Well, now.

[Bud Helms]

I've got to say, being on the same side of an issue as Liberal Socialist Walter Cronkite makes me real nervous, but I was struck by this powerful article. Some truth mixed in with some partial truth?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/cronkite022306.cfm

Why I Support DPA, and So Should You: As anchorman of the CBS Evening News, I signed off my nightly broadcasts for nearly two decades with a simple statement: "And that’s the way it is."

To me, that encapsulates the newsman’s highest ideal: to report the facts as he sees them, without regard for the consequences or controversy that may ensue.

Sadly, that is not an ethic to which all politicians aspire - least of all in a time of war.

I remember. I covered the Vietnam War. I remember the lies that were told, the lives that were lost - and the shock when, twenty years after the war ended, former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara admitted he knew it was a mistake all along.

Today, our nation is fighting two wars: one abroad and one at home. While the war in Iraq is in the headlines, the other war is still being fought on our own streets. Its casualties are the wasted lives of our own citizens.

I am speaking of the war on drugs.

And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: the war on drugs is a failure.

While the politicians stutter and stall - while they chase their losses by claiming we could win this war if only we committed more resources, jailed more people and knocked down more doors - the Drug Policy Alliance continues to tell the American people the truth - "the way it is."

I'm sure that's why you support DPA's mission to end the drug war.

You see, I’ve learned first hand that the stakes just couldn’t be higher.

When I wanted to understand the truth about the war on drugs, I took the same approach I did to the war in Vietnam: I hit the streets and reported the story myself. I sought out the people whose lives this war has affected.

Allow me to introduce you to some of them.

Nicole Richardson was 18-years-old when her boyfriend, Jeff, sold nine grams of LSD to undercover federal agents. She had nothing to do with the sale. There was no reason to believe she was involved in drug dealing in any way.

But then an agent posing as another dealer called and asked to speak with Jeff. Nicole replied that he wasn’t home, but gave the man a number where she thought Jeff could be reached.

An innocent gesture? It sounds that way to me. But to federal prosecutors, simply giving out a phone number made Nicole Richardson part of a drug dealing conspiracy. Under draconian mandatory minimum sentences, she was sent to federal prison for ten years without possibility of parole.

To pile irony on top of injustice, her boyfriend - who actually knew something about dealing drugs - was able to trade information for a reduced sentence of five years. Precisely because she knew nothing, Nicole had nothing with which to barter.

Then there was Jan Warren, a single mother who lived in New Jersey with her teenage daughter. Pregnant, poor and desperate, Jan agreed to transport eight ounces of cocaine to a cousin in upstate New York. Police officers were waiting at the drop-off point, and Jan - five months pregnant and feeling ill - was cuffed and taken in.

Did she commit a crime? Sure. But what awaited Jan Warren defies common sense and compassion alike. Under New York’s infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws, Jan - who miscarried soon after the arrest - was sentenced to 15 years to life. Her teenage daughter was sent away, and Jan was sent to an eight-by-eight cell.

In Tulia, Texas, an investigator fabricated evidence that sent more than one out of every ten of the town’s African American residents to jail on trumped-up drug charges in one of the most despicable travesties of justice this reporter has ever seen.

The federal government has fought terminally ill patients whose doctors say medical marijuana could provide a modicum of relief from their suffering - as though a cancer patient who uses marijuana to relieve the wrenching nausea caused by chemotherapy is somehow a criminal who threatens the public.

People who do genuinely have a problem with drugs, meanwhile, are being imprisoned when what they really need is treatment.

And what is the impact of this policy?

It surely hasn’t made our streets safer. Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people...disproportionately people of color...who have caused little or no harm to others - wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime, or catching white-collar criminals.

With police wielding unprecedented powers to invade privacy, tap phones and conduct searches seemingly at random, our civil liberties are in a very precarious condition.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this effort - with no one held accountable for its failure.

Amid the clichés of the drug war, our country has lost sight of the scientific facts. Amid the frantic rhetoric of our leaders, we’ve become blind to reality: The war on drugs, as it is currently fought, is too expensive, and too inhumane.

