NationStates Jolt Archive

The US has been fighting a war on drugs for the past few decades and it has been an absolute failure. The costs monetary and more importantly societal have been tremendous, and far outstrip any possible benefit from people supposedly being discouraged from using/trying drugs.

So many articles/studies to post, but I will start with a short easily read one.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/effectivenes/index.cfm

Yet, despite the ballooning costs of the drug war, illicit drugs are cheaper and purer than they were two decades ago, and continue to be readily available.


. In 2000, 47% of eighth graders and 88.5% of senior high school students say marijuana is easy to obtain. Additionally, approximately 24% of eighth graders and nearly 48% of seniors report powdered cocaine is easy to get.(1)

The U.S. now incarcerates almost as many people for breaking a drug law as it incarcerated in 1980 for all offenses, and more than Western Europe, with a greater population than the U.S., incarcerates for all offenses.

The same study found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7, and that additional domestic law enforcement costs 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in drug abuse and related social costs

In my eyes, drug prohibition has the following costs; all with no benefits to society in terms less lives ruined because of drugs

1) consumes a lot of $$ that would be better spent on drug education/rehabilitation or even other societal programs.

2) Overburdens the Courts, police and penitentiaries. These institutions should be dealing with violent offenders and career thieves. Not people consentually exchanging stuff.

3) Because they are illegal, the govt cannot enforce even the barest of regulation such as product content and/or minimum age laws to curtail abuse by children

4) The lives that are ruined by being arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated because of non violent drug law violations. These lives will forever be a burden upon society because a) they are in prison b) have far fewer employment opportunities once they leave prison

5) Crime!! Drugs are such a lucrative business(because they are illegal, not because of production costs), that some people are willing to break any number of other laws/morals to maintain their business..gang related drive by shootings for example.

side point to 4 & 5)
because of the stigma attached to drug use vs. that of alcohol, part time drug users often find it very difficult to maintain mainstream employment even though they are perfectly competant during working hours. People are not generally fired because they go to a bar at night or on weekends, drug users are.

This leads to increased societal costs(unproductive citizens) and also increased crime because these people need some sort of revenue to support themselves and their habit. Since mainstream jobs are unavailable, they are often forced to go underground.

6) The intrusive nature of drug prevention. Many of the rights that people say the Patriot act took away from us, were already effectively lost because of the war on drugs. I know little of this(not knowing much about the patriot act), but such is my belief


Welcoming comments, arguments whatever

EDIT by stopped I mean legalize drugs

My thoughts exactly. It's a pointless war.

Drug abuse in society is a problem with the society itself, not a crime commited by some people within the society.

That is ABUSE... I see nothing wrong with drug use provided all the risks are known to the user, and good judgement is used. Problems arising from small time use of drugs only become present when taking drugs is viewed as a satanic ritual, which causes people to flipside and abuse the substances.
In addition, there is the well known result of prohibiting drug production, which is of course the underground, impure production of dodgy drugs.


I'd just like to add that some drugs like herion where casual use is impossible and one time use of the drug ineviatably leads to addition and abuse are crap, horrible and crappily horrible. Evil, even... and I dont use that often.

Violent, murderous drug cartels profit most from current drug laws. I say we continue to fight the War, except we ally with the drugs to fight the beaner gangs... government should legalize narcotics which would drive down prices and therefore drive the Mexican and Colombian drug lords out of business.

A perfectly written article you have provided for us.

Sadly, the U.S. Government will never end it's War on Drugs, beacuse to do so would be to admit that they were wrong to begin the "War" in the first place, and that they were also wrong to conduct their "War" in the manner that they have.

It's rare enough that you hear about one politician who says they were wrong regarding an issue...now try getting practically all of them to admit they were wrong.

*sigh*

Violent, murderous drug cartels profit most from current drug laws. I say we continue to fight the War, except we ally with the drugs to fight the beaner gangs... government should legalize narcotics which would drive down prices and therefore drive the Mexican and Colombian drug lords out of business.


I suppose I worded the poll improperly. What I meant by "stopped" was to legalize them and deal with them like we deal with alcohol and tobacco.

It would help if they hadn't sprayed south american farmers legitimate crops forcing them to grow the more hardy opium to make money..

Legalizing drugs is a terrible idea. We have enough problems with alcohol as it is to now add drugs to the mix. As it is, drunk driving causes 40% of all traffic accident deaths. Alcohol is a main ingredient in most domestic violence cases, including physical and sexual abuse of domestic partners and children. Alcohol has caused tremendous damage to our society. We dont need to legalize more stuff, we need to learn our lesson and keep mind altering substances under strict control.

