War, what is it good for?

[ddoubleez]

No, not Iraq or afghanistan....

Lets talk about the drug war?

What is it good for? What do you think it is accomplishing, and is it worth the cost?

[Juan.Camaney]

Excellent topic, ddoubleez.

Who's war on drugs do you want to discuss? Which topics? Cartels, smuggling, nickle and dimers, manufacturing, or just a general discussion?

[fmb]

As long as you have cartels creating, smuggling, and dealing the drugs you have to have some type of war. At its base, the cartels are gathering huge sums of cash and not paying any taxes on the cash. Government should whip some ass right there. If I have to pay taxes, so should they. On a side note, to tax drugs means someone has to first legalize the drugs....


In all my years in emergency services, I never went on a home invasion/injuries call caused by a couple of potheads. It just ain't happened. Maybe potheads will rough you up for snacks to help with the munchies, but that's about it. Most small time users shouldn't be in jail. We have too many violent jerks that need those cells.


I think the government pays a huge, unneeded drug war tab. I think there are other ways of fighting drug use; the billions could go to other, more needed purposes.

[kulotsalot]

There is a safe injection site here in Vancouver called InSite. Yes, you can basically walk in and say I need my next dose of drug X and it will happen in a safe environment, with clean needles and such, without harassment or getting arrested or anything like that.

http://www.vch.ca/sis/

I love this initiative and am really glad that we can get past the "drugs are bad mmkay?" mentality and focus more on harm reduction and making the treatments and support services available to them at the same place where they shoot up, if/when they feel they want to explore those options.

I would say that cops in this city are fairly easy-going when it comes to dealing with people addicted to all sorts of drugs and they will pretty much leave you alone unless you are trying to cause a ruckus. They are used to dealing with people who usually have mental health + addiction issues and I think a lot of beat cops get to know the "regulars" in their respective blocks, especially in the downtown east side where the addicts and homeless people congregate. They seem to understand that these people are not the ones that they need to go after so it's great that they are pretty lenient. BUT of course this type of stance on drugs is not really accepted by all.

[gemo]

I don't think it has accomplished anything.
Drugs do create problems even if its because thier illegal or not. A drug addiction can become so extreme that a person only strives for the next fix and I have delt with it first hand before.

The government should continue the fight on drugs even if the outcome is slight. Its just the right thing to do.

[Krasch]

There is a safe injection site here in Vancouver called InSite. Yes, you can basically walk in and say I need my next dose of drug X and it will happen in a safe environment, with clean needles and such, without harassment or getting arrested or anything like that.

http://www.vch.ca/sis/

I love this initiative and am really glad that we can get past the "drugs are bad mmkay?" mentality and focus more on harm reduction and making the treatments and support services available to them at the same place where they shoot up, if/when they feel they want to explore those options.

I would say that cops in this city are fairly easy-going when it comes to dealing with people addicted to all sorts of drugs and they will pretty much leave you alone unless you are trying to cause a ruckus. They are used to dealing with people who usually have mental health + addiction issues and I think a lot of beat cops get to know the "regulars" in their respective blocks, especially in the downtown east side where the addicts and homeless people congregate. They seem to understand that these people are not the ones that they need to go after so it's great that they are pretty lenient. BUT of course this type of stance on drugs is not really accepted by all.
Yeah British Columbia is kinda funny that way.

Not sure we'd ever see that in Toronto, but it's an intriguing concept I must admit, even though I am vehemently against drug use.

[Juan.Camaney]

I honestly think we need more Los Pepes style people from back in the day. Mi Mexico....pobresito, there is just too much corruption and senseless violence because of it. A lot of it (which the media hasn't caught on to) has to do with the fact that marijuana is now legal and easy to get in several states here in the US which was their major market for bud. Now, all mexico is is a middle man with a border to the US and a bunch of people fighting over control of it.

