nts.  :wave
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate; "To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the  ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods. " FENWAY - Do not let us down! RAWK is boss lid

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 95,049
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #401 on: December 24, 2012, 11:22:49 pm »
It means complete fucking idiot.

To be fair you were promoting mass state backed slaughter.
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline silver 5 star

  • Mistter Gramatticle. Heell corecct you're spelinng mistaikes
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,882
  • BUILD A NEW STADIUM - NO GROUNDSHARE!!!
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #402 on: December 24, 2012, 11:37:58 pm »
It means complete fucking idiot.

To be fair you were promoting mass state backed slaughter.

I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate; "To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the  ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods. " FENWAY - Do not let us down! RAWK is boss lid

Offline Cre_mCr_cker

  • Green A_my!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,260
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #403 on: December 24, 2012, 11:41:28 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.

You have to be on a christmas troll? Or one too many eggnogs? Surely?
This is a Liverpool forum. We are not talking about Demba Ba's cock.

My feet are wet but my cups are bone dry! Everything's comin' up Milhouse!

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 95,049
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #404 on: December 24, 2012, 11:42:30 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.
Drug taking scum???

Many people take drugs without any issues.

I for instance consume drugs without any problems


Alcohol for instance. 

Why isn't this banned to?

It's ridiculously illogical, unworkable and actually creates much of the crime that is the problem.


I think you are naively confusing the social issues that drive propel to drugs with just the effects of drugs
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline Giovanni

  • C'mon Chelsea!!! Stood on the Spyin Kop, the tricky bitch. Look out!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,628
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #405 on: December 25, 2012, 04:50:15 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.
How do people who just fancy a cheeky spliff after work or a few pills on a friday -without commiting crimes to feed their habits or harming anyone- fit into your twisted world?

cyas

Online SamAteTheRedAcid

  • Currently facing issues around potty training. All help appreciated.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,212
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #406 on: December 25, 2012, 05:02:02 pm »
How do people who just fancy a cheeky spliff after work or a few pills on a friday -without commiting crimes to feed their habits or harming anyone- fit into your twisted world?

They don't.

I find it fascinating that he is happy to wholly follow the law, as in allowing the governments arbitrary "what is legal/illegal" as a basis for murder. When we think that in the last hundred years, heroin has been legal and booze outlawed, weed has been on and off in many places. And still is. There's probably a country where coffee is illegal - should silver 5 star go and shoot up Starbucks as well?

In addition, there's no definition of user- I assume the poster has family- has he never had a brother who tried a cheeky spliff? Or even a son or daughter who has had a night on the beak? Statistically speaking, when you look it the numbers who have tried - and therefore used - drugs - it's staggering. He'd be walking with his shotgun around an empty country. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, bankers, bouncers, politicians, service industry drones, office workers, bin men, construction staff, whatever - most of them would be dead in his world.

Obviously something has happened to him related to drugs, that has caused him to take leave of his senses and advocate mass murder.
get thee to the library before the c*nts close it down

we are a bunch of twats commenting on a website.

Online B0151?

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,196
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #407 on: December 25, 2012, 05:14:41 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum

and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.


I don't see what these two sentences have to do with anything. Are illegal drugs the only habit that spirals out of control? I think not

Offline Motty

  • 'Arry's Tax Lawyer. T'riffic. Hush, hush, eye to eye. When will he, will he be famous? I can't answer that!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,315
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #408 on: December 25, 2012, 05:34:19 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.
your calling someone who uses the fucktron as childish, and then you come out a comment only a child would come out with or most likely a middle age Roy Cropper type bloke who's still living at home with his mum

Seriously you think anyone who takes drugs is a robbing, thieving scrounging low life ,just the same as every person who's had a drink in the pub is a alcoholic I suppose

Jesus you've had a sheltered life fella

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #409 on: December 26, 2012, 12:33:00 am »
Please don't feed the troll.

Offline pewithree3

  • Has a grumpy old female arse.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,324
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #410 on: December 26, 2012, 08:10:06 am »
Just read a book about drug dealers in Spain,
mostly around Costa del Sol but including
Barcelona and Playas de las Americas.
Drugs come in from N. Africa across to Gibralter etc
but more are coming into Galicia,
n.w. Spain where fishing boats
unload onto lots of deserted beaches.
The amount of people getting murdered is
scary, with the recession there is less money
and a shrinking market so dealers are mixing
all kinds of shite into the drugs to keep up
profits.
The police aren`t interested in murders unless
an innocent person is harmed or killed.
ETA, ex IRA, ex Loyalists and every other
nationality in the world are involved.