The War on drugs has been fought wrong. It needs to be fought at the demand side rather than the supply side. But it does still need to be fought. Its bad enough that despite the extreme penalties we charge these people with, we still have to watch out for drunk drivers. We dont need to start worrying about people on crack, heroin, or PCP driving down the street too.

Okay, after your edit, I'd chooce differently. I think the war against drugs has failed and should be stopped BUT there should be a different kind of war against drugs.

Legalizing drugs is a terrible idea. We have enough problems with alcohol as it is to now add drugs to the mix. As it is, drunk driving causes 40% of all traffic accident deaths. Alcohol is a main ingredient in most domestic violence cases, including physical and sexual abuse of domestic partners and children. Alcohol has caused tremendous damage to our society. We dont need to legalize more stuff, we need to learn our lesson and keep mind altering substances under strict control.

The War on drugs has been fought wrong. It needs to be fought at the demand side rather than the supply side. But it does still need to be fought. Its bad enough that despite the extreme penalties we charge these people with, we still have to watch out for drunk drivers. We dont need to start worrying about people on crack, heroin, or PCP driving down the street too.

Yes, because alcohol is so much less destructive and bad for society than most drugs... of course.
Most drugs that have been outlawed and labelled the spawn of all evil dont have one death associated with them, unless it was caused by obscene overuse... like at levels where as much water would kill you.
Yet alcohol is extremely detrimental to people's health, and that's only the tip of the iceberg once you factor in all the social problems surrounding its abuse.
I'm not saying that alcohol should be banned and all other drugs should be legalised, but I am saying that it is stupid to say that alcohol is mild compared to most outlawed drugs, and that the legalisation of alcohol "is enough".

Legalizing drugs is a terrible idea. We have enough problems with alcohol as it is to now add drugs to the mix. As it is, drunk driving causes 40% of all traffic accident deaths. Alcohol is a main ingredient in most domestic violence cases, including physical and sexual abuse of domestic partners and children. Alcohol has caused tremendous damage to our society. We dont need to legalize more stuff, we need to learn our lesson and keep mind altering substances under strict control.

The War on drugs has been fought wrong. It needs to be fought at the demand side rather than the supply side. But it does still need to be fought. Its bad enough that despite the extreme penalties we charge these people with, we still have to watch out for drunk drivers. We dont need to start worrying about people on crack, heroin, or PCP driving down the street too.

Are you blind? Drugs are already here. We arent "adding them to the mix" they are already part of it. What makes you think people arent driving down the road high on crack, heroin and PCP already?

While its true that alcohol causes tremendous damage to our society, it is also true that there was much more damage done by making alcohol illegal. More damage in terms of lives lost and resources wasted.

Apply the same logic to drugs. Do you really think that keeping them illegal prevents people from having access to them? Do you know someone that wants drugs and cant get them currently?

the best and fastest way to put cartels and drug pushers out of business is to legalize and regulate. the best and fastest way to reduce drug-related deaths is to legalize and regulate. it's pretty simple, as far as i can see: if you don't like crime, and dislike people dying, you support legalization and regulation of drugs.

Yes, because alcohol is so much less destructive and bad for society than most drugs... of course.
Most drugs that have been outlawed and labelled the spawn of all evil dont have one death associated with them, unless it was caused by obscene overuse... like at levels where as much water would kill you.
Yet alcohol is extremely detrimental to people's health, and that's only the tip of the iceberg once you factor in all the social problems surrounding its abuse.
I'm not saying that alcohol should be banned and all other drugs should be legalised, but I am saying that it is stupid to say that alcohol is mild compared to most outlawed drugs, and that the legalisation of alcohol "is enough".

Alcohol is just as bad as some drugs, worse than others, not as bad others. The social problems associated with some drugs like heroin and crack are far worse than alcohol. But the cat is already out of the bag with alcohol. It would be too difficult to put it back in. That is not the case with the other drugs.

Are you blind? Drugs are already here. We arent "adding them to the mix" they are already part of it. What makes you think people arent driving down the road high on crack, heroin and PCP already?

While its true that alcohol causes tremendous damage to our society, it is also true that there was much more damage done by making alcohol illegal. More damage in terms of lives lost and resources wasted.

Apply the same logic to drugs. Do you really think that keeping them illegal prevents people from having access to them? Do you know someone that wants drugs and cant get them currently?

