Friday, January 4, 2019

Blitzkrieg, Anyone?

The argument I am hearing is that we aren't really trying. We have been having a slap war on drugs. That, in spite of spending $31 billion in 2017 on the war on drugs, double the amount we were spending a decade ago, we aren't giving it the full effort.

There are 400,000 people in prison or jail in the U.S. right now for non-violent drug crimes. Not enough. Chain gangs, executions, destroying the countries that are growing or smuggling the drugs. In short, let's get serious.

The first issue would be passing the laws that would describe these new penalties.

Since we've already have civil forfeiture, we could just expand that program, taking the property and assets of more suspected drug sellers, users, their families without bothering to charge them or convict them. That's already in place. I'm sure no one is ever innocently a victim of an aggressive government policy.

With the new 3 strikes and you're executed laws, the communities that see the police as the enemy would have confirmation. Not everyone will cheer when their mother is summarily shot. Or their brother, sister, uncle, aunt, etc. Some might take umbrage. No problem, as you can shoot them too.

And you will have destroyed the last vestiges of the very thing you are fighting to save. Having turned the police into the Gestapo, the people become the suspects and the system serves the State.

Next, we could tackle declaring war, or at least getting Congressional approval, for the invasion and destruction of the offending foreign states. Then it's gloves off. We can make Mexico look like the charred remnants of a brush fire. Kill everyone in Panama and leave it to wildlife. That will stop the flow of drugs.


My idea isn't going to win the day. The United States isn't going to legalize drugs. It isn't going to decriminalize anything but pot anytime soon. The most I can hope for is some diversionary programs that keep non-violent drug users out of prisons. And I don't want to do that because I give a rat's ass about the users. I want to do it because it's expensive to house and feed them in prison. This isn't about empathy. It's about economics. The $31 billion we spent on this failed policy this year. The estimated $1 trillion we have spent since Nixon.

But the other idea isn't going to win the day either. The United States isn't going to burn Mexico or kill everyone in Panama. And they aren't going to put hundreds of thousands 24 million people in chain gangs or execute them. That's a fantasy.

哦 哇 所以 许多 失败


Patrick Henry said...

Hear freaking hear!!

The pro-war folks sound exactly like the anti-gunners. As Kevin at the Smallest Minority always said there catch phrase was- we just need to do it HARDER.

Patrick Henry said...

Ugh. There = their

waepnedmann said...

I had the same thoughts:
Pure fantasy.
Summary executions or non-judicial killings by the authorities (whomever they may be) will never be allowed in the United States of America.
Wait. What...?
Rand Paul stood on the floor of the Senate, by himself, and filibustered a bill that would have allowed the POTUS to use drone strikes, solely on his authority, to kill citizens of the U.S. within the Borders of the US while said POTUS was having lunch with Senator John McCain and another Republican Senator whose name I mercifully cannot remember.
I guess I was wrong.

The changes suggested to the judicial system or the non-judicial system are about as likely to happen as, and would disrupt our society and culture almost as much as, the burn the mutha down demanded by the anarchists.
Not going to happen.
I have been wrong before.

So, several million electrons were worn out in this discussion and there are no likely or viable solutions to the drug problem that will be implemented in the foreseeable future.

We learned a lot about each other and ourselves.
It was eye-opening to find myself in a camp of anarchists as I am sure others were surprised.
Due to our literal pain and frustration our emotions tell us to burn the mutha down, but reason tells us that we really do not want to go there.
Civilization is protected by a thin veneer of culture that can be destroyed cataclymically or slowly my internal rot.
Anarchy is the result.
Anarchy is state where the unimaginable becomes reality.
We may be heading there.
For bedside reading I recommend The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe.

Some very intelligent, articulate, and thinking people follow this blog.
They would be good companions in difficult times.

We learned that we are human and that emotion trumps reason.

Aesop said...

1) No one ever suggested non-judicial killings as a solution. Nice try.

2) You asked for a solution. I gave you one. You find it unpalatable.
That says more about you and your tastes than the dish served.
And would throw out both baby and bathwater in response.