Drugs have a lot of people involved in them. You have growers who grow weed or coca or opium, then you have people involved with getting the chemicals for the refining or setting up the meth labs, then the refiners, your packers, your mules, safe houses, distribution centers, people who cut the bricks and sell them, then people who cut and dilute for use on the street, nickle and dimers, enforcers for when deals go bad, money launderers, people in government who are in with them, on and on and on. Too many people have their hands in on the transactions and it is a lucrative job. Unless they decriminalize and regulate, you will never end this drug war. As it is, the government is trying to cut these people off and get you addicted to their drugs!

[ddoubleez]

I honestly think we need more Los Pepes style people from back in the day. Mi Mexico....pobresito, there is just too much corruption and senseless violence because of it. A lot of it (which the media hasn't caught on to) has to do with the fact that marijuana is now legal and easy to get in several states here in the US which was their major market for bud. Now, all mexico is is a middle man with a border to the US and a bunch of people fighting over control of it.

Drugs have a lot of people involved in them. You have growers who grow weed or coca or opium, then you have people involved with getting the chemicals for the refining or setting up the meth labs, then the refiners, your packers, your mules, safe houses, distribution centers, people who cut the bricks and sell them, then people who cut and dilute for use on the street, nickle and dimers, enforcers for when deals go bad, money launderers, people in government who are in with them, on and on and on. Too many people have their hands in on the transactions and it is a lucrative job. Unless they decriminalize and regulate, you will never end this drug war. As it is, the government is trying to cut these people off and get you addicted to their drugs!

Seems the corruption is so bad, mexican military are supporting drug traffickers, and have engaged in firefights with the border patrol... This is an actual act of war, and the US would be able to roll tanks if they wanted.

And the corruption does not end on that side.... There are hundreds of our boys in blue that have been caught lying under oath, lying for warrants, killing, etc..... A poll was taken of all the police in several border towns, and the question was asked how many fellow officers you would expect to be on the take, and the results of these polls were that 75% of those asked believed 75% or more were under the influence of drug money...

Yeah British Columbia is kinda funny that way.

Not sure we'd ever see that in Toronto, but it's an intriguing concept I must admit, even though I am vehemently against drug use.

I don't think many of us are interested in increasing drug use or even like it.. But many of the critics of the drug war have very convincing arguments that the policies of the drug war are actually increasing drug use... It certainly is not slowing it down....

Many critics are in favor of complete legalization so the price decreases, which will decrease the price, eliminating the incentive for criminal activity... This has proven itself true in amsterdam, UK, spain, BC, and Switzerland....

The theory is that the lowered price and legalization also stops the networking of junkies to turn other users on... This is a pyramid scheme that keeps the addicts hooked up... Think of it, why would someone try to get someone to try heroin, if they did not intend to sell to them later? And why would they need to sell any of their stash, if they could just have their government sell it at a reasonable price or give it away?

The networks of gangs would disipate, and the big money that drugs bring in would disappear for the members... I would assume that if gang leaders were broke and did not have as many reasons to fight for territory, these gangs would decrease in size and power.... We also would not have the problem of gangs moving from mexico and south america to cash in, if it were not for drugs...

Another angle to consider is that the US government tries to link drugs and terrorism.... They are half right here... If jane doe is hooked on coke or heroin, the plants have to be grown and proceed.... The middle east is famous for this, colombia as well... Terrorists get funding by taxing or running the operations.. They receive protection money and engage Narc officers in gunfights even..... But where the government has failed in their logic is that it is not actually the drugs or the users that empower the terrorists to make the cash, it is the policies of the drug war... If the drugs were manufactured here in the us, regulated and sold, no more terrorist revenue.... Members of the FARC in columbia make twice as much as the official military and have real benefits... How can you keep people from joining a terrorist organization or gang with that kind of money flowing...

Do we stop to think that if it were not for the war on drugs, which is a war on our own citizens, that we would have never had to have a war on terror... Where did all the money come from to train those fuckers that flew planes into the WTC towers? Fucking poppies, and not from the users in vancourver, or switzerland..... It had to come from illegal dope.... I am not old enough, but apparently, the hash that people were getting in the early 80's had stamps on them from the afganistan freedom fighters.... The war with the USSR was, in part, won by afganistan w/ drug funds....

