Great video. You could substitute the word "drug" for the word "gun" and it fits really well.

No, you can't, that's just retarded. You do not have hundreds of thousands of illegal gun owners in prisons. Guns, while some may say are for recreational use, are not designed to take the edge off, to relax after hard day, something humankind has done thousands of years. Guns have been used for tens of thousands of years to kill. How can you compare the two? Oh wait, retarded right wing rhetorics.

The most effective move USA can make in the war on terror is to stop the war on drugs. Stop the fuel, money and the flame goes away.

Have they?

Hey argument mongers! YEAH YOUSE! This is a great video so why don't we respect it and resist the temptation to turn this into another gun rights flame war (incidentally, another war that cannot be "won"). There is a place for that discussion and it's not here. Move along. Theenks.

I love when retired police officers step forward and slowly rip apart the drug war with facts, experience and wisdom. Seems the sad truth is that the U.S. government, (which is currently in the habit of displaying a level of insanity fit for a corporate-emperor-giant-king via what it says to the public versus what it actually does in its slowly eroding privacy) clearly doesn't seem to actually want to end the drug war or the war on terror for that matter any time soon. i guess there is too much profit to be had from the institutions that are already in place at this point.

With luck, the Nixon/Reagan-esque dinosaurs of free will control, hiding behind the thin guise of morality, which they surely are not the paragons of, will soon be trapped within their sedimentary prison for all time and We the people will be able to choose what kind of substances we ingest without the looming shadow of silent oppression casting its all encompassing umbra upon us.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, March 15th, 2013 12:56pm PDT - promote requested by RedSky.

SNAP!

Brilliant interview. No yelling (despite the woman interview obviously disagreeing), the interviewers let him talk and the guy had smart, succinct and logical answers. Let's hope a few narrow minded people learned something that day

How awesome would it be if he named his son "Jesus?"

Sure mang. I've been killin' bitches with my guns for the whole damn holocene.

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, March 15th, 2013 12:56pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

A subtle thing I like in this, is that the Interviewee has a bigger window than the hosts - he's the important one in the discussion. On fox news, the host would be in the big window, while they would have two small windows with people of two different points of view - one that's the same as the host, so that they can overpower the other point of view.

Indeed. It's the difference between allowing the guest (person with information and knowledge beyond that of the novice or aficionado, or layman) the floor in a forum friendly to his cause or of the defining of it.

Fox, MSNBC, (insert corporate news organization here), all have formulas to promote not the free exchange of ideas but the molding of a worldview of her steady patrons using all the wonderful tools in the arsenal of linguistic cybernetics, crowd-psychology, labels and branding....how many can you name??!

The format I gather is the host and co-host, one as devil's advocate with the interviewee free to roam-A well-configured framework for a discussion. No one interrupts on another either, you won't see this on the Telescreens...refreshing.

Also, note the lack of smarmy or smug tone or affectation of the hosts....Is this Canadian??

Agree with him 100%. I don't do drugs now and if they legalized them all tomorrow I wouldn't start. Tobacco is legal right? I don't use that either.

I challenge any of you to provide any logical and sensible counter-points to any of his comments.

I think you're in the wrong place if you are expecting anyone to attempt to counter his arguments.

Why is a retired police captain calling for the legalization of drugs? Because he's not pulling a paycheck any more from the drug war. It's more profitable for him to call for it's end than participate in it at this particular point in his career.

I'm not expecting that at all. I don't think it can be done.

Lol, there are plenty of ways for a retired police captain to profit off the drug war. So no, I don't agree with you.

Also, even if there was no "drug war" when he was on active duty he would have still collected a paycheck. Last time I checked police do more than just fight a drug war.

I think even, against his arguments, legalisation of drugs in any country would lead to a short-term increase in users. But at the same time it would generate taxes and CRIPPLE criminal activities in the long term.

The advantages to legalizing and regulating drugs far outweigh any disadvantages. It's not even close.

I haven't seen much strong support for this, particularly if the additional funds are spent on treatment/rehabilitation programs.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'war on drugs, retired police captain, best argument for ending prohibition' to 'war on drugs, retired police captain, best argument for ending prohibition, leap' - edited by MrFisk

First off you're the third person on here that I've gotten into a discussion about guns. All 3 have called me names while I continue to be polite.

Second your bigoted comment is very offensive not just to me who works with special needs adults but anyone with down syndrom, says a lot about you.

Third, while I used to light up a joint at the end of the day and chill out and have nothing against it, I like to take my guns to the range to "take the edge off, to relax after a hard day." What I do with my guns is legal and fun. Legal gun owners are not the villians that bigots and others try to potray them as.

Guns are used in so many sporting ways I can't even list them all but the olympics is a big one.