But nothing will change until someone has the courage to stand up and say what so many politicians privately know: The war on drugs has failed.

That’s where the Drug Policy Alliance comes in.

From Capitol Hill to statehouses to the media, DPA counters the hysteria of the drug war with thoughtful, accurate analysis about the true dangers of drugs, and by fighting for desperately needed on-the-ground reforms.

They are the ones who’ve played the lead role in making marijuana legally available for medical purposes in states across the country.

California’s Proposition 36, the single biggest piece of sentencing reform in the United States since the repeal of Prohibition, is the result of their good work. The initiative is now in its fifth year, having diverted more than 125,000 people from prison and into treatment since its inception.

They oppose mandatory-minimum laws that force judges to send people like Nicole Richardson and Jan Warren to prison for years, with no regard for their character or the circumstances of their lives. And their work gets results: thanks in large part to DPA, New York has taken the first steps towards reforming the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws under which Jan was sentenced.

In these and so many other ways, DPA is working to end the war on drugs and replace it with a new drug policy based on science, compassion, health and human rights.

DPA is a leading, mainstream, respected and effective organization that gets real results.

But they can’t do it alone.

Americans are paying too high a price in lives and liberty for a failing war on drugs about which our leaders have lost all sense of proportion. The Drug Policy Alliance is the one organization telling the truth. They need you with them every step of the way.

And that’s the way it is.

Sincerely,

Walter Cronkite

P.S. Why does this reporter support the Drug Policy Alliance? Because they perform a service I value highly: When no one else will, they tell it the way it is, and they do so on one of the most important but least discussed issues in America today.

Just as they did in Vietnam three decades ago, politicians know the War on Drugs is a failure that is ruining lives. Please help the Drug Policy Alliance tell the truth about the war on drugs - and get our nation on the path toward a sensible drug policy.

...

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/cronkite022306.cfm

[exar]

i'm sorry but i had to stop reading about the individual cases half way through because it makes me sick:barf: Prohibition is the enemy of freedom. Legalize.

[Sir William]

I favour the Russian solution. I support the use of the death penalty for dealers. I do not support the waste of resources/finances to treat drug abusers when our senior citizens cannot afford their needed prescriptions.

[Twycross]

Prohibition lasted 13 years (1920-1933). How long has this 'war on drugs' been going?

I also didn't like the personal stories. They would be fine if used as examples to flesh out some actual data, but those were just emotional appeals. Kudos to the DPA, but they aren't going far enough.

[BreacherUp!]

But then an agent posing as another dealer called and asked to speak with Jeff. Nicole replied that he wasn’t home, but gave the man a number where she thought Jeff could be reached.

An innocent gesture? It sounds that way to me. But to federal prosecutors, simply giving out a phone number made Nicole Richardson part of a drug dealing conspiracy. Under draconian mandatory minimum sentences, she was sent to federal prison for ten years without possibility of parole.

and..

Then there was Jan Warren, a single mother who lived in New Jersey with her teenage daughter. Pregnant, poor and desperate, Jan agreed to transport eight ounces of cocaine to a cousin in upstate New York. Police officers were waiting at the drop-off point, and Jan - five months pregnant and feeling ill - was cuffed and taken in.

Did she commit a crime? Sure. But what awaited Jan Warren defies common sense and compassion alike. Under New York’s infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws, Jan - who miscarried soon after the arrest - was sentenced to 15 years to life. Her teenage daughter was sent away, and Jan was sent to an eight-by-eight cell.

My ass. One was transfering calls for her dealing beau, the other was the mule. Cronkite, bleed my heart out you old fart.
Exar, "dude, like drugs should be legal and stuff. F the gov'mint." Whatever. this is a gun forum, not an illegal drug legalization forum. And if it becomes one of these, well I'll be the 1st to resign.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by BreacherUp!

Whatever. this is a gun forum, not an illegal drug legalization forum.