[Juan.Camaney]

Seems the corruption is so bad, mexican military are supporting drug traffickers, and have engaged in firefights with the border patrol... This is an actual act of war, and the US would be able to roll tanks if they wanted.

And the corruption does not end on that side.... There are hundreds of our boys in blue that have been caught lying under oath, lying for warrants, killing, etc..... A poll was taken of all the police in several border towns, and the question was asked how many fellow officers you would expect to be on the take, and the results of these polls were that 75% of those asked believed 75% or more were under the influence of drug money...
Yep, sometimes its civilians in mexican military duds, but yeah, they are in it too. The famous Zetas of mexico are believed to be ex military that are doing the enforcement for the cartels.

A few weeks ago I read an article that the leader of a government entity in Sinaloa, a pacific coast state in mexico where a lot of movement goes on, suggested that all police and public servants be given drug test regularly. Everyone cheered and agreed. So then she says they should lead by example, brings some carts in with the kits, and everyone freaked out and left.

Honestly, the problem is too far gone.

[ravenshrike]

The drug war was started as nothing more than a protectionist racket for the alcohol and tobacco lobbies. It currently is used as an excuse for alarmist gun control and to deflect attention along with said alarmist gun control from the fact that failed social welfare policies are responsible for the current state of the inner cities.

[ddoubleez]

The drug war was started as nothing more than a protectionist racket for the alcohol and tobacco lobbies. It currently is used as an excuse for alarmist gun control and to deflect attention along with said alarmist gun control from the fact that failed social welfare policies are responsible for the current state of the inner cities.

Drug war was started by nixion, who wanted to have a reputation of taking a hardline on crime, this probably won him the presidency... Even though crime was and still is more a local problem, he inacted a federal program known as a drug war... It was futher escelated by regan.....

[ravenshrike]

The drug war was STARTED in the 1930's once prohibition ended. It was low-key until the '70s when various lobbyists for multiple reasons(not least a reaction to the dirty hippies, which in all fairness did tend to be quite dirty as lack of regular bathing will make a person) began to pressure Congress and the President to create some sort of agency to enforce existing treaties. It was not solely the brainchild of Nixon and in fact would have been started sooner or later because of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 1971 Convention of Psychotropic Substances, both of which were updates to the Paris Convention of 1931. It was further escalated, along with increased pressure from gun control groups in the 1980's during the Reagan Administration, in response to the perceived crack epidemic, which various black advancement groups were screaming about because they didn't want to face the actual cause of the 'crack' epidemic. Instead they blamed it on the drug, which combined with a bunch of nanny state road to hell NGOs and other advocacy groups pressure, led to the massive expansion of the DEA.

[ddoubleez]

The drug war was STARTED in the 1930's once prohibition ended. It was low-key until the '70s when various lobbyists for multiple reasons(not least a reaction to the dirty hippies, which in all fairness did tend to be quite dirty as lack of regular bathing will make a person) began to pressure Congress and the President to create some sort of agency to enforce existing treaties. It was not solely the brainchild of Nixon and in fact would have been started sooner or later because of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 1971 Convention of Psychotropic Substances, both of which were updates to the Paris Convention of 1931. It was further escalated, along with increased pressure from gun control groups in the 1980's during the Reagan Administration, in response to the perceived crack epidemic, which various black advancement groups were screaming about because they didn't want to face the actual cause of the 'crack' epidemic. Instead they blamed it on the drug, which combined with a bunch of nanny state road to hell NGOs and other advocacy groups pressure, led to the massive expansion of the DEA.

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/nixon.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/etc/script.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

http://www.janushead.org/6-2/Weimer.pdf

Nixon formed the dea and passed the 1970 controlled substance act. This layed foundations for multiple policies that distroyed the 4th and 5th amendments.. It left american subject to seizures and illegal searches.