This is totally wrong on all respects. First of all, yes drugs are here, but if they were legal far more people would use them. As things stand now, most people simply cant afford the risk of taking drugs even if they wanted to. There is the risk of being caught buying it or being caught with it in your car, the risk of losing your job due to a random screening, the risk that comes with dealing with the types of individuals who could sell you the stuff, etc. This keeps the number of people who use the drugs far lower than if it were completely legal.

Your second point is an outright lie. Prohibition created a problem that was quickly being brought under control. With the rise of Elliot Ness and the G-men, the gangs were being brought under control. It was a problem that flared up at first because law enforcement didnt know how to combat it, but it learned and adapted and they were being subdued. The gangs did little but fight amongst each other. During that time, domestic violence plunged and drinking was relegated to something people did in secret clubs, rather than a problem they brought home with them. The end of prohibition is what brought us to where we are today.

To answer your final question, I know many people who do not do drugs but would if it were legal. They did drugs once, but stopped because they needed to get a job and most jobs do random screening. If it were legal they would be doing it.

This is totally wrong on all respects. First of all, yes drugs are here, but if they were legal far more people would use them.

you have numbers on that? let's see some evidence for you claims. remember that during Prohibition the rates of alcohol use and abuse were HIGHER than the years before Prohibition.

As things stand now, most people simply cant afford the risk of taking drugs even if they wanted to.

possibly, but that's not the primary reason most people cite for not using drugs...most people who don't use drugs say it's because they don't want to, not because they are afraid of the risks. i don't want to do heroin, and that's not going to change if it becomes legal. as a long-time drug user, i can definitively say that laws against drugs have never stopped me from using if i wanted to, and the legal status of drugs will have no impact on my future use.


There is the risk of being caught buying it or being caught with it in your car, the risk of losing your job due to a random screening, the risk that comes with dealing with the types of individuals who could sell you the stuff, etc. This keeps the number of people who use the drugs far lower than if it were completely legal.

well, if we made it illegal to be an adulterer then maybe we would scare more people away from adultery. if we made it illegal to be a racists maybe it would scare people away from being racist. if we made it illegal to feed your kids fast food maybe it would scare people away from feeding their kids fast food.

or we could always, you know, support justice and freedom of individual choice. but whatever, it's all good.


Your second point is an outright lie. Prohibition created a problem that was quickly being brought under control. With the rise of Elliot Ness and the G-men, the gangs were being brought under control. It was a problem that flared up at first because law enforcement didnt know how to combat it, but it learned and adapted and they were being subdued. The gangs did little but fight amongst each other. During that time, domestic violence plunged and drinking was relegated to something people did in secret clubs, rather than a problem they brought home with them. The end of prohibition is what brought us to where we are today.
let's see some sources on that. from what i have learned, your information is totally incorrect; many of the more conspicuous booze-runners were being caught, but the underground industry was flourishing and was in no danger of dying out. the continued success of modern drug cartels supports that perspective, as well, since they actually have INCREASED in power and profit as a result of the US war on drugs.


To answer your final question, I know many people who do not do drugs but would if it were legal. They did drugs once, but stopped because they needed to get a job and most jobs do random screening. If it were legal they would be doing it.
so? using drugs may be something you don't like, but that doesn't make it wrong or evil or bad. you don't have to choose to use drugs if you don't like. stop trying to parent other people, though, it's not a worthy use of your time.

Drugs should be legalized and controled like booze. If more people take drugs then so be it. Our prison populations will be decreased, drug related crimes would decrease but of course not disappear. I think things would improve some but they would always be a problem.
I am tempted to say that if you o.d. you should be refused medical treatment but that would lead to so troubling problems. It would be an easy way to murder someone. Also if druggies couldn't be treated for an over dose why would drunks be treated.
still, legalize now and stuff. . .yeah.

you have numbers on that? let's see some evidence for you claims. remember that during Prohibition the rates of alcohol use and abuse were HIGHER than the years before Prohibition.

You dont need numbers, logic alone tells you this is true. But if you must have concrete data, I recommend "Deliver us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition" by Norman H Clark. The book its self is good (and disproves the myth you just mentioned), but perhaps better than the analysis in the book its self is its extensive bibliography

possibly, but that's not the primary reason most people cite for not using drugs...most people who don't use drugs say it's because they don't want to, not because they are afraid of the risks. i don't want to do heroin, and that's not going to change if it becomes legal.

Of course, but the people who arent interested in doing it are not the ones who are going to cause the number of drug users to fluctuate, so there is no need to count them.

as a long-time drug user, i can definitively say that laws against drugs have never stopped me from using if i wanted to, and the legal status of drugs will have no impact on my future use.
So? You are one person. An exception to every rule can always be found.


well, if we made it illegal to be an adulterer then maybe we would scare more people away from adultery. if we made it illegal to be a racists maybe it would scare people away from being racist. if we made it illegal to feed your kids fast food maybe it would scare people away from feeding their kids fast food.