Wrong. This particular forum of The Firing Line is called Legal and Political for a reason: "Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues"

Simply because you don't think federal drug laws are an issue doesn't mean they are not. That's your opinion and others are entitled to theirs.

Congress has no authority under the Constitution to pass Drug laws that are binding upon the 50 states, except as it affects interstate commerce. What goes on solely and wholly within a State is the States business, not the fed.gov.

Should a State pass such laws, I have no quarrel. But when the feds, through coercion, force the States to pass reciprocating laws, then I have a problem.

The Commerce Clause (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 3) has been overused, abused and extended to cover anything a citizen might do through the mechanism of some, almost always, imagined nexus to interstate commerce. And that sir is related to our guns. As it is exactly this abuse of the Commerce Clause that is at the root of all our modern (post 1938 FFA) gun control laws.

The very fact that you don't seem to be able to connect the dots, means to me, that you haven't studied the question.

Read Justice Thomas' dissent on Gonzales v Raich. Compare that to the Majority Decision and the twists and turns the majority uses to justify nullifying a State law.

I suggest you also read the starting point of this mess: Wickard v Filburn.

And if it becomes one of these, well I'll be the 1st to resign.

When the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted, we citizens were guaranteed that it would be used only to fight the Mob. Organized Crime. Funny thing about that, small time crooks are routinely charged with RICO while the "Big Boys" pretty much have free reign.

We were told that the PATRIOT Act would only be used on terrorists. Now we are being told it is a vital tool for Law Enforcement to use against petty crooks.

Mission Creep. Civil Rights abuses under color of law as sanctioned by nine black robes.

If civil liberties mean so little to you, then you, sir, are no friend to the gun rights crowd.

[Redworm]

My ass. One was transfering calls for her dealing beau,

How do you know that? How do you know that she wasn't just giving a guy a phone number because her boyfriend wasn't home? Let's say one of the guns you own suddenly becomes illegal under some ridiculous law. A BATF agent calls your home to find out where you are and confiscate it but your wife answers. She give the agent a way to reach you and in doing so winds up with ten years in a federal prison.

If it's the law she'd deserve it, right?

I favour the Russian solution. I support the use of the death penalty for dealers. I do not support the waste of resources/finances to treat drug abusers when our senior citizens cannot afford their needed prescriptions.

Death penalty for someone that commits a crime in which there is no victim? How does selling a bag of pot hurt anyone? If you hate drug dealers so much then I would imagine the proprieter of your local liquor store should recieve the death penalty as well, no? His peddling of such horrible and dangerous intoxicants like alcohol and tobacco are more than enough to warrant the ending of his life.


Right?

[Sir William]

IF they were selling to abusers, alcoholics, minors and violent fights, injuries and deaths were the DIRECT result, yes. I feel the same should apply to bartenders as well.

[BreacherUp!]

Antipitas, how can you babble things like..

The very fact that you don't seem to be able to connect the dots, means to me, that you haven't studied the question.

when you are stating this ..

Funny thing about that, small time crooks are routinely charged with RICO while the "Big Boys" pretty much have free reign.

and

We were told that the PATRIOT Act would only be used on terrorists. Now we are being told it is a vital tool for Law Enforcement to use against petty crooks.

Who is actually unable to "connect the dots" as you say.

If civil liberties mean so little to you, then you, sir, are no friend to the gun rights crowd.

More BS. How can you draw reference to legalisation of narcotics to crushing the civil liberties of the masses? Please.

[Redworm]

IF they were selling to abusers, alcoholics, minors and violent fights, injuries and deaths were the DIRECT result, yes. I feel the same should apply to bartenders as well.

Minors, I agree. Though one must remember that the term "minor" means different things in different states depending on the subject.

But not only is a drug dealer, or bartender for that matter, sometimes going to be unable to tell if his customer is an abuser, an alcoholic, or what that person will do when high but even if he does the responsibility should still lie solely on the person. If a bartender knowingly gets a guy plastered and that guy ends up killing someone in the parking lot the bartender should lose his job but to think that he should be killed for that is barbaric.

