Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Prison Nation

Your comment above seemed intelligent to you,didn't it??

You're right.

Different people mean different things by the word "unconstitutional." Particularly, there are two different meanings that have been used in this discussion and ones like it.

One meaning is, "having been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court and the legal establishment."

The other is, "obviously contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution by anyone with at least a fifth-grade education."

The War On Drugs is not and will never be unconstitutional by the first meaning; but it always has been unconstitutional by the second meaning.

We need two different words.

I don't know what party you belong to, but when you're running for office this election why don't you bring your drug thoughts to the platform? I doubt a candidate will crash any faster than those that spout your nonsense on drugs....

Great way to avoid the issue, Stan.

Can you or Isaac show, from real data, that the 'war on drugs' has actually done anything to reduce drug use or drug related crime in the US?

No one here is arguing that drugs are good. We are arguing that the current 'solution' isn't working.

And to address the election issues, Isaac and I have already been down that road.

If the only thing you care about is being elected, you become Hillary Clinton and say whatever you think people want to hear, even going so far as to contradict yourself.

Sometimes the truth is not popular, but that doesn't make it any less true. And you'd be surprised how many people, when they have the real facts, accept that the current system is not working. Also, the voters typically don't look at a single issue.

I am running to win, but I am not going to compromise my beliefs because some people might not like them. If that means I lose, then that is democracy. I won't abandon my principles just to win.

Some of us don't form our moral positions or our principles based on what is popular. Nor do we toss them away when inconvenient.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has the war on drugs worked as a country, probably not, has it worked in various communities, yes it has.

I've seen the statistics and actual fisthand working knowledge in certain counties within this state regarding Meth. to know that it's working due to certain laws and increased enforcement. The same with outdoor marijuana grow operations years ago, increased enforcement worked.

Has it made a difference across the nation, don't know i am leary of some Govt. statistics.

I know what the citizens in my community want, they want it gone, how ever and whatever it takes to reduce or eliminate if possible. These citizens are probably more conservative, then the majority across the nation.

No, Tod, I'm not talking about the users, I'm talking about the destroyed, uninhabitable neighorhoods, the old people hiding behind barred doors and windows, unable to protect their meager possessions from the criminals, the twelve year old girls pimped out by their crackhead mothers, the children dropping out of school to deal, the addicted babies born......giving society's blessing to crack by legalizing it would make all theses problems worse, not better.

It depends on what you consider the 'war on drugs'. Here in Montana we have had a pretty successful education campaign against Methamphetemine - one that I fully support.

I think what many of us are dismissive of are increased penalties and longer jail times for users - an outgrowth of the whole 'zero tolerance' mentality. It costs about $25,000 of taxpayer dollars to keep one person in prison per year. Our average incarceration rate in the US is right around one percent of the entire US population. This is about 4x the rate of incarceration of Red China. And yet we still lead the industrialized world in both drug use and crime. By contrast we can look at countries like Holland that have very liberal drug laws, and yet have much lower instance of drug use.

What can we draw from this? Probably that all the increase emphasis on harsher punishment and more time in prison has little or nothing to do with fixing the problem.

Another poster said it well in that it is in large part about money. We used to be a nation of problem solvers. Now we are all about how to make money from the problem, which de-incentivizes fixing the problem in the first place. This is easy to see in a number of industries. Take for example the pharmaceutical industry. At one time, the thrust of research was cures. Now most drugs are about treating symptoms rather than fixing the underlying problem. Why cure a disease when we can sell a drug that tales care of the symptom - and sell it to you for the rest of your life?

The war on drugs is remarkably similar. Why fix the problem when we can 'control' it and make money at the same time, whether directly as profits, or indirectly as bigger agencies, more funding, newer and sexier equipment.

For Stan and Isaac, don't mistake a philosophical discussion which flows from principles from a real political issue.

Firstly, the drug war isn't really even on my agenda. Government waste, government spending and government intrusion are. From my political perspective, the drug war is a financial issue. We have (thankfully) a requirement for a balanced budget in our state. That means we have to either raise taxes or cut funding to add new programs.

In that case, the drug issue becomes one of resources. When the state wants to launch a new program or build a new prison, the question is all about 'how will it be paid for'? and 'is this a good use of public money'? What other program will we cut to pay for it, or what new tax will we impose. And finally, will the tax payer get value for their money

So as far as pitching it to the voters, it plays very well. You might be in favor of the 'war on drugs' as long as it's purely a philosophical issue. But when you tell them that taxes have to be raise to do so, and by the way, it isn't really going to fix anything, you get a very different response.