There were drug laws in place, and there were some actions globally, most for economic reasons, but the war on drugs was started by nixon.... It was not until his that we were rounding up non-violent drug offenders on a large scale. It was not a federal program until nixion. The budgets were not anywhere close to what he put into action. I would also argue it would and did not start earlier, because people before nixion looked at the economics of prohibition and also people understood from the late 30's to the late 50's that prohibition does not work.. The alcohal prohibition was still in everyone's mind and no one sane would have gone through that nightmare again...

It was not gun control groups that escelated the drug war in the regan years, the fucking demicrats did not want to see reagan get all the credit for drug policy, so tip oneal stepped in and pushed policies through that mirrored policies that failed in the previous decades....

[ddoubleez]

Donald P. Scott

Donald P. Scott was killed during a police raid on October 2, 1992 as they attempted to serve a warrant to search for marijuana.

Early on the morning of October 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service entered the Scott's 200-acre (0.81 km2) ranch. [2] They planned to arrest Scott for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation.[1] When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me."[3] That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, bleary-eyed from a cataract operation -- holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head.[4] When he emerged at the top of the stairs, holding his gun over his head, the officers told him to lower the gun. As he did, they shot him to death. According to the official report, the gun was pointed at the officers when they shot him. [1]

Later, the lead agent in the case, sheriff's deputy Gary Spencer and his partner John Cater posed for photographs arm-in-arm outside Scott's cabin.[4]

Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana -- or any other illegal drug -- was found

Scott's widow, the former Frances Plante, along with four of Scott's children from prior marriages, subsequently filed a $100 million wrongful death suit against the county and federal government. For eight years the case dragged on, requiring the services of 15 attorneys and some 30 volume binders to hold all the court documents. In January 2003, attorneys for Los Angeles County and the federal government agreed to settle with Scott's heirs and estate for $5 million, even though the sheriff's department still maintained its deputies had done nothing wrong. [5]

Michael D. Bradbury, the District Attorney of Ventura County conducted an investigation into the raid and the aftermath, issuing a report on the events leading up to and on October 2, 1993. [1] He concluded that asset forfeiture was a motive for the raid. [6][7]

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department issued their own report in response, clearing everyone involved of wrong doing while California Attorney General Dan Lungren criticized District Attorney Bradbury. Sheriff Spencer sued D.A. Bradbury for defamation in response to the report.[4] The court ruled in favor of Michael Bradbury and ordered Sheriff Spencer to pay $50,000 in Bradbury's legal bills

[ddoubleez]

In a more publicized case, while getting ready for her government job in downtown New York City the morning of May 16, 2003, Alberta Spruill walked into the main room of her Harlem apartment as a dozen officers from the city police's Emergency Service Unit and regular patrol converged on her home. Told by a confidential informant they'd find a cache of guns and drugs, guarded by dogs, the ESU team battered open the front door and chucked a stun grenade into the room Spruill had just entered. The device exploded with a concussive, deafening bang above a glass-top table, instantly shattering it amid a blinding white flash. Then, with whip-sting speed, six tactical officers rushed the dwelling and handcuffed a coughing and screaming Spruill.

As operations go, up to this point the raid went flawlessly. But police were soon puzzled to find neither guns nor drugs in the home of the 57-year-old, churchgoing grandmother. The snarling guard dogs had apparently taken a powder as well. As it turned out, the informant had been less than accurate. The cops had the wrong apartment. But that didn't stop Spruill from dying of a heart attack within hours of the raid -- literally scared to death.

[ddoubleez]

Government documents report dozens of armed incursions into Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California

By Michael Webster Investigative Reporter: Jan 10, 2008 6:00 AM PST


Judicial Watch has released a federal document which reveals that there were dozens of armed incursions by Mexican soldiers and police into the United States during 2006. Mexican Army Crossing Border, Again! watch!
The Washington-based organization which is known for its investigating and prosecuting government corruption cases around the country says they have proof and it documents 29 confirmed incidents along the U.S.-Mexican border involving armed Mexican military and Mexican law enforcement. To read the current report, click here

"These documents not only show the dangerous and chaotic situation at the Mexican border, but also the complicity of some Mexican government agents in violating U.S. law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"The U.S. government must begin to take these incidents more seriously, publicize them and take measures to bring the crisis at our border under control," he said.