[DonR101395]

"But not only is a drug dealer, or bartender for that matter, sometimes going to be unable to tell if his customer is an abuser, an alcoholic, or what that person will do when high but even if he does the responsibility should still lie solely on the person. If a bartender knowingly gets a guy plastered and that guy ends up killing someone in the parking lot the bartender should lose his job but to think that he should be killed for that is barbaric."


In many states the bar owner and bartender are liable in civil court. Would I be opposed to making them liable in criminal court. Nope, but you're mixing apples and oranges. Last time I looked selling, buying, possessing and using alcohol was a legal activity in all 50 states. LSD and cocaine aren't legal to sell, buy, use or posses, pregnant Jan transported drugs she broke the law intentionally and knowingly then got caught open and shut. Poor little Nicole chose to live with a drug dealer, his crimes encompassed her. Guess she has ten years to think about her stupidity. I feel no sympathy nor empathy for either. Nobody held a gun to their heads and made them do anything. They chose their lifestyle and are now paying the price. Their is no constitutional right to do drugs before I get hammered with the government is trampling and abusing our rights bunk.

[pipoman]

Their is no constitutional right to do drugs before I get hammered with the government is trampling and abusing our rights bunk.

This mindset is IMO the most damaging to our freedom of all. People have been made to believe that the Constitution lines out what the people can and can not do. "If you are not given the freedom by the Constitution the freedom does not exist." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The Constitution Limits the Government not the People. If the Federal Government is not empowered by the Constitution to have jurisdiction specifically, that jurisdiction is left to the States.


The abuse of the Commerce Clause is going to bite every person in this country if some rulings don't come down limiting this catch all.

I favour the Russian solution. I support the use of the death penalty for dealers. I do not support the waste of resources/finances to treat drug abusers when our senior citizens cannot afford their needed prescriptions.

I can't even believe Sir William is serious with his "Killem All And Let God Sort It Out" position. What about when it is your kid or grand kid, neighbors kid, niece, nephew who does something stupid, makes a mistake are you going to pull the trigger?

[pipoman]

This particular forum of The Firing Line is called Legal and Political for a reason: "Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues"

BTW Thank you TFL for having this area. This is the best political forum I know of. Most political forums are left, right, libertarian, socialist, communist, etc. If you do not espouse beliefs shared by the forum you are not welcome. What fun is that? At TFL we are allowed to discuss these issues with others who do not agree with us. Healthy debate is good.

[DonR101395]

"This mindset is IMO the most damaging to our freedom of all. People have been made to believe that the Constitution lines out what the people can and can not do. "If you are not given the freedom by the Constitution the freedom does not exist." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The Constitution Limits the Government not the People. If the Federal Government is not empowered by the Constitution to have jurisdiction specifically, that jurisdiction is left to the States.


The abuse of the Commerce Clause is going to bite every person in this country if some rulings don't come down limiting this catch all."


You can't have it both ways, saying the constitution guarentees the right to bear arms, freedom of speech etc. Then claim the constitution has no bearing on what you can or can't do. I agree with you that it limits what the govt can do. However, it has also given us our legal system, who are the same individuals that we have elected and made drugs illegal. If someone wants drugs to be legal all they have to do is find enough people who agree with them and get drug friendly people into office. So far that hasn't been done and I don't see it happening anytime in the future. So, that would lead me to believe that the majority of Americans do not want drugs legal. I'm don't claim to be a scholar, but I can see that over the last 20 years there are more states with CCW friendly laws than there were in the previous 40 years and that is because people wanted CCW friendly laws. If those same people wanted drugs to be legal they would be legal.

[pipoman]

DonR101395

This comes back to the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

There are states who have had decriminalization of marijuana consistent with the desires of their residents. Oregon, Alaska, California and others. These State laws have been overridden by the Federal Government due to the bastardization of the Commerce Clause. If the people of California want to legalize pot, who cares. It should be left to the state where the people actually have some control.

