By banning the sale of little plastic bags...

Health Committee Chairman Ed Smith (28th) said the ban is part of a desperate effort to stop what he called " the most destructive force" in Chicago neighborhoods.

" We need to use every measure that we possibly can to stop it because it is destroying our kids," he said.

And THIS is the best they can come up with! Wow!

Obviously they need help from Jack Thompson!

The entire " war on drugs" is retarded. This is one of the least offensive measures I' ve seen. At least this isn' t a massive waste of money. You can' t stop the sale of drugs, just give up. It would be far more productive to forget about all the measures you take on fighting the drug trade and spend the billions of dollars you throw away on silly things like education, health care and infrastructure.

No one will ever be able to stop the sale of drugs in the US, it' s physically impossible. The so called war on drugs is not even slowing it down.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

There are better sources but this one is simple and accessible.

When you see your kid on meth you will agree with the " War on drugs" , methamphetamine consumption among teens is a real problem in the USA, dismissing the war on drugs as pointless is just ignorant.

Yes no one will ever be able to stop drug trafficking, but as hundreds of thousands of parents see their most precious investment become a crackhead/tweaker, how can there NOT be a war on drugs?

The reason we exist longer than most mammals is to raise offspring, it is our instinct to care for offspring until we die. Allowing our young to be drug addicted is basically failing at life, you' re no better than the tweakers you' re raising. Not wanting to do something about this drug epidemic is non-human, perhaps the way the " War on drugs" is executed is flawed, that just means we need to fix the way we go about fighting this war, it doesn' t mean we should sit around and do nothing.

OK. I never said you should let your kids do drugs, and Meth is a really fucked up drug. But how would the government stop it? They' re pissing money away with no results. It' s the parents responsibility, not the tax payer. Good parents would not have kids addicted to drugs.

Putting a fraction of the billions they piss away on the war on drugs into education and even drug rehab would serve to reduce drug use a lot more than the shit they do now.

I really don' t like the laws against drug " offenders" either. Oh yeah, throw users in jail where they can get more drugs. Why should tax payers pay to keep these scum bags alive? They could be rehabilitated and made in to productive citizens but instead the system is more interested in punishment. Anything to accomodate the companies that profit from the war on drugs.

Look at who benefits. The drug problem is just as bad as it ever was and the drug lords, politicians, police force, the corporations that feed prisoners , the lawyers among other groups are all working very hard to keep the system the way it is because they are making a fortune.

I agree with Emo. It' s being addressed the wrong way, but it' s better than not addressing a problem at all.

Kids don' t need to be coddled and slapped on the wrist when it comes to hard drug usage. I saw a meth-head standing in a parade I was at with my folks when I was younger. One of the scarier things I' ve seen in my life, to be sure. The only way to adequately describe the person was hollow. It' s like all the hardware was running (barely), but there wasn' t anything running upstairs. Made sure I never touched drugs, that' s for sure.

ORIGINAL: emofag

When you see your kid on meth you will agree with the " War on drugs" , methamphetamine consumption among teens is a real problem in the USA, dismissing the war on drugs as pointless is just ignorant.

Yes no one will ever be able to stop drug trafficking, but as hundreds of thousands of parents see their most precious investment become a crackhead/tweaker, how can there NOT be a war on drugs?

The reason we exist longer than most mammals is to raise offspring, it is our instinct to care for offspring until we die. Allowing our young to be drug addicted is basically failing at life, you' re no better than the tweakers you' re raising. Not wanting to do something about this drug epidemic is non-human, perhaps the way the " War on drugs" is executed is flawed, that just means we need to fix the way we go about fighting this war, it doesn' t mean we should sit around and do nothing.

*claps*

I' m gonna have to side with Agent on this one. Legislation for silly things like outlawing little plastic baggies cost taxpayer millions of dollars, and will not, in any way, deter someone from selling drugs.

Education and outreach to youth is the key. You can sit there and incarcerate people ALL DAY, but it won' t help people strung out on drugs, taxpayers, or the fatherless or motherless (sometimes both) kids.

Bottom line; you can' t stop drugs from coming into the country (or being manufactured here), and you can' t stop someone from selling drugs. The only, ONLY answer is to get rid of the consumer. When people are educated enough to know better, or placated enough to not need the relief that drugs bring them, then there will be no more drug problem.

the goverment should sell drugs. They can keep it at a controlled price level. So the drug heads can always afford it for their wellfare, most theft crimes are commited by addicts trying to get money, this would probably be cut in half, earning billions of dollars.

Help and prevention could be issued at the pharmacies, all addicts could be registered.

the fear with this could be more people opting for free drugs, but registering them would destroy that.

Chicago elects the worst government officials. The whole city is filled with idiots.

Emo, I knew I was right! You do have a heart!

I think that there are other things that the government is spending money on that is more useless than spending money trying to fight drugs. It is important to educate the people, that much is true. But unfortunately, that by itself will not make drug usage go down. Millions of drug users out there are actually people that know better.

They need to refocus their strategies, and put and emphasis on both, the fight on drugs and the education of those would be customers. That way they are not only reducing the consumers, but the dealers as well.

As long as somebody wants to buy drugs, there will be someone there to sell it to them. Guaranteed!

the goverment should sell drugs. They can keep it at a controlled price level. So the drug heads can always afford it for their wellfare, most theft crimes are commited by addicts trying to get money, this would probably be cut in half, earning billions of dollars.

Help and prevention could be issued at the pharmacies, all addicts could be registered.

the fear with this could be more people opting for free drugs, but registering them would destroy that.

I agree with a lot of illegal drugs. Make Billions instead of losing billions, prevent the spread of STDs by providing a controlled environment as well as needles. But I would also at the same time be in favor of making drug related crimes much more severe. As in, if you commit a crime on drugs you get a higher punishment. This might even lower drug use if the extra revenue used to help the poor. The real benefit is to put the criminals out of a job. The only reason there is so much violence with the drug trade is because it' s illegal. Anything that is illegal is at risk of being violent. Without the possibility of police intervention, drug dealers need to take the law in their own hands.

I would make the same argument for prostitution. Lower STD spread, take prostitutes out of sight, eliminate pimps and violence towards prostitutes, government makes a fortune. It' s so obvious.

the goverment should sell drugs. They can keep it at a controlled price level. So the drug heads can always afford it for their wellfare, most theft crimes are commited by addicts trying to get money, this would probably be cut in half, earning billions of dollars.

If you lower the price of drugs so they can afford them, then they' re just going to buy more, so either way they' re going to run out of money and have to find a way to get it.

You don' t have to lower the prices, just tax it. You wouldn' t have to raise prices either, the markups are already huge.