In response to:

No Cease-Fire in War on Drugs

curmudgeon10 Wrote: Apr 19, 2012 10:51 AM
take away the welfare benefits, and the hook is revealed. if people who were susceptible to the lie that HAS are cool were able to see drug users starving, and allowing their children to starve, then HAS would be so uncool that you could not give them away, and the drug "kingpins" would be forced to get another government job. possibly a senator, or maybe a cop. their talents would be ideally suited for either occupation. starve a few users, and the problem disappears, and we could devote our prison space to real criminals, like senators and presidents. if we were serious about drugs, every employer would be encouraged to drug test, and fire positives. welfare would be ended. and the WOD won.
President Barack Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, doesn't like the term "drug war." He argues that none of the smart guys in law enforcement uses it.

Instead, the smart guys talk about middle-of-the-road strategies that emphasize treatment over incarceration -- as did both Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush -- while they also advocate tough law enforcement.

Folks in the drug czar's office have "gotten really good at stealing the rhetoric of drug policy reformers," griped Bill Piper of the anti-drug war Drug Policy Alliance, but they don't mean it. Obama may talk up having a dialogue on legalization and decriminalization, but...