Offline mccred

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,429
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #411 on: December 26, 2012, 11:34:30 am »
Come on Corkboy it wasn't serious. It's a completely immoral reason for keeping drugs illegal but it's probably the main reason. Decriminalising drugs would affect Wall Street and 2008 showed just how much. That's what we're fighting against here not whether drugs are harmful or not or whether decriminalising causes more or less crime, they have never been the issues. It's about profit.

Sadly I think your right. The Americans showed exactly what happens when you prohibit a substance, alcohol in their case back in the 20's/30's. You just create an underground supply chain, you make law abiding people criminals, criminals control the supply, probably white collar criminals at the top and it makes sure the price of the product stays high.
I can't really think of a reason for most drugs to be illegal? As one of the posts above states, heroin has no bad side effects apart from nausea and constipation, but also can't forget physical addiction, cause that's quite a bad side effect. Yet if the drug was available at its real cost to grow, distribute and tax, then the crime that comes with funding it would disappear. Do people rather the fear of being mugged or burgled to the heroin addict up the road being given his drug on prescription?
Seems to me that everyone would suffer less if the mindless war on drugs was brought to an end and the world gave its head a good shake and see what these government policies have caused.
47,000 murders in Mexico since its war on drugs started in 2006. That's just obscene. When you go to AA or NA they tell you that insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Who are the sane one's?
Don't Ever,Ever Buy The S*n. Fucking Tory Scum.

FUCK OFF PUTIN!

Offline pantbash

  • is single and likely to remain that way
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • A Bacchanalian - Still persecuted since BC
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #412 on: January 14, 2013, 11:46:34 am »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/14/legal-highs-available-sale-government

Quote
The least harmful new "legal highs" should be made readily available for sale under strictly regulated conditions rather than being immediately banned as happens now, according to a cross-party group of peers.

Senior police officers told the inquiry into the new psychoactive synthetic drugs, which are appearing in Britain at the rate of more than one a week, that the existing criminal sanctions for drug users is doing nothing to reduce their use.

Chief constable Tim Hollis, who chairs the Association of Chief Police Officers drugs committee, said the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was not well positioned to deal with the more complex drugs scene which now exists in Britain.

"The solution to the particular challenges of legal highs does not lie in adding inexorably to the list of illicit substances," said Hollis. The police say the speed at which new substances are being produced and made available and marketed means existing laws are being overtaken. They said that party invitations circulating on smart phones now include a weblink to a supplier of legal highs.

The report published on Monday by the House of Lords all-party parliamentary group on drug policy reform, chaired by the crossbench peer, Baroness Meacher, says it would be far more effective to adopt a New Zealand initiative and ask trading standards officers to test and regulate the supply of low-risk legal highs.

"Under these controls suppliers would, as is planned in New Zealand, be limited to certain outlets and required to label their product with a clear description of its contents, its risks and the maximum advisable dose. The supplier would also be responsible for assuring that their product causes only limited harms," says their report adding that the system would encourage young people to avoid the unknown and therefore more dangerous alternatives. Sales to minors and advertising would be banned.

The inquiry group which includes Conservatives Lord Mancroft and Lord Norton, and crossbenchers, Baroness Stern and Lord Cobbold, say the current system of 12-month temporary banning orders to control each new legal high while the government's drug experts establish how dangerous they are does little to protect users.

The first legal highs to be banned in Britain were mephedrone, known as "miaow miaow" and methoxetamine, known as "mexxy", which largely imitate the effects of amphetamines and ketamine. They usually come in the form of 1kg packets of white powder produced most often in China and India and sold through online head shops.

The peers said they welcomed the fact that the temporary banning orders do not make it a criminal offence to possess and use the substances during that period, saying it is the first time since 1971 that any government has banned the supply of a drug while not criminalising its possession and use.

At present the ban is likely to be made permanent after 12 months and possession made illegal.

"The greatest risk to young people from new psychoactive substances derives from the absence of reliable information about the contents and strength of each substance and its effects both short and long term," says the report.