None of those things are worth regulating.

let's see some sources on that. from what i have learned, your information is totally incorrect; many of the more conspicuous booze-runners were being caught, but the underground industry was flourishing and was in no danger of dying out.


Read the story of Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, Machine gun kelley, or any of the other top dogs of that era. The ones who didnt end up dead ended up in prison, their empires crumbling.


the continued success of modern drug cartels supports that perspective, as well, since they actually have INCREASED in power and profit as a result of the US war on drugs.


First year economics tells you this is not true. They increased in power and profit because demand increased. Like I said before, the focus on fighting this at the supply side instead of the demand side is ineffective. Fighting it at the supply side drives up prices, it doesnt lower demand. This doesnt mean profits increase, because the increase in prices is to make up for the losses of captured shipments, the cost of bribing officials, having to pay people more to make it worth the risk to smuggle it, etc. What it does do is increase the burden on the consumer which in turn increases crime. I never said fighting it at the supply side is effective, I said the opposite. Simple, first year economics however, will show you that what increased their power and profits is an increase in demand. Unless you can show that the war on drugs increased demand, then the war on drugs has nothing to do with it.

so? using drugs may be something you don't like, but that doesn't make it wrong or evil or bad. you don't have to choose to use drugs if you don't like. stop trying to parent other people, though, it's not a worthy use of your time.

The consequences of legalizing drugs to society are simply too great to warrant this approach.

I know it's petty, but of course "drugs" aren't going to be legalised... "Drugs" encompasses a whole lot of different substances, ranging from paracetamol to heroin.
I think pretty much all current prescription drugs should be kept as is, and drugs like MDMA, THC, and GHC should be produced under strict supervision and sold for lots and lots of money. Other, harder drugs, should be illegal, but people shouldn't have to spend the rest of their lives in gaol if they are caught sniffing cocaine or anything.
I think people dealing things like herion and fantasy should be locked up for life, though.

This is totally wrong on all respects. First of all, yes drugs are here, but if they were legal far more people would use them. As things stand now, most people simply cant afford the risk of taking drugs even if they wanted to. There is the risk of being caught buying it or being caught with it in your car, the risk of losing your job due to a random screening, the risk that comes with dealing with the types of individuals who could sell you the stuff, etc. This keeps the number of people who use the drugs far lower than if it were completely legal.

Your second point is an outright lie. Prohibition created a problem that was quickly being brought under control. With the rise of Elliot Ness and the G-men, the gangs were being brought under control. It was a problem that flared up at first because law enforcement didnt know how to combat it, but it learned and adapted and they were being subdued. The gangs did little but fight amongst each other. During that time, domestic violence plunged and drinking was relegated to something people did in secret clubs, rather than a problem they brought home with them. The end of prohibition is what brought us to where we are today.

To answer your final question, I know many people who do not do drugs but would if it were legal. They did drugs once, but stopped because they needed to get a job and most jobs do random screening. If it were legal they would be doing it.

You reasoning, while well meaning, needs to be updated.

National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure

The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html


And to being an outright lie... If the fed govt had figured out how to stop alcohol smugglers back in the 1920s, then why are they unable to stop drug smugglers? Are you saying law enforcement techniques have gotten worse? For every big name smuggler that the govt gets, tons more are willing to step into his place when the rewards are so high.

And as to your demand vs supply side argument, how exactly is law enforcement going to curtail demand? Shall we lock up or render unemployable a large chunk of our population? We aleady do that and it has had no impact on demand. There are already over 2 million people in our prisons, 50% for something drug related. Are you proposing we should double or triple that number? Even then, whatever impact it might have on drug use
would be overshadowed by the ruined lives.

An article about number of people we incarcerate in the US by way of adding to the damage that this drug war is having upon the people.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-23-00.html

A close look at crime statistics reveals that the drug war is fueling the remarkable growth in our prison population. In 1981, only 22 percent of federal inmates were drug prisoners. Today, 60 percent are drug prisoners.

WTF are we doing?

America's criminal justice system is going to make history this week when the number of incarcerated people surpasses two million for the first time. But this is a development for which neither political party will attempt to claim "credit." Indeed, people across the political spectrum seem to recognize that this is a sad occasion--an occasion that raises a nagging question: Why do so many Americans need to be kept behind iron bars?