Basically, you cannot win the war of 'supply and demand' - which is what the drug war is about - by cutting off the supply. Inmates can get drugs while in prison. If you can't stop people in prison from getting drugs, what makes you think you can stop it in the 'outside' world? The only solution is to cut demand. In the mean time, you can take away the incentive of the drug dealer. Take away his profit, and you take away his ability to bribe, buy his guns, cigarette boats, airplanes and his influence.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Govt. waste, fraud/abuse etc. does the state of Montana have term limits on elected officials at the city/county/state level?

This is one of the biggest areas of corrupt Govt. in the world, the career politician. Many people do a great job a term or two, they go to crap. I'll refer it as retired on active duty, i see so many cases of this, it's a shame.It's very hard to beat a long standing politican, by a newcomer.

If the state doesn't, this in itself from the city/county/state level, will make one of the biggest differences in local/state Govt.

Are you certain. If drugs could be obtained cheaply and safely, then addicts would not have to rob, or prostitute themselves to feed their addiction.

No one is advocating having society 'give it's blessing'. Cigarettes are legal, but we don't encourage their use. I think what many of the people who are advocating decriminalization realize is that by removing the profit incentive for dealers, we can eliminate a great deal of derivative crime related to drug use. That certainly seems to be the case in most of Europe, where drug use is treated as more of a social and medical issue than a criminal one.

You are aware that there are a large number of addicts in this country who are actually able to lead functional and productive lives - mostly because they are able to pay for their drugs without resorting to crime. People tend to view drug users as 'crack whores' and similar types, when in fact many of us have then as friends. Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict.

There is, without a doubt, a drug problem. The real issue is not even about legalization. It's about the failure of the 'war on drugs' Your comments only make my point for me. We have increased penalties, and put more people in jail, and yet the problem is still there.

I'm a problem solver by nature. We've spent 25 years pursuing a strategy that hasn't accomplished anything. That tells me that it's time to try something else, and stop wasting time, effort and money on a program that doesn't work.

Yes.

But ultimately every level of government has term limits. The voters are free to change office holders at any time. While I don't have any issue with term limits, it is ultimately up to the people to decide when to keep and remove their officials.

It goes without saying that the above assumed free and fair elections.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is true in a perfect world regarding citizens having the right to remove officials by a vote. But in the real world these career politicans are so good as BS artist's that unless you, know from the inside or have intell. as to what goes on in their offices, you'ld think that they were pearly white.

I've seen many elected officials, who'll spend more time keeping the lid on situations and doing damage control, then doing their elected job. Many voters are uninformed or just vote a name versus seeing the whole picture.

All the things you mention are directly caused by the Federal War On Drugs. Make them all legal tomorrow, and you would pull the rug out of the whole criminal infrastructure of drugs. Yes, those determined to destroy their own lives with drugs would still be there, but drugs would be cheap, as affordable as Indian reservation cigarettes, so they wouldn't need to rob for their fix, and no one would be motivated to live life on the edge just to supply them with their fix, since there'd be no profit in it. You want to know the cause of all the ills you describe, just look in the mirror. It's the people who support the unconstitutional war on (some) drugs.

Gee Tod,

Even Montana attributes it's success to the "War On Drugs". Tell your fellow citizens your theories now, sport!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Montana leads the way in U.S. success in curbing meth
In two years, the state dropped from fifth to 39th in the use of the illegal drug. Its secret: good advertising.
By Tom A. Peter | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the March 27, 2008 edition

Reporter Tom A. Peter discusses the shock messages created by the Meth Project.In 2005, Montanans were leaving home � not because they were fleeing the state for better prospects; they were going to prison. The Treasure State had the fastest-growing prison population in the United States, fueled largely by a methamphetamine epidemic. Half of its male inmates and two-thirds of its female inmates were incarcerated for meth-related crimes.

Today all that's changed. Instead of struggling with America's fifth-worst meth problem, the state now ranks 39th. Teen use has declined 45 percent; adult use is down 70 percent.