"The name of the substance may tell a user little about its contents, and the contents may change from week to week. The more substances are banned the more are created and the greater uncertainties for consumers."

They say this is the greatest risk posed by legal highs. The report cites the examples of "Ivory Wave" which contained three different substances over an 18-month period and "Bubble" which is widely used in the north-west and whose content varies from week to week but many people assume it is a single drug.

One leading toxicologist, Dr John Ramsey, said the temporary banning orders were making the situation worse as they were driving the development of yet more compounds.

"As long as large amounts of money can be made selling untreated chemicals, for which there is a market of largely young people willing to risk using them as drugs, and a chemical industry willing to supply the chemicals, the situation is unlikely to improve."

Baroness Meacher said the rapid emergence of legal highs demonstrated the need to reform UK drug policy: "The Misuse of Drugs Act is counter-productive in attempting to reduce drug addiction and other drug harms to young people."

• This article was amended on Monday 14 January 2013. It originally said mephedrone and methoxetamine largely imitate the effects of cannabis, which was inaccurate.


The New Zealand approach seems like a sensible option.
Many legal highs around now do seem to work pretty much as well as their illegal analogues.
However there has not been the "evidence of use" that has built up around our currently illegal drugs, Ecstacy, LSD, mushrooms, etc.
Although legal, you really don't know what the effects of the drug would be.

I imagine most people who get hold of some random legal powder just take it without any research. (Even if they knew what was purported to be in the little baggy in the first place.)
A glance at site such as Erowid and digging through the forums of synthetic drug experimenters would give you a good idea of the effects (+/-) of individual substances.
But who is likely to do that?
Of the people I know a couple do, the rest just take their mates word for it that said power/pill is "alright".


Moving the legal substances to a market that actually recognised their use would be beneficial in this country.
Keeping them as "bathsalts" just seems like a particularly stupid status quo to keep.
Atheism (from Greek, "athos" meaning 'hell', "eios" meaning 'demon' or 'Satan', and "ismos" meaning Liberal, literally "Satan's Liberal Helldemon")

Offline saoirse08

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,856
  • TRUTH. JUSTICE. ACCOUNTABILITY.
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #413 on: January 15, 2013, 07:58:09 pm »
Eugene Jarecki's The House I Live In was on BBC4 last night. Really powerful piece of film-making. It's available online here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pzz69
“The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It’s the way I see football, the way I see life.”

"The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

Offline boots

  • upon a hippo only look good if they match the tutu - fact! Oor Wullie, Your Wullie, A'Buddy's Wullie.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,383
  • Klopptimistic
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #414 on: January 16, 2013, 12:09:35 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.

wharra c*nt
Typing with my finger on my computer. Other appendages are available.

Offline Quaid

  • Thinks clinical is cretinous. Takes one to know one.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,237
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #415 on: January 16, 2013, 12:35:06 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.

I would love to rid the world of ignorant fools such as you..
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Offline doc_antonio

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,801
  • Always look on the bright side of life
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #416 on: January 17, 2013, 02:45:46 pm »
I would prefer to rid the world of drug taking scum and leave the world to those of us who don't break into houses, mug pensioners, shoplift etc to feed a habit.

Drug users don't respect themselves, ordinary citizens or property.


Why should I respect them?

Just check the fuckers out.

I have alot of respect for myself thank you very much, i also have a hell of alot more respect to others, unlike yourself.  I have a good job, a great girlfriend, a nice house and wonderful family and friends, i am thankful for EVERYTHING i have, what i do in my spare time is no concern to you or anybody else, if it starts effecting my job, relationships etc. then i will start getting concerned, but it will never get that far.

if you believe drug takers are 'scum' have a wee look in the mirror matey, its people like yourself who have the ignorance to tar everyone with the same brush that are worse than any drug user i have ever come into contact with... do you really think a stoner would go out of his way to damage property or steal just to get a toke? really?

I really hope you're on a wind up.
"When I’ve got nothing better to do, I look down the league table to see how Everton are getting along." - Bill Shankly

Offline CaptainHindsight?

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 906
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #417 on: January 29, 2013, 03:32:03 pm »
I recently interviewed Howard Marks (Mr. Nice) for a college magazine, asked him a few questions about War on Drugs etc.
It's short enough if anyone wants to have a look, he has a nice jibe on Bill Clinton.

http://issuu.com/richardsheehy/docs/marks_interview_2/2

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #418 on: January 29, 2013, 04:17:38 pm »

I trust you shared a spliff the size of a zeppelin with him afterwards.... ;)
I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline CaptainHindsight?

