Take that Obama, and the race baiting poverty [bleep].

http://www.cnsnews.com/video/national/oreilly-americas-race-problem

He ain't wrong on this one.

Right on the money but the race baiters and exploiters don't want to hear it and the white apologists won't admit it.

He's 99% spot on. My only departure is his seeming lack of understanding that drugs being illegal creates a market for pushers which adds to the criminal culture.

Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner.

The only well known voices with the courage to deal with this are O'Reilly and Cosby. The Washington crowd and MSM either lack courage (Republicans) or are getting re-elected/paid (Dems/MSM)by avoiding the root issue.

He nailed it. Outstanding. Great to hear the truth spoken, even if only once in a blue moon. However, he left out the roll of welfare in driving black men out of the home. Read Charles Murray's "Losing Ground". Yes, its +25 years old, but its not out dated. The welfare state has destroyed the black family, and white families are the next target---with the help of the sodomy rights movement, of course.

That was good.

He's never been better than that...

Avoiding?? They created it.

The demoncrap party arose from the Klu Klux Klan. Noting violence only made a people stronger, and that biting the hand that feeds is not a common trait, they killed any motivations to get ahead and destroyed black families with welfare, particularly Aid to Dependent Children which has willingly relegated the Black race to a third world existence in the greatest country in the world.

O'Reily is totally correct in all he says regarding the Black problem, but he leaves this out.

You do realize that the video is almost a year old, right? As I recall, it cased a minor uproar, and the reverends sharpton and jackson went back to making money off of racism.

Good post, Hawkie.

Many don't understand that you can't get rid of something you don't like just by making it illegal and throwing fortunes away.

Hawkeye:

How would you propose society deal with the drug problem? Genuinely curious as to your solution.

Jordan

stopped clock is right 2x per day

There are inherent problems associated with liberty. One is that folks will make bad choices for themselves. What's worse, though, is making those bad choices illegal, unless that bad choice is directly to violate the rights of another. If it's primarily something you're doing to yourself, then trying to outlaw it only creates a huge criminal market for it, and a huge criminal culture to fill that market. Along with that comes lots of money in the hands of criminals with which to corrupt our police, government, and ultimately our society.

The "solution," therefore, is to repeal all Federal laws that seek to outlaw victimless crimes (none of which are authorized under our Constitution anyway). If states wish to pass or retain such laws, that's less harmful in both the short and long runs, because in the short run folks can move to states that have laws more to their liking, and it's good in the long run because states with ill considered laws will suffer their consequences, thus providing a natural pressure to eliminate bad laws and imitate successful states.

Well put Hawkeye!

Many folks just don't, won't or can't understand the concept of freedom.

But how will this make things better? Everything I've seen and read says drug consumption and addiction (with all its attendant problems and negative externalities) will go way, way up. Are you sure your proposed "solution" won't make the problem worse?

In many ways. In addition to the ways I already explained above, there would be no drug war constantly pumping up the police to ever greater levels of power to disregard our fundamental rights. This will save tremendously on the cost of police forces, as well, since drugs being legal will also suddenly be cheap, thus no need for the commission of crimes to support habits, and no gang wars over drugs, since drugs would no longer be particularly profitable in the underground economy.

But what I am interested in is the negative externalities associated with increased drug use. Without question, drug use will skyrocket. How is that a "solution"?

Another good post!

Will you start snorting coke, shooting heroin or smoking meth Rob, just because it's legal?

I know I wouldn't...

I work in the court system. I see first hand the personal carnage that methamphetamine wreaks in the lives of people who use it. At least four things happen: their health goes to [bleep] (which means I have to pay for their decision to abuse drugs); their kids turn to [bleep] (which means I have to pick-up the tab for them too); they turn to property crimes to feed their habit (which means they steal my property and I have to pay for police protection and jails in consequence of their behavior) and finally, they can't work, which means I have to buy their groceries and pay their rent.

So if drug use goes way up (which it will with legalization, don't kid yourself) then these negative externalities will also skyrocket.

How is that situation a "solution"?

Wrong!