Montana's experience is a dramatic example of success in America's war on drugs, especially against meth. In a report confirming the drop, 8.4 million workplace drug tests across the United States showed a 22 percent decline in meth use from 2006 to 2007 and a 19 percent drop in cocaine use over the same period. Overall, according to the report by Quest Diagnostics earlier this month, 3.8 percent of the tests indicated an illicit drug � the lowest level since the Madison, N.J., company began publishing results in 1988.

Two keys to the change in the US are better enforcement strategies and prevention education, experts say. But they caution that the improvements may not last if efforts flag.

"The bottom line is that the war on drugs continues," says David Crane, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law in New York. But "it's like grabbing onto water. Every time we grab onto it, it goes right through our fingers or diverts and goes somewhere else."

For example, the same Quest report that showed a nationwide decline in meth and cocaine use also found a 5 percent rise in amphetamine use, which could indicate that some users are switching to milder drugs.

One factor behind the drop in meth use is better antidrug advertising, experts say.

"It becomes this idea of unselling a product," says Steve Pasierb, president and CEO of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the nonprofit group in New York that produced the famous "This is your brain on drugs" public-service announcements. "Instead of driving up perception of benefit, we drive perception of risk. Instead of driving up social acceptance, we drive social disapproval. And what you find is you literally move consumers away from your product."

That's the approach of the Meth Project, a nonprofit Montana group that blanketed television stations, newspapers, billboards, and Internet sites with drug-prevention ads starting in 2005.

"The intention is to treat meth like a consumer product," says Nitsa Zuppas, executive director of the Siebel Foundation, which funds the Meth Project. "If you educate consumers about the attributes of the product then they'll make a more well-informed decision."

One of its TV spots, for example, showed a teenager selling his girlfriend into prostitution for meth money. The project is now active in six states.

The other crucial factor behind the decline of meth use is a shift in federal drug-enforcement strategy, experts say. Efforts now focus less on stopping individual criminals and more on interrupting the business of trafficking drugs.

In the past, "the typical way this was understood was as a criminal case: ... find somebody who was a criminal, collect the evidence that they are indeed guilty of trafficking and related charges, try to find other people who are involved with them," says John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Now, enforcement efforts are more systematic, placing greater focus on disrupting supply lines, he adds. States and the federal government tightened access to chemicals used to make meth by, among other things, limiting over-the-counter purchases of certain medicines.

The supply squeeze has created a meth shortage, almost doubling its street price over the course of last year.

Still, some worry that these successes may be short-lived. President Bush's proposed 2009 budget calls for big cuts in drug-treatment and prevention programs, says Arthur Dean, chairman and CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, based in Alexandria, Va.

Nah, you're running into one of the internal inconsistencies of the representative democracy here.

On the one hand, the message is that the people are too stupid, or too distracted, or too uninformed, or too wicked, to make good decisions for themselves, so they need politically astute representatives, whose full-time job is to know about and deal with political matters, to speak for them.

On the other hand, the message is that the people are wise and vigilant and honest and altruistic enough in all circumstances to choose the correct representative for themselves.

(And that's even admitting the completely untenable democratic stipulation that a plurality--which in most cases turns out in real life to be a very small minority--can speak for the whole.)

At least one of those messages is false. Advocates of term limits claim the first is false; opponents of term limits claim the second is false.

In real life, of course, it's a false dichotomy because it's based on false premises.

It cracks me up the way the Ladies Guild uses "unconstitutional" as a synonym for "policy I don't like"........ignoring the real world definition of the term

C'mon, isaac...did you even read that article?

It makes Tod's argument, not yours!

Notice how they really wanted to be able to say that "better enforcement strategies"--I'm guessing more home invasions by jackbooted thugs, although they could conceivably mean something else--were responsible for the change, but they couldn't make it stick? They succeeded in giving "better enforcement strategies" first billing, but it had to share the spotlight with "prevention education;" and most of their article is spent on the successes of education rather than enforcement.

As a matter of fact, the only "success" they were able to come up with for enforcement was raising the street price of meth. That, of course, means that meth addicts who are already past the stage where "prevention education" can affect them will be forced to commit more crimes and victimize more innocent people to get enough money to support their habits. That's not actually a success at all.

From that article, it looks as though "prevention education" is working to reduce the number of people interested in using meth, while "better enforcement strategies" do nothing but increase crime. (Which may--who knows?--be the ultimate objective after all: people who are scared of increased crime are more willing to give up their liberties to the government in exchange for promises of protection.) So...maintain the "prevention education" and legalize meth, and you get the best of both worlds: fewer people becoming addicted to meth, and the existing hopeless addicts able to buy a day's fix for a dollar or two rather than a hundred or two.

