http://www.pcrichard...

(I'm workin' on it :))

As for that party, yeah, well he actually talked me into a corner, asking me what Bush has done that was so great. Frankly, I couldn't answer, so he felt he won. But THAT was not the issue. It was my outrage -- and rightly so -- that someone should so proudly announce at a party that he'd be happy (even throw a party, I remember him saying) if Bush were to be assassinated. Not a moment's thought that maybe, just maybe, that could offend someone. Not to mention, it's just the most radical and over-the-top loony-left crap -- disturbing, even, and so deeply rooted in irrational anger and hatred. And it's not funny, either, as people really mean it. Believe me, he did. He envoked Hitler, too, and Nazi's. I just had enough. I was steamed.

Shawn, would you put a foot down to this sort of nonsense? Or would you nod away like the others? Really curious. You can dislike your president all you want, and you can even say that crap, but then you'll also upset rational/sane people like me, naturally.

I might seem to despise Hillary, for example, but I'll guarantee that I'll never half-jokingly, even (but again, so many people really DO want Bush dead -- it would bring them satisfaction) say something like that if she were my president, no matter how awful she is, or if she dragged us into a war, let's say. She's my president, for one (can't believe I'm drumming up this scenerio :p)

We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos

I can address the camara issue seeing as I'm in law enforcement. The camara usage isn't advocated by the police it's a way for politicians to attempt to increase the police force without actually hiring police officers.

Unsane...once again you deserve high marks for your impressively articulated, tightly-reasoned arguments.  But we are now into the fifth decade of the most expensive "war" in the nation's history--an endless campaign which at best might be classified a staggeringly frustrating stalemate, and, at worst, a monumental disaster.

We have fought the good fight, but it may be a case of the strategy being fundamentally and hopelessly flawed.  Perhaps it is time for a radical departure from the failed policies of the past and for a determination that we try something different.

And despite your eloquent defense of the status quo, some of your points erode its underlying thesis:

--Indiana Joe highlighted the significance of your observation that alcohol consumption remained at reduced levels after Prohibition.  In other words, ending the war on alcohol did not spawn tens of millions of liquor-addled derelicts to wreak havoc on society.  This is not to minimize the societal harm related to alcohol, or to suggest that drug legalization would completely eliminate the myriad social ills attributable to drug use.  But it's time we seriously weighed the comparative costs between a continuation of present policies versus the implementation of a decriminalization, regulation, and education model. 

--your "legalizing murder" analogy may be useful in a theoretical sense, but, from a practical standpoint, it merely reminds one of the relentless, pervasive violence which illegal drug trafficking has foisted upon us, while soaking our streets, and neighborhoods, and cities with blood from the casualties of a dubious "war"

--you suggest we "should try harder"...that we "aren't punishisg the abuser".  Really?  Speaking on behalf of "America And Its Criminal Justice System", may I just say "been there...done that".  You probably were not yet born, much less a Texas resident, when the judges of that state were notorious for handing down draconian sentences [twenty years and more] for the mere possession of a single joint.  It may have acted as a temporary and localized deterrent [the Chinese at one time decapitated traffic offenders and hung the severed heads at intersections as a warning to would-be violaters...I understand that jaywalking was considerably reduced in Peking], but such farcical drug sentencing eventually dissipated public respect to the point where a decidedly more reasoned approach eventually prevailed.  Our jails and prisons are already filled beyond capacity with hundreds of thousands convicted of drug offenses.  If we begin meting out long sentences to casual users, our legislatures would need to appropriate mammoth sums [and raise taxes] in order to build skyscraper prisons. 

--I am certainly not an advocate for drug usuage.  But I am an advocate for a more rational approach to a problem which hasn't responded to militaristic solutions.  Consider this:  What if, by some miracle, we actually won the war--or a phase of it--in the theatre of cocaine trafficking.  Do you think the coke users, abusers and addicts would say "Well, we lost...the party's over.  Let's all get to work now on a cure for cancer."  Don't kid yourself.  Meth labs would triple in number.  Diet pills would be crushed and mixed with paint thinner.  And many of those former cocaine users would get hooked on even more dangerous substances.  We need to address and attack the disease, and the billions of dollars which are currently being wasted chasing an uncatchable prey could be redirected for education, treatment and rehabilitation purposes. 

     Finally, the stigma attached to drugs is not unjustified, but it is sometimes unnecessarily exaggerated.  After all, the most illustrious figure in your state's history, and the namesake of your city of residence, was reputed to have frequently smoked opium.  In fact, there are historical accounts of Sam Houston sharing an opium pipe with Santa Anna after his triumphant victory at San Jacinto securing Texas independence.  So, I guess it's possible to achieve greatness despite an ignoble habit.

Jer

4) Searches, in some places (airports) are already quite intrusive.
The inquisition that must be gone through at Customs is also quite
intrusive. And yes, a kilo or so of coke will get through every now
and then...but drugs are also subject to the laws of economics. If
only the luck occasional kilo of coke gets through, what does that do
to the street price? It goes way up, and perhaps out of the reach of
even the most whacked-out junkie. So increases the economic incentive
of going "clean".

This is the exact point the original poster made, you just came away with the wrong (idealistic?) lesson.

"If only the luck occasional kilo of coke gets through, what does that do to the street price? It goes way up, and perhaps out of the reach of even the most whacked-out junkie. So increases the economic incentive of going "clean"."

Cocaine street prices are about $100/gram right now. In the late 70s, when the street price was about the same, pharmaceutical cocaine cost about $5 for 1/4 pound (113 grams)! The price is already astronomical, due to the illegality. This is why there is so much other crime attached to drug prohibition. Dealers routinely "cut" coke (with God knows what) and could make up any shortfall merely by cutting it more. Maybe raise the price too, sure. But I think the "economic incentive" created would, for many, be the incentive to steal more to support the habit.

"In that case, we could consider legalizing murder. Why? Because look at all the time and effort we put into preventing and deterring murder, yet they keep happening, and have been since - dare I use the phrase? - Cain whacked Abel."

Maybe I haven't been clear here. I'm not proposing that the way to reduce crime is to "make crime legal." The crime I feel would be reduced is the other crimes attributable to the WOD: murder, robbery, muggings. The fact that people lose their public spaces to "Needle Parks." The thefts junkies perform to get their "fix." That's why I started with the comparison to Prohibition. We're all familiar with the organized crime spawned back then. I submit we're witnessing a replay. With the added "bonus" of crimes against normal citizens, motivated by the high cost created by the prohibition of these drugs.

Legalization would lead to better control, of both purity and strength. Many of the ODs that another poster mentioned are caused by unexpectedly purer drugs. AND the prices would naturally be much less, due to the loss of the risk involved in dealing. Without a profit motive, the dealers would stop killing for the right to sell in a certain "territory." The users would not have to steal in order to support their habits. It would still cost SOMETHING, but much less than now.

In PA, and maybe other places, nearly all alcohol sales are confined to "state stores." I envision a similar treatment of legalized drugs. Not private distributors, but government control at the point of distribution. Coke, for instance, could be taxed substantially and still be magnitudes cheaper than currently. So we save on DEA etc., and also generate income.

Not a great closing here, but I have to run!