3) Doing this half-@$$#d clearly hasn't worked.
You reject doing more, let alone better.
That leaves only doing less, or nothing.

Peace in our time, guaranteed. It says so right on the label.

Glen Filthie said...

Your founding fathers did not write the constitution with drug addicts in mind, boys. The addict is literally a slave, that lives and dies to feed a habit. A habit that often induces him to violate the rights and freedoms of others, and I seriously consider this problem a clear and present danger to both our countries. We’ve got entire generations and communities that have been ravaged by drugs. They live by the law of the jungle in those communities and legalization will only encourage more of that.

To me it’s a matter of body counts and math. Want to get serious? Add up all the bodies of people killed by the drug trade. Now, add up all the bodies of those accidentally killed by law enforcement in pursuit of the war on drugs. The math isn’t that hard, fellas. Aesop has the right of this.

I remember when Obutthole was lecturing Duterte about his brutal dealings with addicts and dealers in the Phillipines. Duterte called Obama an SOB and told that baboon to mind his own business - and lo and behold the country’s drug problems have begun to subside. From my lofty position up here in the Peanut Gallery... we can harden up, act like men and deal with this problem, or we can continue sacrificing our cops and ERT guys to it so we don’t feel bad at night, and let Darwin and Murphy handle this icky problem because we are to squeamish.

Tim Wolter said...

The problem is that it is hard to actually calculate societal costs. Were I of the Progressive Faith I could just overlook this. The Arc of History and all that, and if there are a few problems that crop up we'll just create a new department, more government workers and shovel more cash at it.

I'm very curious to see how the legalization of pot in various jurisdictions will work out. Sure, most users are going to light up once in a while, sort of like treating themselves to a beer after a hard day. But globally...

What is the unseen effect on worker productivity, assuming that Cheech and Chong are exaggerations not fabrications? How do you enforce OWI laws with a substance that can be detected days to weeks after use? (answer, you won't with respect to MJ). Discipline in our school systems already hangs by a thread in many places. Will the Blessing of the Gangi from On High be the final straw? And what further effects on unprepared graduates, flight from public school systems, costs of same will ensue?

I don't know the answers but we should be watching Colorado with whatever clarity emerges from the faint, pungent haze that hangs over it these days.

They are probably eating more Doritos for one thing...


McChuck said...

"400,000 non-violent offenders"
Seriously? You really believe these sentences weren't plea bargained down from much more serious crimes? You actually believe that drug dealers weren't armed felons?

The problem we have is not enough people are in jail, and the ones that are in prison aren't locked up long enough. 95% of charges get ignored, watered down or tossed in the plea bargaining.

Here's some data for you to think about. The average shooting victim has been arrested at least 10 times. The average shooter has been arrested at least 20 times.

Differ said...

A follow-up to my late comment on the previous post. We have 50 states with different attitudes and laws about drug use BUT DC overrides them. Devolute the federal drug laws to the state level and observe what works and what does not. We've spent 50 years fighting a WOD which hasn't changed the situation. Evidence-based approach suggests try something different.

Differ said...

In facrwe need to do the devolution thing for:
Health care
Food and drug
Leaving DC to National defence, and international treaties....OMG did I just advocate for a true Federal system?

Borepatch said...

Your founding fathers did not write the constitution with drug addicts in mind, boys.

Point of order, Glen. The term "drunkard" was well known to the Founding Fathers. C.f. The Rake's Progress

Borepatch said...

McChuck, when I studied history at State U one of the things we learned is that repeated laws about the same thing show a society that is unsuccessful dealing with the problem.

Glen Filthie said...

True, BP. But heritage America had morals and ethics too, and drunkards got punished for what they did. That is not happening today, and your founding fathers would not have thrown their laws out just because the drunks broke them on a regular basis.

This is why we really need to talk about this and not talk past each other. Our laws fail badly when it comes to stuff like drugs, terrorism, abortion and a few other contentious issues.

For the record, I concede that you MIGHT have a case for pot - maybe. But the harsher chemicals? You really need to inform yourself. There is no defending the use or sale of some of those.

Aesop said...