I agree with Bill Buckley on this question, viz., "I came to the conclusion that the so-called war against drugs was not working, that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we are accustomed and to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony. And that therefore if that war against drugs is not working, we should look into what effects the war has, a canvass of the casualties consequent on its failure to work."

"I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."

No. Neither would I start committing pre-meditated murder if they outlawed capital punishment. But many people will to decide ingest drugs once they are legalized based on that criteria alone (i.e., its no longer against the law). All of the research affirms this. I know of no social scientist or even informed lay person who thinks otherwise.

I am just asking how TRH's proposal is a solution. Maybe it is, but he really hasn't addressed my question yete.

You're evading the question---and no young person is serving a life sentence for selling a few ounces of MJ. (Would that it were true?! ) I notice that Sri Lanka and other such counties have very little problem with drugs.

In our county and (surrounding counties) there are massive social service structures in place who are quite busy taking custody of children who are horribly abused and neglected because their parents are meth heads. Our jails are quite well populated with men who beat their wives (and their kids) while high on meth. The case load for these service and police agencies is going to go way up in certain respects with legalization. How is that a solution? Just askin.

Rob---You are so wrong it's not even funny. The fact that you work and derive your income from the "court system" is enough impetus for you to continue with your war on drugs. Without the failed war many jobs like yours would dry up.

I understand your position better now. It's not supported by your care of freedom or your love for your neighbor but rather it's founded in the need for self-preservation. In this case $$ money $$.

As Buckley said 1) the War On Drugs is, according to all measures, an abject failure, and 2) there have been highly undesirable consequences to our society which have been observed since the start of the War On Drugs, which he gave a few good examples of. That's enough for me right there. Logically, there's no need in my opinion to proceed further than that in order to convince any reasonable, liberty loving, American to see the wisdom of drug legalization for adults.

Drug use regarding the hard and deadly drugs will not go up. If anything, it will go down. Lots of people start drugs BECAUSE it's illegal and provides a thrill. Take that away and I believe in the long run fewer will get involved. Most everybody knows the issues that come with meth, crack, and heroin. None of those issues encourage use, but some get caught up just because they went in for the thrill of doing something illegal. Probably started with pot and found their life ruined when they got involved with the real [bleep].

You can never have a worse society with more freedom, but that would also require that entitlements be severely curtailed as they are contra-freedom and responsibility not only encouraged but mandated.

Re-read my posts. All I have done is ask questions!! None of which have been answered.

Every piece of social science research on the subject says it will go up, way up. Many, many people do not use or consume less than they otherwise would due to the fear of apprehension. Wherever drug use has been de-crimialized, consumption has dramatically risen. Look what happened when we legalized alcohol.

Horseschitt. Those with a propensity to use drugs will. Those who don't wont. Just like alcohol and alcoholics.

The only thing legalization will do is undermine the black-market profits that the dealers and suppliers are exploiting now.

When was the last time you heard of liquor merchants having a shootout or organizing into criminal organizations?

BTW, since we are exhibiting our bona fides, I too work in the legal industry on the street where it all takes place.

Right. But is precisely my concern for my liberty that has me asking these questions. If consumption skyrockets (which it will) then all of tne negative externalities associated with increased drug use and addiction will also skyrocket. (See my posts agove.) WHO PAYS FOR all THAT!!! Can you guaruntee me that my taxes will not go up in consequence?? Can you promise me the roads will be safer, the environment for my children better with millions of meth heads running around? Its not sufficient for me to simply have you quote Bill Buckley.

Rob---I did re-read your posts and I don't want this debate to go south because I think you're a good guy but on this issue I KNOW you are completely wrong.

Your war on drugs has been a failure and you admit that it has been.




How could that be Rob? It's illegal and your "war on drugs" is the solution.

BTW---The jails are full and the court system is overwhelmed BECAUSE of the war on drugs. I don't think that legalizing all drugs will make those folks predisposed to drug use stop nor do I believe that non drug users will begin shooting heroin. What I do know is that those in jail for possession wouldn't be clogging the system for victim less crimes.