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 906
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #419 on: January 29, 2013, 04:42:34 pm »
I trust you shared a spliff the size of a zeppelin with him afterwards.... ;)

haha, I got to do support for his comedy gig in Cork last month and had a nice aul' chill with him (if you know what I mean) during his interval.
He's sound out, stayed chatting to fans for literally hours after the show.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #420 on: February 20, 2013, 11:30:07 am »
Legalising drugs would be the perfect Tory policy

It would save money, aid global security and be tough on crime. What could appeal to Conservatives more?

Ian Birrell, The Guardian

A few weeks ago I had a coffee with one of the most admired Tory thinkers. A radical libertarian, he spent his time railing against the interventions of Europe and inadequacies of government, arguing how they combined to infringe basic freedoms. Given the stridency of his views and hostility to the state, I asked if he supported the legalisation of drugs. "Oh no," he said. "That's totally different. It's just wrong."

I enjoyed listening to his tortured arguments as he sought to justify why the state he had just been decrying should stop millions of people enjoying themselves. But the question was far from facetious. As the illegality of drugs looks dafter and more disastrous by the day, the Tories should follow the lead of some Republican cousins in the United States and start fighting for reform.

This might sound strange. It was, after all, a Republican president in Richard Nixon who launched the ludicrous war on drugs to shore up his support. Yet there has always been a free-thinking strand of the American right that opposed prohibition on principle, while it was two Democratic presidents, in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who admitted using drugs yet hypocritically ramped up spending on enforcement.

Reformers on the right have been boosted by three recent events: the emergence of a conservative campaign for saner penal policies in a nation locking up a quarter of the world's prisoners; the post-election inquest causing smarter Republicans to cast around for new ways to connect with young and minority voters; and landmark referendums in November voting to legalise marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

Liberalisation is moving from the libertarian fringes towards the mainstream. This is unsurprising when a city like Baltimore ends up arresting one in six citizens in a single year alone. Polls are shifting in favour of legalising cannabis, especially among the young, while there is growing acknowledgment of the racist undertones to the war on drugs, with disproportionate numbers of African-Americans jailed.

As the blogger Andrew Sullivan noted, the successful referendum campaigns rebranded reform as a conservative measure. It was not hippies demanding the right to smoke their spliffs, but parents concerned about their children. They demonstrated how drug legalisation, as well as being right and long overdue, is an issue that should appeal to Conservatives here if only they could shake off fear of public opprobrium.

It is offensive to see people criminalised and imprisoned for using stimulants many politicians admit to having used, especially when countless experts and ceaseless inquiries found drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy less harmful than alcohol. It is one more reason for the disconnect between politicians and the people who put them in power. Yet the concept of legalising drugs is caricatured by opponents as pushing the idea of having drugs on sale everywhere – as if they are not already.

Legalisation would replace the freest of markets that currently exists to the benefit of the world's most vicious crooks with a system in which supply is controlled, products regulated and profits taxed. This is safer for children, since parents will have more control than they have at present; it is safer for users, since the drugs can be tested for strength and purity; and it is safer for society, since it cuts off funding for the gangs that scar our cities and the cartels that carve up the world. Ask yourself why we have troops in Mali? One key reason for the country's collapse was corrosion caused by the cocaine trade, which is leaving such a destructive trail across west Africa by inflaming corruption, fuelling violence and funding the war chests of extremist militias. The lack of joined-up thinking in the west is extraordinary.

Current policies are staggeringly wasteful of taxpayers' cash, something that should always concern conservatives. A report last year found more than £65bn spent globally each year on enforcement, yet the booming illicit trade is the same size as the Danish economy, the 32nd biggest in the world. In Britain, annual public expenditure on treatment, policing and criminal justice in relation to drugs is £4.5bn – yet the cost of cocaine on our streets has fallen by half over the past 15 years.

Drug reform should appeal to a Conservative party seeking ways to connect with young and ethnic minority voters, who bear the brunt of street enforcement strategies by police. Instead of resorting to failed core vote strategies aimed at frightened older generations, here is something bold, conservative and modern. It makes sense on economic, political, social and moral grounds. Given the voices starting to come out in favour of legalising drugs, it is scarcely even controversial these days.