The report documents incidents such as this one at the Fort Hancock Station in El Paso as reported in the El Paso and Laguna Journal.

"[Troopers] attempted to apprehend three vehicles believed to be smuggling contraband on I-10 … As the vehicles approached the border, [troopers] stated that a Mexican Military Humvee armed with a .50 caliber weapon and several soldiers were seen assisting smugglers return to Mexico … Officers then noticed several armed subjects dressed in fatigue type clothing unload the contraband into the Humvee. These subjects set fire to the stalled vehicle before leaving the area."
Judicial Watch noted that of the 29 documented instances, 17 involved armed Mexican government agents.

The report also shows "On Sept. 16, 2006, a Border Patrol Agent assigned to the Calexico, California Station observed an individual in an olive drab uniform with a possible Mexican flag on the shoulder approximately 100 yards north of the International Border near the Calexico [Port of Entry]. The individual appeared to be carrying a sidearm... "

It's not as though the situations are new, but Judicial Watch spokeswoman Jill Farrell said it appears the U.S. government's policy on such cases is to count them and file the paperwork.

The document also states that between 1996 and September 30, 2006, there were 253 confirmed incursions into the United States by Mexican government personnel. The government has documented shots fired on both sides of the border, unmarked helicopters invading U.S. airspace, drug smuggling and actual confrontations between U.S. Border Patrol agents and armed members of the Mexican military.

One of them happened near Brownsville "As the boat proceeded to go down river towards the scene, the [Border Patrol] Agent on board advised via radio that several Mexican soldiers were pointing their rifles in his direction. The agent decided for his safety and the safety of the crew to turn back, but advised that the soldiers were still aiming at them."
Another case found a "Mexican Military boat" that was "providing security and escort for the two others that were later found to be transporting 2,716.53 pounds of marijuana."

"We've had armed showdowns with the Mexican army," said a border agent who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These aren't just ex-military guys. These are Mexican army officials assisting drug smugglers." In one incident, more than 16 Mexican soldiers were arrested by border agents in a small town west of El Paso, in Santa Teresa, N.M., after Mexican soldiers fired on the agents, said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. None of the agents was injured in the gun battle, and U.S. State Department officials forced the U.S. Border Patrol agents to release the soldiers and return them to Mexico with their weapons, Bonner added. "If (Mexico) is going to put military across our border to threaten our guys, and if their own government can't control it, then we should be treating this as an act of war," he said.

"It seems as if, once again, the government is failing to secure our border," Farrell said.

Farrell told the press that the government needs to take such situations seriously, and make sure the public knows. Her group, which obtained the federal reports through a Freedom of Information Act procedure, believes there are some real concerns about the border crisis, she said.

"You would think that the State Department or DHS [Department of Homeland Security] would be involved," she said.

Revealingly, the U.S. government report notes that many of the incursions were both "armed" and "intentional" and cited one incident in a location where construction of a security fence was incomplete.

In another case near Yuma, two uniformed Mexican police officers advanced onto U.S. soil and spent some time there "before walking back south into Mexico."

Previous government documents obtained and released by Judicial Watch note that such "incursions" have been documented in sectors including San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson, El Paso, Columbus, Mafa, Laredo and McAllen.

When contacted by the Journal White House officials would not comment on the incursions or specific's and referred questions to officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

Kristi Clemons, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, would not confirm the number of incursions, but told the Journal the department is in ongoing discussion with the Mexican government about them.

[MaxZorin]

America loves to go on war, no matter the issue. If it´s war against drug, then you gonna take the more advantage you can. Think about Colombia. They even get into the country, running undercover operations and deploying bases to "fight" against drug lords. Yeah Right!! All the do is settle bases to ensure political control over certain areas so nothing get off their radar.
Once again, the war is used to keep control over the masses. And the real use of this? Simply...NONE.
If you wanna fight against drugs, please feel free to do it, but within your borders please.