Ben Carson: Intensify the War on Drugs

[Thrilla]

So small that you have to call a man who has in fact done great good, an idiot.

Here's a clue for you, Carson's no idiot.



As I've said, typical liberal / progressive tolerance to beliefs other than their own.

Why is it that you perceive Carson as such a threat that you needless and unfairly belittle him on issues not even under discussion?

You disagree with him on the war on drugs, and probably on currently illegal drugs being legalized for recreational purposes. I get that. Carson may even be wrong on his position on the war on drugs. Fine. Still doesn't make him an idiot. Just makes his position and opinion different from yours.

well said.


personally, i think it's very very special brand of stupid to call the worlds preeminent pediatric neurosurgeon an idiot...but to each their own... hopefully these trolls have the resume to back their opinion.

 

[Chomsky]

Not all places, nor all people, would react the same.

Pressure to reform Dutch drug laws as gang violence grows

The Seven Deadly Sins of Crime in Amsterdam

By all means, legalize them, if you must. Just please. Legalize them over there, someplace else, and not here by me and my family.

And if you do legalize these starter, gateway drugs, where is the legalization effort going to stop?

Only in the Netherlands Do Addicts Complain About Free Government Heroin


Wasn't it that at one point in time it was only pot that was legalized in the Netherlands? Now you get free heroin from the government. Is that protecting the electorate?

Hang on.

You're making the argument that Europe has a firearms violence problem due to drugs?

And you're afraid it will come to the U.S.?

Wha???

 

[reinoe]

Just when I think Trump says something that can finally sink his ship, Carson does something to make sure his ship sinks even faster.

 

[reinoe]

Intensifying the war on alcohol was such a winning strategy....

Given Citizens United and the other case, I can see the cartels and the military industrials and private prisons setting up SUPERPACs to fund this savant.

You're right. This could be a fundraising tactic.

 

[Thrilla]

I didn't know conservatives supported controlling what people do with their own body? Oh, I forgot. :lamo

a progressive whining about other political blocs exerting control over people... how deliciously ironic.

 

[Thrilla]

Just when I think Trump says something that can finally sink his ship, Carson does something to make sure his ship sinks even faster.

he's a conservative... chasing conservative votes.

do you think he honestly cares about what people other than conservatives think right now?
he isn't going after loony lefties votes.. he isn't going after your and my votes... he's going after conservative votes , and this issue is right up their wheelhouse.


quite literally, this is about as surprising as Bernie sanders saying he want to raise taxes or give free **** away.

 

[joG]

Carson, Trump, Fiorina.. I can't help but laugh.

Then you are very wrong. It is scary. And the Democrats make it worse. Inexperience, arrogance and corruption. What a crop!

 

[Kobie]

he's a conservative... chasing conservative votes.

do you think he honestly cares about what people other than conservatives think right now?
he isn't going after loony lefties votes.. he isn't going after your and my votes... he's going after conservative votes , and this issue is right up their wheelhouse.


quite literally, this is about as surprising as Bernie sanders saying he want to raise taxes or give free **** away.

Guess what ... if Carson and/or Trump only pander to hard-core conservatives, neither of them stands a chance in hell of winning a general election. And yes, the same applies to Bernie with "loony lefties." You CANNOT, EVER, win a presidential election by only stoking the base. It is impossible.

And, with the advent of websites that hold people accountable for what they say, it's much harder today to pander to the nutters in the primaries and then tack back to the center during the general. The world has a much longer memory now.

 

[Kobie]

Not much else one can say but... wow!

Assuming for a moment that Carson gets the nomination, he will be hammered on this in a general election debate.

In a country that incarcerates more people than any civilization on the planet, DOCTOR BEN CARSON'S stance is to keep putting more non-violent people in prison over certain substances that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

And this is the right's idea of a Great Thinker.

 

[Beaudreaux]

In a country that incarcerates more people than any civilization on the planet, DOCTOR BEN CARSON'S stance is to keep putting more non-violent people in prison over certain substances that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

And this is the right's idea of a Great Thinker.

I didn't see anyone say he was a Great Thinker, but to call a Pediatric Neurosurgeon an idiot is childish and a sign of ignorance on the part of the person saying so - ironic. He does have some very strange ideas, in my opinion. But that doesn't make him an idiot, just a person with some very strange ideas that he espouses to pander to the hard right that also hold those opinions. I can't see me ever voting for the guy, but I would not attack him personally either. There are some in this thread, the OP being one, that cannot separate the person from the position, as I can. For instance, I really like Bernie Sanders as a person. I think he's one of the most honest and straight forward "politicians" alive today and for that he has my respect. I also vehemently disagree with his politics, probably on the order of 99+%. I can argue against his political positions, while showing the man the respect he deserves. Others in this thread, cannot do that. They feel it necessary to denigrate the man, or the woman, not just the political position.