Funny you ask. Alcohol abuse is a huge problem where I live. As a consequence we see: increasd health care costs, increased domestic violence (I would estimate 90% of our DV cases are alcohol or drug related), increased intra-family conflict and dysfunction and increased risk to public safety from intoxicated drivers. Interestingly, DUI's have decreased nationally with mandatory license suspension (i.e., mandatory, harsher punishment).

...and reduce crime and furlough a bunch of LE.

This is old news.

Read though his talking points and you will see that he has been finding these �acorns� for years.

He can�t walk on water and does not always hit home runs, gun control and the Second Amendment would be his weakest link.

But his home runs are awesome and he reaches out farther to more people than anyone I can think of.

No, they're not. That's a myth. California has practically legalized possesion of hard drugs. Anyone caught gets diversion or treatment. Drugs aren't a major resource problem for law enforcement and the courts in my neck of the woods.

Not just LEO but attorneys, counselors, jailers and other gov't tit sucking leaches.

Exactly.

You my friend are full of contradictions.

Well, in truth, we barely even punish drug use and the sales of illegal drugs in this country. So, I'm not sure how much of a war is being waged.

Here's my solution. If we're going to legalize drugs, then here's the deal: if you're using drugs, no welfare, no food stamps and no free medical care. Those benefits are reserved for people who are in a condition to be able to hold a job (if one is available---i.e., people who aren't dope fiends). If you can use drugs and be a productive member of society, have at it. In other words, let the natural consequences of drug abuse work their magic (nature, expelled with a pitchfork, always returns). Why should I pay to rescue someone from his bad decisions and habits?

I was hoping one of you professed lovers of liberty would propose this, but you seem more concerned about needing a boogeyman to attack than proposing constructive solutions.

Rob--- I agree with you 100%.

PS...Liberty lovers don't need a "boogeyman to attack" when there are plenty of Republicans, neo-cons, rinos and other assorted mouth breathers yelling about the sky falling with additional freedoms.

Sorry. Didn't mean to come across as attacking you. We agree on quite a lot, and I have little objection to what you said there, apart from my being opposed to all forms of government managed welfare programs, not just those for people on drugs.

So far, not Exactly working out so well in Colorado.

Oh, and one more: if you're using dope (other than doctor prescribed pain meds), no social security disability check either. Also, you want to be a crank whore?, No [bleep] driver's license either.

Am I going to far.

I can't understand why anybody would want to legalize hard drugs. Right now we have laws that make a standard in society, and generally make this country a decent place to live. Keeping drugs illegal keeps it out of sight, so decent folks like myself can raise a family without it right out in the open.

Calvin makes a damn good point. What kind of environment are we creating for his (and our kids) when every third family is cooking meth on the kitchen stove and junior is coming to school with open sores on his face? Just askin'.

LOLOL.

Everything is out of sight when your eyes are closed.

Meth was developed because of the high price of other recreational drugs. The cost is less because you don't have to transport it through an interdiction gauntlet to get it to market, as it's made in the area where it will be marketed. Legalize drugs, and no one will be making meth. Too dangerous to manufacture, and there will be better, cheaper, options available.

Really? I believe the more appropriate look-back is what occurred as a result of prohibition.

You can't save people from themselves, but neither can you prevent horrific and spiraling unintended consequences when the government extends itself in an attempt of doing exactly that.

As you are a part of the government, particularly in enforcement, I'd have to respectfully conclude you are too close to the problem, which is government, to recognize the solution, which is certainly neither the status quo or more laws.

Well said.

They need to re-run that segment nightly.

Gunner

My biases are only relevant if you can first demonstrate where my analysis is wrong. I don't have a problem with de-criminalization per se, but here is what is going to happen: in addition to increased consumption, increased taxation to pay for treatment; increased welfare and other social costs to compensate for the increased negative externalities. Government won't get smaller: it will increase to deal with the increased negative externalities. I believe I am the one here who proposed that if we decriminalize, we must also cut-off all social and welfare benefits to users, otherwise, the tax payer is subsidizing their addiction (their use to the point where they are useless for employment and such). Problem is, that won't happen: decriminalization will be accompanied by taxes for treatment and interdiction, education and more welfare for the drug-addled dope heads who "can't work" because the dope made them "disabled".

Mark my words. That is exactly how it will play out.

Jordan