It is also popular. For just as in the US, pressure for reform is growing. A new poll out today by the campaign group Transform finds a majority now favour permitting cannabis use, while four in 10 Britons favour total decriminalisation and more than two-thirds favour a comprehensive review of all drug policies. Support cuts across political divisions and embraces readers of all papers.

The war on drugs is stumbling its way to deserved and inevitable defeat after causing terrible collateral damage. Leaders in Latin America are demanding an end to policies that wreaked havoc in their region, while already two European countries – Portugal and the Czech Republic – have decriminalised all drugs and disproved the argument that usage rises when prohibition is lifted. Britain should become the third.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for a royal commission, while Labour's shadow cabinet recently discussed its stance on drugs. The Tories, whose leader showed unusual courage and realism on this subject before taking office, should seize the opportunity to outflank them by proposing total relaxation of drug laws. What could be more conservative than a policy that is tough on crime, saves money, protects children and aids global security?

source

Offline Canada Loves Anfield

  • Everything you do is a balloon
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,391
  • Born Under a Liverbird
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #421 on: February 24, 2013, 09:49:04 pm »
The great experiment
At last, drug prohibition is being challenged by fresh thinking

UNTIL recently it seemed that nothing would disturb the international consensus that the best way to deal with narcotic and psychotropic drugs is to ban them. Codified in a United Nations convention, this policy has proved impervious to decades of failure. Drug consumption has not, in most parts of the world, fallen. Prohibition inflicts appalling damage, through the spread of organised crime, the needless deaths of addicts exposed to adulterated drugs and the mass incarceration of young men.

Now a whiff of change is in the air (see article). Officials in two American states, Colorado and Washington, are pondering how to implement their voters’ decisions in referendums last November to legalise marijuana (cannabis). A dozen countries in Europe and the Americas have deemed the possession of some drugs no longer to be a criminal offence. A few Latin American presidents want a rethink of the “war” on the supply and trafficking of drugs.

Several forces are bringing change. First, public attitudes are starting to shift. Americans have seen that the widespread availability of marijuana for ostensibly medical use has not led to mass addiction. Polls show that around half now support full legalisation. In Britain, a poll this week found a similar proportion in favour of decriminalising cannabis possession.

Latin America is also tiring of trying to suppress production. That is not surprising: in several countries, the death toll associated with efforts to combat the drug business has risen to the level of a conventional war. Mexicans complain that the notion of “shared responsibility” proclaimed by international bureaucrats means that their people get killed whereas the United States, with its soft gun laws, arms the traffickers, launders their money and consumes their product.

Changes in the drug market, meanwhile, are undermining the idea that the problem can be dealt with only at an international level. Synthetic drugs, such as amphetamines and Ecstasy, are now more widely used than cocaine and heroin. Scientists dream up new “highs”, while the law lags. As a result, the neat distinction between “consumer”, “supply” and “transit” countries has broken down: the United States and Europe are big producers of cannabis and synthetics, while Brazil, formerly a “transit” country, is now the world’s second-biggest consumer of cocaine. That is leading to experimentation with drug policy at a national and state level.

The Economist has long argued that prohibition is illiberal in principle and harmful in practice, and that the least-bad way of dealing with drugs is to legalise and regulate their production and consumption. But we recognise that it takes a brave politician to face down the moral panic that surrounds the issue. This new thinking, though limited, is therefore welcome. Legalising consumption allows drug use and addiction (by no means the same thing) to be treated as the public-health issues they are. That in turn means applying the principle of harm reduction, for example by providing clean needles to addicts to prevent the spread of HIV.

But decriminalising consumption does nothing to break the grip of gangsters over the drug business. For that to happen, production and distribution also need to be legalised. That is why the experiment under way in the United States is so important. Colorado and Washington now have the chance to create a legal but regulated market in marijuana, similar to those for tobacco or alcohol. Their referendums approved sales of drugs through regulated outlets only, and not to minors. The states now need to design a way of taxing cannabis that discourages consumption while avoiding the creation of a black market.

This experiment has three potential benefits. It should help to determine whether legalisation boosts drug use. It will undermine Mexican drug gangs, which earn perhaps $2 billion a year from cannabis exports to America. And it might provide a model for regulating other, harder, drugs.