I don't care if drugs are legal or not, I don't use them legal or illegal. I see drug use as generally a victimless crime. If someone commits a victim crime to support their habit, prosecute them for the crime. I feel there are several areas which would be more cost effective (in fact profitable) if they were legal with restrictions. Gambling, prostitution, drugs to name a few.

What if...the same group of intellects who have put together the firearms laws in D.C. and NYC find a way to use the Commerce Clause to enforce their restrictions on your state? This could actually happen.

[tyme]

You can't have it both ways, saying the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, freedom of speech etc. Then claim the constitution has no bearing on what you can or can't do.

I don't understand why you think those views are incompatible.
The first 8 in the bill of rights comprise a non-exclusive list of protected rights.

I agree with you that it limits what the govt can do. However, it has also given us our legal system, who are the same individuals that we have elected and made drugs illegal.

Please explain why the government needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol if it doesn't need one to ban some other drugs.

If someone wants drugs to be legal all they have to do is find enough people who agree with them and get drug friendly people into office.

If someone wants guns to be legal, all they have to do is find enough pro-gun people and vote them into office...
If someone wants the internet to be tax-free, all they have to do is find enough pro-internet people and vote them into office...
If someone wants gay marriage to be legal, all they have to do is find enough pro-gay-marriage people and vote them into office...
If someone wants gambling to be legal, all they have to do is find enough pro-gambling people and vote them into office...

I'm sure you can see the problem with this. First, it is rule by majority... a thinly-disguised democracy. Second, even if a majority of people supports legalization of A, B, and C, there is almost never a majority that supports legalization of all three.

The kind of government you're talking about is a non-Constitutional Republic, where people elect reps who can pass whatever laws they want. That's more or less the government we have today. Sure, the SCOTUS and lower courts strike down laws on occasion, but thanks to FDR it's the exception rather than the rule, even though the number of blatantly unconstitutional pieces of legislation has skyrocketed since 1938.

This is not the kind of government that was intended by the founders.

[Redworm]

You can't have it both ways, saying the constitution guarentees the right to bear arms, freedom of speech etc. Then claim the constitution has no bearing on what you can or can't do.

The Bill of Rights does not guarantee the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc. Those rights, by definition of the word "right", are inherent to human beings and guaranteed by our sentience. Nothing more. What the Bill of RIghts does is tell the government "ok, these are the rights that people are born with and you're not allowed to screw with them". The Constitution does not have a bearing on what we can and can't do as it defines what the government can and can't do.

However, it has also given us our legal system, who are the same individuals that we have elected and made drugs illegal.

Do you know why those drugs, especially marijuana, were made illegal in the first place? Ever heard of the racist Henry Anslinger? Have you ever seen some of the really old drug commercials that claim smoking pot will turn a man into a homicidal maniac or, even worse, get white women to sleep with black musicians ( )? Both the public and the politicans were lied to by the people most able to profit off prohibition.

So, that would lead me to believe that the majority of Americans do not want drugs legal.

Not only does the majority of America not even vote but in our system of government "majority rules" is not the final authority.




edit: here ya go http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...reefer+madness

Reefer Madness. This was the kind of advertising used to convince people that this evil mexican weed known as marihuana was going to ruin the American dream (for the white people, at least).

[okiejack]

It's too bad Walter Chronkite has no credibility with me. Chronkite was never a war "reporter". Chronkite fabricates reality using news as a prop.

[invention_45]

Twycross:

I think it started sometime in the late '30s. It was definitely on during the '50s.

In the '70s it was given the Madison Avenue name War on Drugs.

So, the answer to your question is "a long time".

Now, if guns have nothing to do with drugs, I'm very curious to know why there are so many laws that make it a serious crime to be in possession of both together.

Could it be that some of the liberties that US citizens want to defend is their right to happiness, and that if drugs make them happy they're prepared to defend their right to use them with guns?