"...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

But keep trying to pound the nail in with that screwdriver, and see where it gets you.

waepnedmann said...

"No one ever suggested non judicial killings to solve the problem. Nice try."

From your bolog recounting your time on the border:
"If I knew then what I know now, I should have just shot the bastards on the spot."

Sounds like non-judicial killings to me to me, but maybe you were just going to shoot them a little bit.

Nice try.

Aesop said...

Please, Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Bonus points for dragging in what I said *I* should have done, in hindsight, in a specific situation, a decade hence, to conflating that with an actual policy prescription for general use in all cases, which I never have.

Did I do that, then? No.
Did I, even in hindsight, even in context, suggest it as part of the solution to the problem? No.
Would I now? Not bloody likely.
Am I advocating you, me, or anyone else do it now, or ever, as an actual solution now or in the future? No.

And why do you suppose that was, and is so?
Because extra-judicial homicide makes TPTB everywhere extra twitchy, upsets their applecart with regard to the monopoly on the use of force, and they then send out the hue and cry, and begin manhunts that are global and perpetual. It would have "solved" the problem of one particular dope load among thousands such, certainly, and ended the recidivism of a dozen or so bottom-level 80-IQ campesino mules, but it would have made me and my associates high felons and accessories all. Which is why it doesn't happen anywhere unless it's happening everywhere, at which point the mere problem of drugs fades to near insignificance. And you knew all that before you dragged it in, pretended it was other than it was, and tried to prop it up to stand in line as an ersatz substitute for rhetorical logic and common sense.

I don't know about you, and I'm hazy on the details at this point in life, but I'm pretty sure they covered this level of contextual analysis of literature in my school somewhere around 6th or 7th grade.

I can get this level of rejoinder from the moonbats on Democrat Underground. If you're not going to read the words, and suss out context, the internet and the written word is wasted on you. And you knew this before you set out to do it, so I shouldn't have had to point it out for you.

I get that we've now devolved the discussion to childishness and slap fighting, because logic and common sense arguments have failed some of you, but do try and restrain yourselves, and I'll do the same. Redoubling the original error so ham-fistedly is neither making your case nor winning you any additional points, and cleat holes in your jiggly bits are both painful, and slow to heal.

Aesop said...

You - or anyone else - can win this entire debate in one fell swoop: show that the costs of legalization will inevitably decrease the human and financial toll of the current half-assed faux-War On Drugs to less than what it does currently, and you win the prize.

And if you cannot, don't take out your frustrations with reality out on people who point it out to you.

Failing that, and continuing the current course, let alone abandoning what we're doing in favor of doing nothing, is going to get those extra-judicial killings, but it won't be only the drug peddlers doing them, like it is now. It'll be everyone, everywhere, deciding that since there's no law, there are no rules.

And won't that just be a peach?

{Bonus: This is why there are extra-judicial killings right now, every single day - read the Chicongo newspapers - except only by those trying to expand the market for drugs in this country, and in other countries. Because those people are short-sighted and stone-stupid in the long-term, unless other people help out their cause. So with drugs, as it would be with Islamo-terrorism, you're the guy saying that since they're willing to kill people, we should just give them what they want, and then everything will go back to being peaceful. Exactly like the folks saying "Hold on here: those Muslims have a point" on 9/12/01, and ever since. "The war is too expensive. It's failing. It's worse now than it was then, and no end in sight."Both arguments are identical. Funny, i'n'it?}

Patrick Henry said...

show that the costs of legalization will inevitably decrease the human and financial toll of the current half-assed faux-War On Drugs to less than what it does currently, and you win the prize.

See what I mean about the we just need to do it HARDER.

I can't believe anybody would argue that the current War On Drugs is half assed. To me, that is someone who isn't worth debating, because they are so convinced they are right its entirely pointless.

But yes, the costs of legalization will decrease the human and financial toll. Its easy to see. We did alcohol prohibition. Things were bad under it. Now not to much. Its not a panacea. But its better. Clearly. Even your example of the "Chicongo" newspapers don't apply. Because we HAD that type of stuff under alcohol prohibition. Funny we don't now.