3 ms·

Sounds great. An evidence-based, religion-free, pragmatic approach to minimizing the direct and indirect harm of drug trafficking and abuse (and use) is what ha

by veidr 14y ago

Sounds great. An evidence-based, religion-free, pragmatic approach to minimizing the direct and indirect harm of drug trafficking and abuse (and use) is what has been proven to work in other countries, and our current policy has been proven to be an idiotic catastrophe of epic proportions. However, Obama says a lot of things: he's said that his feds won't go after pot in states that have legalized it (nope), that he would gonna close Guantanamo (nope), etc etc. Still, on balance I think it is better to have a leader who at least knows how to say the right things (as opposed to insane, anti-science things), even if saying them doesn't always mean he will actually get them implemented.

greenyoda 14y ago
"Still, on balance I think it is better to have a leader who at least knows how to say the right things ... even if saying them doesn't always mean he will actually get them implemented." I think that could be even worse than saying the wrong things. If he's going to say he's going to change things but not really change them, the people who are actually interested in getting things changed may become complacent and less will get done. I'll believe that the "war on drugs" is over when federal SWAT teams stop crashing through peoples' doors (sometimes the wrong peoples' doors) looking for pot growers, and when the federal government stops funding similar paramilitary operations and equipment for state and local governments. And what about the thousands of people who are in prison solely for non-violent drug crimes, or have been released from prison and will find it difficult to get employment for the rest of their lives due to their conviction records? What will be done for these victims of the war on drugs?
- veidr 14y ago
  You may be right about happy talk actually preventing meaningful action. You are definitely right that the "war on drugs" cannot really be said to be over until armed violence against nonviolent drug (ab)users by the state is halted, and the prisoners of war, so to speak, are freed. Perhaps a better title would be, "President States Intention to Make Drug Policy Somewhat Less Illogical and Immoral".

by veidr 14y ago

greenyoda 14y ago

"Still, on balance I think it is better to have a leader who at least knows how to say the right things ... even if saying them doesn't always mean he will actually get them implemented." I think that could be even worse than saying the wrong things. If he's going to say he's going to change things but not really change them, the people who are actually interested in getting things changed may become complacent and less will get done. I'll believe that the "war on drugs" is over when federal SWAT teams stop crashing through peoples' doors (sometimes the wrong peoples' doors) looking for pot growers, and when the federal government stops funding similar paramilitary operations and equipment for state and local governments. And what about the thousands of people who are in prison solely for non-violent drug crimes, or have been released from prison and will find it difficult to get employment for the rest of their lives due to their conviction records? What will be done for these victims of the war on drugs?

veidr 14y ago
You may be right about happy talk actually preventing meaningful action. You are definitely right that the "war on drugs" cannot really be said to be over until armed violence against nonviolent drug (ab)users by the state is halted, and the prisoners of war, so to speak, are freed. Perhaps a better title would be, "President States Intention to Make Drug Policy Somewhat Less Illogical and Immoral".