You've already been called out on your knowledge of history so I won't bother.

I live in Canada and have been raised by a very "left wing" family. I have a close hippy aunt and uncle who live in a community of american draft dogers. My parents always vote for the left. I grew up with those ideals and choose to work with people with autism. Doesn't pay much but it's satisfying and giving back, so your comment about me being "right wing" is pretty far off.

Legal gun owners are not evil. They want the same things as most people including the best tool for self defense (which we're not allowed to use in Canada). We in Canada like to hunt and target shoot at paper. Nothing about that is evil. Learn some facts instead of making bigioted sweeping comments.

Good day.

While I'm generally in favour of legalising drugs (with similar caveats to alcohol, i.e. no driving and restricted access for minors), you have to live in the real world and realise that there are downsides to legalisation, even for something as benign as marijuana.

That said, IMHO, on both a practical and moral level the arguments for legalisation outweigh the negatives.

I agree with you most of the way. I have nothing against gun owners or people having guns in a responsible way. It seems there's a definition question about what is "a responsible way" though -- I don't think being able to carry weapons in public is a responsible way. Sure, taking them to a gun range in a secure case or firing on your private property (as long as the projectiles don't leave your property when you shoot) is just fine by me. Even in certain areas you should be able to carry it for protection from wild life (this does not mean the bronx..). I'm cool with you having a rifle with you in a place where you could reasonably run into a bear or mountain lion.

If you have a proper permit, you can even be allowed to hunt for deer or some stuff like that.

These are all reasonable to me.

Carrying a pistol concealed or otherwise in a city seems reckless and dangerous to me. If nothing else, you can scare other people into doing things they should not do - since they may not have proper gun training. It's the same reason you don't run around with a broadsword in public - a gun is basically, point, click, dead. That tend to make people antsy.

@gwiz665
Thanks for the response, seems some just want to villaffy (sp) all gun owners. I agree with all your points.
One thing I do have to add is I know a story of a guy walking at night that was followed by 15-20 guys who were saying "we gona get rid of you, no one will find the body" He pulled his legal carry gun and they all ran off.
That doesn't happen often in Canada (gangs following you) but it did in the states and I think that guy is glad he had the option of defense. Again it is very rare but these things do happen. (again in Canada all guns are tripple locked unless at the range or hunting)
Again thanks for the responce.

Red is a little thick. I wonder if she's playing "Angry Birds" on that laptop while the guest is talking.

Oh, and... Nazis!

Buck: I regret using the R-word, to me that word does not apply to for ex down syndrome kids, hell, i've lived and taken care of them myself. When i say retarted, it means worse than idiotic.

Comparing guns to drugs is still twisted as hell. Intoxicants are used for intoxication. Guns are used for what? Shooting at things, immaterial or living. Two totally different concepts and worst of all, you disrailed the whole conversation.

Drugs, mainly psychedelics have been with human since the age of consciousness, appearing hand in hand with cavepaintings and spirituality. War on such ideas is not the place to start improving humankind.

Thanks for seeing the errror of that word. I won't harp on it.

Comparing guns to drugs to ME is very relevent. As I said I used to smoke quite a lot of pot but not now.( I do wish it were legalized) Now I like to go to the range and blow off steam with big bangs and the zen of finding the centre of the target.
I don't want any war on drugs (or guns) that is not using facts to support the arguments.
The reality is that humankind would be better off without all guns, drugs and alcohal but that will never happen so I propose live and let live.

If you are harming someone else by your actions, it's against my moral compass as correct.

Thanks for your response.

I think you're missing the point here. The war on drugs is ineffective because it cannot be won and making drugs illegal only puts the power in the hands of criminals. It also creates tons of drug-related violence. Similarly, banning guns would be equally ineffective, put the power in the hands of criminals and just create more gun-related violence.

Fun fact: Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country (I think they are second only to New York). However, they have (by far) the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country. In addition, the majority of those crimes are committed using guns. Conversely, the states with much more lenient gun laws (Texas, Alaska, Florida, Maine, Vermont) have significantly lower violent crime and murder rates. So clearly, banning guns won't magically make them disappear, nor will it consistently reduce violent crime or murder.

The war on alcohol didn't work. The war on drugs isn't working. The war on guns won't work either. You may hate guns and love drugs but surely you can recognize the pattern here.

I see your point - I think having a gun in that sense is treating the symptom instead of the cause, but yeah, some times treating the symptom is so much easier than the root cause.

CreamK there got me riled with that developmentally-disabled rhetoric there Buck, I did not mean to down-vote your retort to his tirade.
All I read was blah blah blah guns, blah blah blah right, blah blah blah left, and my brain needed a Fleet, with natural Lavender scent & comfortable applicator tip