The feds should stand back

A threat hangs over the scheme: in 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on marijuana for medical use, even in states where this was legal, because of the risk that the drug would leak to other states. The danger of leakage will increase once this experiment gets under way. So it is encouraging that Barack Obama has said that he does not see prosecution of pot smokers in Colorado and Washington as a “top priority”, which means that he plans to do nothing for the moment. Since most of the benefits of legalisation will take a while to show up, it is to be hoped that he will hold his nerve.

One immediate consequence is that the United States will be in breach of the UN Convention. Good. It should now join Latin American governments in an effort to reform that outdated document to allow signatories room to experiment. Imposing a failed policy on everybody benefits nobody.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21572197-last-drug-prohibition-being-challenged-fresh-thinking-great-experiment
If it acts like a cock and a banner appears on the kop with its name written down the shaft of a cock, it probably is...

Liverpool FC - Toronto Supporters Club: http://lfctoronto.com/

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #423 on: February 26, 2013, 01:37:57 am »




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/afghanistan-opium-poppy-cultivation_n_2165055.html

Quote
Afghan efforts to stamp out opium poppy cultivation are failing because of high prices for the illicit crop, pushing farmers to grow 18 percent more in 2012 than last year, the U.N. said in a report released Tuesday.

Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium, the raw ingredient in heroin, providing about 80 percent of the global crop. Crop sales fund insurgents and criminal gangs  ;) in Afghanistan, making it difficult for the Afghan government to establish control in areas where the economy is driven by black-market opium sales.

Oh, what a lovely war it is.

Offline Quaid

  • Thinks clinical is cretinous. Takes one to know one.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,237
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #424 on: February 28, 2013, 03:03:37 pm »
Oh, what a lovely war it is.

Most of the Afghan troops the Western forces are trying to train are so strung up on opium and/or hashish they don't even know what day it is! Let alone how to combat the most organised terrorist force in the World.
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #425 on: February 28, 2013, 11:40:58 pm »
Most of the Afghan troops the Western forces are trying to train are so strung up on opium and/or hashish they don't even know what day it is! Let alone how to combat the most organised terrorist force in the World.

The heroin/opium problem has gotten much worse since the US forces arrives eleven and a half years ago.

Coincidence? You would be a terrorist and a conspiracy theorist to suggest otherwise.

Anywhoola,..

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/27/u-s-prosecutors-quit-and-side-with-cocaine-traffickers-to-fight-wrong-drug-policy/

U.S. prosecutors quit and side with cocaine traffickers to fight ‘wrong’ drug policy

US prosecutors and other senior officials who spearheaded the war against drug cartels have quit their jobs to defend Colombian cocaine traffickers, saying their clients are not bad people and that United States drug policy is wrong.

Senior former assistant US attorneys and Drug Enforcement Administration agents are turning years of experience in investigating, indicting and extraditing narcos to the advantage of the alleged traffickers they now represent.

“I’m not embarrassed about the fact that I changed sides,” said Robert Feitel, a Washington-based attorney who used to pursue traffickers and money launderers at the Department of Justice. “And I’m not shy about saying that no one knows better how a prosecutor thinks. That’s what people get when they come to me. There are lots of hidden things to know about these cases.”

The fence-jumpers include Bonnie Klapper, who was feted for taking down the Norte del Valle cartel, Leo Arreguin, who headed the DEA’s office in Bogota, and reportedly former members of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Ice. They work in separate legal practices with their own clients, not as a group.

In interviews with the Guardian, Feitel and Klapper spoke of recognising the humanity of their clients and called for alternatives to a four-decade-old “war on drugs” which costs billions of dollars and incarcerates thousands.

Feitel (pictured) called for cocaine and cannabis to be legalised and complained that extradited drug suspects were treated worse than Guantanamo Bay detainees. “I don’t think I could ever be a prosecutor again. The human drama that I see on this side is sometimes more than I can bear.”

The sight of high-profile former US officials visiting clients in Colombian and US jails has astonished observers in Colombia– which has long followed Washington’s lead on drugs – but passed largely unnoticed in the US.

