Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if the "War on Drugs"--or more correctly, Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions' NEW war on drugs--was to end, we might see the end of that KKK member being in charge of The US Justice Department.
But, please don't feel bad about tiny Jeff's potential job loss. He could always return to his former position as Keebler's Chief Elf.
As with any massive societal transformation, we really can't anticipate what would happen. It is perhaps this fear of the unknown that keeps so many otherwise neutral (or at least not strongly partisan) people leery of calls for change.
As for "the elites", I am not convinced that there's some insidious conspiratorial factor keeping the proverbial common-man down. To reason is that "the elite" is not monolithic; some persons of considerable wealth and influence would prefer one set of policies, while another set would prefer its negation.
Beyond upsetting big pharma, having racist excuses to imprison/exploit minorities, lining the pockets of the elite and wasting trillions of course.
Of all the wars in human history, has there ever been a war as pointless for the common person as the war on drugs? What would it mean if it were to truly end and no one were jailed/imrpisoned for any drugs and the likes of the DEA and the ATF were completely disbanded?
There is no war on drugs. There's only a war on drug consumers.
That's why the prisons are full of users instead of drug lords (and corrupt politicians and officials).
If people want to kill themselves doing drugs, have at it. If they turn violent or bothersome they can be put away.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
Give them feeding centers, a shelter for bad weather and they can live that way.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. If someone wants to live their life on drugs, the rest of us should not have to provide for them simple because they choose not to provide for themselves.
There would be no high risk factor for the cartels to exit and their cash flow would be cut off.
They'd just do what the mafia did when Prohibition was ended: seek other revenue streams. For the cartels, this would mean more emphasis on human trafficking, both in terms of illegal immigration and the sex trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
The government doesn't want the war ended because there's big money involved. Sizing down government power isn't on the menu.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
