"don't forget to bring a towel" interesting article. granted they catch more drugs... but there are more people in general. the are more people selling. there are more people buying... sure they'll catch more. too bad they don't give a rough percentage.
The prison population of the US exceeds 2 million; over half of them are serving time for drug offenses. Our intervention in South America has resulted in the death and displacement of many poor people, and the indisriminant use of defoliants has eradicated many food crops. There is a lot of collatoral damage caused by the "war on drugs."
Perhaps there shouldn't be a 'war on drugs' in the first place. Isn't more of a policy then a 'war' itself? If a certain element within society steers laws into criminalizing some conducting aspects of a given society we get publicity oriented 'wars'. During prohibition there was a war with mob handling the smuggling and distribution of alcohol, as soon as the decriminalization process started such war ceased to exist. One wonders how many of such 'wars' are just a form of manipulation with societies at large. Indoctrination by 'wars' that aspire to certain moral codes of conduct. I wonder why can't we have a war on 'carcinogens' or highly poisonous toxins? Go figure... Do we really want to eradicate cancer from the profiteering side of the equation.? Wherever lies a huge interference of massive profits or some infringement on a certain moralizing aspects of any brand of religion there is a chance for a 'war' to be declared...
One also has to wonder, take prohibition for example, had the "war" been kept up on it, and had alcohol been criminalized to some extent, how many lives might have been saved from drunk driving and other alcohol related accidents? Would the criminalization have been worth it, and in what respects? I don't think it's too fair to apply this logic to something like cigarettes in this respect, as cigarettes generally don't harm anyone except for the smoker, and 2nd hand smoke, the difference being one has a choice of avoiding it, unlike an unpredicatble drunk driver.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 27 2006, 05:37 PM) [snapback]246296[/snapback]</div> I'm not sure if you intended to reply to my post, just to clarify my usage of a word 'carcinogens' meant to indicate any chemical compounds known to science causing cancer period, or compounds that in contact with other commonly available substances may form carcinogens or mutagens in the environment that surrounds us. Effectively causing millions of deaths, should such devastating effects warrant for a declaration of war? That was my implication. My use of an example of carcinogens was used in a broad sense not specifically limited to compounds found in cigarettes. Hey, you're more mellowly today, so far?
Personally, I find it curious that MethAmphetamine was not mentioned in the article. While not a big problem yet in the East, it is epidemic in the West / Northwest. Noticed that the byline comes from Philly. Great PBS Frontline story on Meth a few weeks ago. And as a practicing in the trenches physician, I can honestly say that I see all too many patients who have a direct connection with Meth; either personally or via a spouse or family member. Are we winning the War on Drugs overall? I have no clue. But we are losing the battle on Meth right now!
I still think they should convert a large city into a prison like the escape from NY movie..... then just drop all the bad guys in there to fend for them selves.......