Last December Arreguin, who was director of the DEA in Colombia from 1998 – 2003, tried to visit the alleged drug lord Diego Pérez, alias Diego Rastrojo, at his jail in Giron, Santander, but was turned away because he lacked permission, local media reported. Rastrojo, a former member of the Farc, is accused of commanding 800 hitmen and smuggling tonnes of cocaine. Contacted at his home in Virginia, Arreguin declined to be interviewed: “I have nothing to say.”

Feitel, who worked closely with the Department of Justice’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section until retiring from public service in 2009, said he grew frustrated with official bungling in drug-related cases. “I realised I no longer wanted to be part of this process. It was time to go. After 22 years, enough.”

He became a defence lawyer, started learning Spanish and uses his expertise to represent around two dozen Colombian clients from a DC-based office. “It’s hard to defend a Colombian on drugs trafficking if you don’t understand the predicate of how drugs trafficking currently works in Colombia.”

With Colombia’s justice system geared towards extradition suspects face intense pressure to trade information for a deal with US authorities before fellow arrestees do the same. “You can try to head off your problem by trying to hire a US lawyer and get ahead of the curve so to speak.”

Traffickers’ lawyers usually trade reduced sentences for information, but Feitel said he liked to fight cases if justified on merit. “Otherwise I’m just like everyone else. But I’m not because I was a prosecutor for so long.” He occasionally teams up with his wife, a defence attorney, and another colleague at a different firm. “We are fighters for our clients, we don’t just say to the government, OK, you can have it your way. I’m not in it for the theory, I’m in it to win. ”

Often government cases, when analysed, proved weak, he said. “My job is to try to maximise the ability of my clients to cooperate, if that’s what they want. And if they want to fight, then my job is to fight every single step once they come to the United States.”

He fought “tooth and nail” for Ramiro Anturi, a Colombian prosecutor accused of leaking information to traffickers. Anturi received an unexpectedly light sentence – 55 months despite the DEA trumpeting the case as evidence it would “not tolerate any acts that put our agents’ lives in jeopardy”.

Feitel said he was shaken by the “trauma” of suspects who were extradited to the US speaking no English, with no visits from relatives denied visas. “They have no one to hug them. There is a lot of human anguish that I had not previously seen. I’ve had clients whose parents have died while they’ve been in jail. It’s a pretty terrible fate to be extradited. While it might be defensible to do it to the leaders I don’t think it’s defensible to do it to the rank and file traffickers in Colombia. I find it really troubling.”

He said the US system punished traffickers not according to their importance but the quantity of drugs, meaning a truck driver nabbed with a big consignment could face a longer stretch than a capo caught with a lesser amount. The practise of squeezing information and sending traffickers back to Colombia after their sentence, Feitel said, left them vulnerable to revenge. “Sooner or later someone is going to get killed and that will deter others from talking.”

He said most of his clients had no history of violence but that even those implicated in kidnapping and murder were entitled to a defence. “I don’t represent people I don’t like. So I like all my clients.” The former prosecutor said he had some regrets about his previous career. “I try to grow with what I do. I think I would change certain things that I did.”

Former colleagues respected him for his honesty even though now they were on opposite sides, he said. “When we disagree, we do it like professionals. Agents are pretty savvy; they know when there are weaknesses in their case.”

As an assistant US attorney Bonnie Klapper, working from New York, earned a high profile in helping to dismantle the Norte del Valle cartel, a role publicised in the books The Takedown, by Jeffrey Robinson, and El Cartel de los Sapos, by Andres Lopez Lopez, a best-seller in Colombia which was turned into a telenovela and a film.

Klapper (pictured) retired from public service last February after 26 years and went into private practice with offices in New York and Miami. Two months later Colombian media reported her visiting La Picota jail in Bogota to see Andrés Arroyave, alias Máquina, a 25-year-old alleged drug lord accused of killing a lawyer and a DEA informant, among others, in revenge for his father’s murder. He has a reported $100m fortune.

In an email interview Kappler said she stopped being an assistant US attorney because of long commutes, threats to her life and meddling supervisors. “I don’t see that I have moved from one side of the fence to the other. As an AUSA, I never felt it was my job to obtain the harshest sentence; I always felt that my mission was to see that justice was done. I feel the same about my role now. The system only works when there are hard-working, honest people with integrity on both the government and the defense side.”