 

[eohrnberger]

Hang on.

You're making the argument that Europe has a firearms violence problem due to drugs?

And you're afraid it will come to the U.S.?

Wha???

No, I'm taking the position that even with legalizing previous illegal drugs as a means to curb the criminal violence doesn't appear to be nearly as effective as many keep promising and as many would think.

These stories are similar to news reports that I've read about Colorado and their legalizing pot. It hasn't prevented the associated criminal violence, and the drug cartels are still moving in to take over, or try to take over, that now legal trade as well. I say try to take over, in that there will be, no doubt in my mind, a drug war for the control of this market.

Washington state recently also legalized pot for recreation, but I've not run across any information specific to that area, but it would seem to be reasonable to assume that it would be pretty much the same.

So even if someone believes that drug related criminal violence doesn't increase with the legalization of formally illegal drugs, at least it would be an aspect that would need very close and very impartial analysis with which to feed the best and most well informed decision on this public policy.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Being a physician Carson probably knows better than most the human damage the scourge of illegal drugs inflicts.

What about the scourge of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? They seem to get a pass and yet they are arguably more detrimental per capita then illicit drugs. They are certainly more affordable and easier to obtain.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Carson is conservative GOP's answer to Obama. The hope is to undermine Black support for the Democratic Party by his candidacy, either as a VP or the Presidential nomination.
just
To be honest, the fact that he is Black will, IMO draw Black voters away if he is on the GOP ticket. The numbers? Who can say.

If it was up to the GOP hierchey they would just coronate RINO Jeb Bush just like the dems are coronating Hillary. Carson is a populist non establishment candidate. Even if he draws no more then 10 to 15% of the black vote, that will be enough to defeat Hillary. If Fiorina is in the VP slot, more women will abandon Hillary.

 

[eohrnberger]

What about the scourge of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? They seem to get a pass and yet they are arguably more detrimental per capita then illicit drugs. They are certainly more affordable and easier to obtain.

Legal is legal. Just the fact that they are more affordable and easier to obtain already lessens the damage to society from the criminal aspect.

When's the last time you read about a criminal drug war over the sale of cigarettes? Or over beer?

 

[RogueWarrior]

Legal is legal. Just the fact that they are more affordable and easier to obtain already lessens the damage to society from the criminal aspect.

When's the last time you read about a criminal drug war over the sale of cigarettes? Or over beer?

So you have the answer to the drug war problem, right there. It seems that some people do know the history of Prohibition after all and the lessons available therein.
Criminalizing drugs was a bad idea. Want to delve into the reasons?

 

[_Sal]

And if you do legalize these starter, gateway drugs, where is the legalization effort going to stop?

If it were up to me no drugs would be illegal. And crime would drop...exponentially.

 

[eohrnberger]

So you have the answer to the drug war problem, right there. It seems that some people do know the history of Prohibition after all and the lessons available therein.
Criminalizing drugs was a bad idea. Want to delve into the reasons?

There may very well be some merits to the position of legalizing some things, and decriminalizing others - perhaps focus on specific undesirable behaviors for criminal enforcement? (I don't know of anyone who wants to allow adults to shoot up heroin on the school playground during recess)

At this point, I'm really not ready to move my position from where I am to there. I still think that the vast majority of the drugs that are now illegal are a scourge on humanity.

I'm open to considering the most effective means for limiting and controlling people's access to these drugs and managing these drug's impact on people and society as a public policy.

 

[eohrnberger]

If it were up to me no drugs would be illegal. And crime would drop...exponentially.

That's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy. If there were no criminal laws at all, you'd have a zero crime rate instantly.

I think you are ignoring the impact of these drugs on the people, and in turn, that impact on society.

 

[reinoe]

he's a conservative... chasing conservative votes.

do you think he honestly cares about what people other than conservatives think right now?
he isn't going after loony lefties votes.. he isn't going after your and my votes... he's going after conservative votes , and this issue is right up their wheelhouse.


quite literally, this is about as surprising as Bernie sanders saying he want to raise taxes or give free **** away.

Actually lots of conservatives see the war on drugs as a waste of government tax money and on oppression of indvidual freedom. Now I know that most conservatives have embraced big government but there's still a few out there who don't.

 

[RogueWarrior]

There may very well be some merits to the position of legalizing some things, and decriminalizing others - perhaps focus on specific undesirable behaviors for criminal enforcement? (I don't know of anyone who wants to allow adults to shoot up heroin on the school playground during recess)

At this point, I'm really not ready to move my position from where I am to there. I still think that the vast majority of the drugs that are now illegal are a scourge on humanity.