I'm surprised you've managed to live as long as you have if you can't interpret media reports any better than that.

That's your read Barak. I read the enhanced penalities for conviction, education and increased LE patrol and enforcement were all factors, and, of course, they are all elements and protocol of the WOD. Thinking I'm making someone's argumant for them might be one slant but spinning the article to suggest it states something it does not, is rather weak.

PS..You equate life's longetivity in correlation to how one interprets media reports? WOW...how long does one live if they spin them the way you do?

Yep Tod...You keep on campaigning in Montana that the WOD ain't working and the government should stay out of it. After all the real solution lies solely with the moms and dads!!Barak, and of course, Hawkeye, who adopted Barak's wisdom, stand for the proposition that if mom and dad give permission for their kid to use...why should the government intervene? I guess they didn't factor in mom and dad being major users themselves. Or, they did, which would merely serve to magnify their silliness and clouded judgement.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Keep Montana kids safe, keep families drug-free

Preventing drug abuse prevents child abuse and neglect.

Yellowstone County statistics reconfirm the connection between parental drug addiction and harm to their children. Among 109 civil abuse and neglect cases filed by the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office in a year, 60 percent involved neglect because of parental methamphetamine use. Another 10 percent of all cases primarily involved parental alcohol abuse. Parental drug addiction also is a factor in some abuse cases.

Julie Pierce, a deputy county attorney who works with the Yellowstone County Family Drug Treatment Court, said the majority of parents in that court are addicted to meth; the rest are addicted to alcohol. This week, the court was working with about 10 families and 20 children. All of the families landed in the treatment court because parents' addictions contributed to child abuse or neglect.

The county attorney's office also prosecutes criminal cases against adults who harm children. Contrary to popular belief, it's rare that the person attacking a child is a stranger; usually it's someone the child knows, according to Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza. Assault cases against children often involve young adults who have little training in parenting, Souza said.

The 2007 Montana Legislature and Gov. Brian Schweitzer recognized the harm that meth causes to children by passing and signing Senate Bill 85, which adds methamphetamine to the state's child endangerment statute. It is now a felony to have meth or attempt to manufacture it anywhere that a child under age 18 is or reasonably might be, such as a house, apartment building or motel room. This endangerment statute gives prosecutors an extra tool to protect children from meth and provides a penalty for those who expose children to the drug: up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, or 10 years if a child is seriously injured.

Last year, the state Child and Family Services Division substantiated 1,154 cases of child abuse or neglect. The number was lower than the previous year, but it still reflected an increase of 257 cases over the 2002 total. Also in 2006, the division received 26,852 calls related to abuse and neglect, entered 15,161 reports, initiated 8,905 investigations and placed 1,800 abused or neglected children in care outside their homes.

Dozens of people gathered Tuesday evening on the Yellowstone County Courthouse lawn to raise awareness of child abuse and neglect. Commissioner Bill Kennedy read a proclamation from the County Commission calling for the community to "join together to raise awareness of the prevention of child abuse and strengthening families."

The crowd marched through downtown, listened to children's music and speeches and lit candles to remember the nearly 400 Yellowstone County children who are in foster care. They gathered because abuse and neglect of children is preventable. A major step toward that goal is keeping families - parents, children, anyone who may become a parent - drug-free.

If the so-called "War on Drugs" is a viable way to tackle the problem - then expand it.

Every cop can tell you how many times spousal abuse, fights, murders and childhood abuse are triggered by alcohol abuse.

Start rounding up all of the alcoholics and put them in jail too.

Brilliant idea - eh?

The meaning of the word is very simple. Un means not, as in "authority not found in ..." Constitutional refers to the document on which all legitimate Federal authority rests. Unconstitutional, then, means that the authority for an action is not found within the document on which all legitimate Federal authority rests. If you would like to refute my contention that Federal prohibition laws related to drugs are unconstitutional, you will need to use the document itself to demonstrate that said authority does indeed derive from said document.

PS By "real world," I guess you mean de facto, as in "General Manuel Antonio Noriega was the de facto head of state in Panama." Under that definition of "real world," you are of course correct, i.e., anything the Federal Government can do with the rubber stamp of the Supreme Court is 100% "Constitutional," however in that sense I would always make sure to use quotation marks.