Former colleagues supported her switch, she said. “In fact, those with whom I worked previously are happy to see me on the other side, as they know they can trust me and I will capably represent my clients. The few negative comments I have heard have been either from agents (not AUSAs) who did not know me before.”

Unlike Feitel, Klapper said her new role had not really changed her perspective. “As a prosecutor, while I did prosecute a number of very bad, violent individuals, the vast majority … were good people who made bad choices.”

For the people she once pursued, and those she now defended, trafficking was a family business and route out of poverty, she said. “I have always felt that it was unfair of our government to place all of the onus on Colombians or Mexicans or Central Americans when the demand for the drugs comes from our own country.”

Klapper called for “more innovative solutions” to replace the drug war’s “endless cycle of arrests, prosecutions and convictions, where there is always someone waiting in the wings to take the place of the last individual convicted”.

Feitel was more emphatic in calling the drug war a failure, saying decades of effort, billions of dollars and countless lives had made no appreciable difference to the quantity of drugs on American streets. He urged federal authorities to legalise and regulate cannabis and cocaine. “And I say that even though it would be bad for my business.”

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #426 on: April 5, 2013, 10:17:07 am »

Offline TravisBickle

  • KnowsVotersAreFickle!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,808
  • RAWK n' Roll
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #427 on: April 5, 2013, 01:40:36 pm »
 Everybody should watch 'The House I Live In' by Eugene Jackery.

 It's a very informative documentary which takes a look at America's drug war from various points of view. Dealers and prisoners are interviewed as well as their families but also policemen, judges and prison guards. Although it's very informative, it's also deeply moving in places. If you have a couple hours free this evening, find it online and give it a watch.
"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea and he conquered the bloody world! And that's what I wanted; for Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Offline Quaid

  • Thinks clinical is cretinous. Takes one to know one.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,237
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #428 on: April 11, 2013, 04:02:50 pm »
Was going to start a thread with this but thought not enough people would be interested. Truly shocking stats in here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22091005
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Offline Canada Loves Anfield

  • Everything you do is a balloon
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,391
  • Born Under a Liverbird
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #429 on: April 12, 2013, 01:01:24 am »
Was going to start a thread with this but thought not enough people would be interested. Truly shocking stats in here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22091005

Thanks for sharing that. Very depressing.
If it acts like a cock and a banner appears on the kop with its name written down the shaft of a cock, it probably is...

Liverpool FC - Toronto Supporters Club: http://lfctoronto.com/

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #430 on: April 25, 2013, 10:53:40 am »

Offline Mumm-Ra

  • Dunking Heretic. Mexican drug runner. Can go whistle for a pair of decent trainees! Your own personal cheese. Yes.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,524
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #431 on: April 25, 2013, 05:45:54 pm »
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugpolicyreform

Has this just been released? I hadn't heard anything about it. Seems like a fairly monumental shift towards common sense.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #432 on: April 25, 2013, 10:23:06 pm »
Has this just been released? I hadn't heard anything about it. Seems like a fairly monumental shift towards common sense.

It does, doesn't it?

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #433 on: April 30, 2013, 12:53:15 pm »

Offline Quaid

  • Thinks clinical is cretinous. Takes one to know one.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,237
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #434 on: April 30, 2013, 01:07:27 pm »


That's amazing. Still they persist with their old fashioned and dated policies which have clearly been shown not to work after decades of trying.  :butt
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Offline WhoHe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,309
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #435 on: April 30, 2013, 01:31:02 pm »
I don't think the US wants to "fix" anything, they want an endless supply of cheap labour for the jails - owned by their "friends" in big business. The draconian drug laws and equally draconian sentences ensures this supply continues.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #436 on: May 2, 2013, 08:36:05 pm »


From the FUUUU thread but Picard makes a good point. I think the reason they can't admit it has medicinal qualities is that they would then have to change its federal status. The way the numbers are going in the US, though, it's only a matter of time. A dozen states have medical marijuana, a couple have legalised altogether and polling suggest a majority supports decriminalisation, for the first time since polling began. Rather like gay marriage, I suppose. Obama's trouble is that he was a well documented stoner in his teens so he can't be seen to be leading on this front.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #437 on: May 14, 2013, 02:41:15 pm »

Offline LiamG

  • He's loving angels instead. Cos through it all they offer him protection.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,176
  • Y.N.W.A

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #439 on: June 5, 2013, 03:52:14 pm »