I'm open to considering the most effective means for limiting and controlling people's access to these drugs and managing these drug's impact on people and society as a public policy.

Alcohol and nicotine are a far greater scourge to society. Alcohol prohibition was tried and was a huge freaking disaster for society but a great success for criminals and government. The war on drugs has exactly the same results.
Same people lose, same people win.

 

[_Sal]

That's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy. If there were no criminal laws at all, you'd have a zero crime rate instantly.

I think you are ignoring the impact of these drugs on the people, and in turn, that impact on society.

I am not advocating the removal of criminal laws. I am advocating the removal of drug possession and ingestion as a criminal law.

I am in fact not ignoring the impact of these drugs on people who are addicted. Addiction is a terrible disease and often times genetically programmed. They will in fact "use" until they either kill themselves or seek help.That won't change regardless of whether it is legal or not.

What would change is the shame attached to seeking help for one thing. It brings it to the light. These users are your mother, your brother, your sister, your friend and you may not even know it. This isn't just some sleazy underworld thing were all the bad people do drugs and all of the good people don't. Reality is 52 million people in the States have used perscription drugs non-medicinally in their lifetime. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Criminalizing drug use simply doesn't work.

What it does do in fact is bury the problem in the dark where it festers and grows.

It creates a massive illegal trade worth billions of dollars a year and no one is in control. That should scare us.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy. If there were no criminal laws at all, you'd have a zero crime rate instantly.

I think you are ignoring the impact of these drugs on the people, and in turn, that impact on society.

I think you are ignoring the valuable lesson(s) learned from alcohol prohibition. There are basically three possible government approaches to recreational drugs: 1) ban them, 2) ignore them or 3) regulate and tax them.

The problems associated with each must be examined.

1) Costly (and likely to corrupt) law enforcement combined with handing total control of a multi billion dollar industry (with high demand) entirely over to criminals.

2) Lack of any control over quality, labeling or buyer age restrictions.

3) Preventing that from being perceived as an endorsement of (ab)use.

The bottom line is that without reducing demand for recreational drugs to zero then supply will always exist - the focus must be on how to best deal with reducing that demand (education?) and not to pretend that supply can be stopped.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am not advocating the removal of criminal laws. I am advocating the removal of drug possession and ingestion as a criminal law.

I am in fact not ignoring the impact of these drugs on people who are addicted. Addiction is a terrible disease and often times genetically programmed. They will in fact "use" until they either kill themselves or seek help.That won't change regardless of whether it is legal or not.

What would change is the shame attached to seeking help for one thing. It brings it to the light. These users are your mother, your brother, your sister, your friend and you may not even know it. This isn't just some sleazy underworld thing were all the bad people do drugs and all of the good people don't. Reality is 52 million people in the States have used perscription drugs non-medicinally in their lifetime. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Criminalizing drug use simply doesn't work.

What it does do in fact is bury the problem in the dark where it festers and grows.

It creates a massive illegal trade worth billions of dollars a year and no one is in control. That should scare us.

For those who are wanting help, I'm more than willing to put public money to that, for whichever treatment or training turns out to be the most effective and cost-effective.

For those that are simply wasters, refusing to even try, need to keep them separated from society, as they pose a danger.

As previously posted:

I'm open to considering the most effective means for limiting and controlling people's access to these drugs and managing these drug's impact on people and society as a public policy.

If the war on drugs isn't effective and cost-effective, and I think we can agree that it's not, what would be a better means to achieving the goals stated above?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

so he wants to increase the deficit and our incarceration rates.

how conservative of him.

 

[_Sal]

For those who are wanting help, I'm more than willing to put public money to that, for whichever treatment or training turns out to be the most effective and cost-effective.

For those that are simply wasters, refusing to even try, need to keep them separated from society, as they pose a danger.

As previously posted:

I'm open to considering the most effective means for limiting and controlling people's access to these drugs and managing these drug's impact on people and society as a public policy.

If the war on drugs isn't effective and cost-effective, and I think we can agree that it's not, what would be a better means to achieving the goals stated above?

Legalizing it would get rid of the criminal industry that feeds it. That would be a start right there. Gangs control a lot of the drug hustling. It removes their control and a multi-billion dollar a year industry. That's just to begin with.

It would seem to me that as soon as the government declares a war on anything, it's a sure thing they are going to lose that war right off. They don't handle this type of thing successfully as is demonstrated by the growth of the industry.

Forget the war on drugs, legalize it, bring it out from under the table and throw it on top.