Could it be that some of the very people you appear to dispise most are some of the ONLY people actually USING the 2nd amendment the way it was intended to be used? The 2nd is being defended, and you're not in on it?

Not being a drug user, that isn't me. But the very presence of a gun in the home of a drug user suggests that perhaps there's already a sort of a micro-insurrection already going on.

I can tell you this.

If I should ever get onto a jury and find that I'm trying a drug user who has defended his home against ANYBODY busting in for ANY reason, he'll either walk or I'll hang the jury.

And thanks again, exar, for calling it by its correct name: Prohibition.

[tyme]

Could it be that some of the liberties that US citizens want to defend is their right to happiness, and that if drugs make them happy they're prepared to defend their right to use them with guns?

That's a rather interesting and amusing way of looking at it. OTOH, it doesn't apply to the most violent among drug-involved persons... the dealers don't do drugs very much. They're in it for the money, which is another potential means to achieve happiness.

[invention_45]

Well, yes, but if Prohibition were gone, the drug dealers would be Walgreens and CVS. Drug users could pursue their happiness. Drugstores could pursue theirs, too. The seedy, violent drug dealers would be out of business.

[mthalo]

Keeping it real simple here.
Drug users use drugs because they want to feel good. Many of them can't feel good without them, which is why they don't "just say no". It's a form of mental illness.
Our solution, throw them in jail! Don't try hand help them to feel good without the drugs, just throw them in jail!

It's pretty amazing that so many of us support the right to use deadly force to defend our personal property, yet believe it's correct to put people to death for wanting to feel good.

I favour the Russian solution. I support the use of the death penalty for dealers. I do not support the waste of resources/finances to treat drug abusers when our senior citizens cannot afford their needed prescriptions

The Russian mob seems to be making a decent living, both here and in Russia, through drug dealing. They don't seem to be deterrered.
I believe (in hushed tones) they may be making so much money that they can afford to pay corrupt officials to look the other way!
We waste so much on the completely ineffective war on drugs every year that could go towards both treating drug abusers and helping seniors get their needed prescriptions.
Ya think?

[SIGSHR]

I have seen it suggested that one way to fight the war on drugs is to intercept shipments of controlled substances, lace them with something nice and legal, and put them back on the streets. In 1950, something like 60% of
adults smoked, the figure I saw for 2000 was 28%. A big reason why spending on public education is such an obscene waste of money is becaus so
many students and teachers are dopeheads. I also note that the constant
misuse of the word "war" is that it cheapens and dilutes a word that should stand for something awful.

[invention_45]

Time for a thought experiment.

Let's intercept, assuming we can for the sake of argument, 60% or so of all incoming illegal drugs. Lace them with, oh, ricin. Then send them on their merry way.

This is not rocket science. The possibility of doing this has been around for a long long time. So why hasn't it been done?

That's easy. Kill all the drug users and you kill the industry. That means all the drug dealers go out of business. But then so do all the drug testing labs, both forensic and employment. And so do all the drug raid swat teams. And so does DARE. And so do all the mandatory drug treatment programs. And so does the DEA and probably half the FBI and 1/3 of the CIA. All the technology companies that develop those neat portable nanogram drug-detecting sniffer machines that retail for $40,000 apiece. And all the home drug screening kits to check your kid's pee with. And all the doctors who live off writing pain killing prescriptions. And every single politician who campaigns against drugs.

So. This is never-ever going to ever ever happen.

The drug trade is the most profitable to the most people just the way it is.

[Rimrock]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

When the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted, we citizens were guaranteed that it would be used only to fight the Mob. Organized Crime. Funny thing about that, small time crooks are routinely charged with RICO while the "Big Boys" pretty much have free reign.

We were told that the PATRIOT Act would only be used on terrorists. Now we are being told it is a vital tool for Law Enforcement to use against petty crooks.

Mission Creep. Civil Rights abuses under color of law as sanctioned by nine black robes.

If civil liberties mean so little to you, then you, sir, are no friend to the gun rights crowd.

I wish I had said that!!!!!!!
Rimrock