To fully appreciate why this is such an extraordinary moment, one needs to put the two-million-prisoner factoid into historical context. As the nearby chart shows, it took over two hundred years for America to hold one million prisoners all at once. And yet we have managed to incarcerate the second million in only the last ten years. Analysts at the Justice Policy Institute point out that our per-capita incarceration rate is now second only to Russia's. This is hardly something that anyone would proudly tout as an "achievement."

snip
Land of the free?

Land of the free?

It was one. Look at the chart on incarceration in the latter post..scary

The US liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban who stopped drug crop productions (due their intepretation of the Koran) while the local warlords grow and sell it for money (because there's nothing much else to sell). The Taliban are gone, Afghanistan has democracy and Afghanistan drugs are feeding the world again.

Weird.

Well, I think marijuana should be legalized and sold and regulated like booze but the other drugs like heroin, etc. should remain illegal. I think if marijuana were legalized there were initially be an increase in useage, but it would spike and then drop off and level out like it has done in the Netherlands. Also, if marijuana were legal, I think the use of harder drugs would drop since people could get high legally without fear of repercussion and they would also have no reason to come in contact with the people who offer to sell the "hard stuff." A large number of people using harder drugs get into it, IMHO, because the people they get their marijuana from deal in other drugs as well. You go to buy a sack of weed and your dealer says "I'm out, but here, try this instead." Bammo - you're smoking crack or using meth. On the other hand you go to the "weed" store and buy some 12% THC Mexican Red and you're good to go, the government makes money, farmers have a new cash crop, a business is supported and you don't meet people selling meth or crack or heroin as a side item.
Note that I don't say the use of hard drugs would disappear if marijuana were legal, but I do think it would go down.

Lazy Hippies, I have to say: few people actually make me laugh out loud when I read their posts. You should be flattered.

All arguments concerning the effects of drugs aside, we do in fact live in a country that supposes to call itself "free." Yet, at the same time, we have a group of people in power who are so dead set on controlling as many aspects of our lives as they can, that they've pushed this ridiculous set of drug laws on us. The freaky thing a lot of people don't realize when dealing with drug issues is that when you talk about psychoactive drugs, you're talking about the contents of your mind. You'd figure the ability to control the contents of your mind would be a pretty basic right. But it isn't.

What you do when you legislate behavior is you're creating criminals that wouldn't otherwise exist. You're creating a massive financial burden and you're holding all manner of intoxicating substances to a different standard. It's [i]very possible for somoene to drink oneself to death, but alcohol is legal and marijuana--which is impossible to overdose on-- remains the devil to every politician who followed in Nixon's rambling, staggering, insane footsteps.

Nixon started the DEA and the drug war in 1975 to distract voters from a morally questionable war overseas. It didn't work. It's still not working, 30 years later. I can get any drug I want, whenever I want, for a decent price.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of your argument, at least from where I sit, stems from your apparent interest in fighting the "Demand side" of the drug war--which I'm not sure if you realize or not, but our government is already doing. Just look at any one of those horrible ONDCP propaganda commercials . Those don't work either. If you want to get much more intensive when it comes to "fighting ths demand side" pretty much the only option left is a full frontal lobotomy. You can't force people to change, LH. Have you even seen A Clockwork Orange?

The government already spreads a lot of misconceptions about drugs; and it's been my experience that most people that are dead set against them are using either government information or a personal incident to justify their position. Sophistry. The government tells us that weed is the devil and that LSD will kill you because when you take it, you'll think you can fly. In reality, I remember it made you think you couldn't stand up, which is mostly true, and the much predicted precipitation of wingless adolescents has to date failed to materialize. In spite of this, a lot of people still wolf down that steaming pile of red white and blue bullshit that the Federal government has been stuffing down their throats for the last thirty goddamned years. Whatever happened to forming one's own opinion?

The government does not educate anyone about the effects of drugs; it's only interested in spreading propaganda. Watch Reefer Madness and tell me that's an accurate portrayal of anything. I'll agree that kids need to be made aware of the effects of drugs, and that their presence on our streets is probably not the best thing in the world. But our government's way of spreading 'information' is something along the lines of:

"This is your brain."

*smashes egg*

"This is your brain on Heroin. Any questions?"

Yeah, I've got one. "What the fuck do you think you're doing?!" Oh wait, I've got another one too: "Isn't your brain already fucked if you think shooting heroin is a good idea?"

Legalizing drugs would be nowhere near the strain on society that drug warriors love to claim it will be. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people do it because they want to do it: government statutes be damned. If you legalize it, use will explode for a year or two and then it will peter out: saying that the legalization of weed will turn 99% of our populace into weed heads is a gross misnomer since 99% of us aren't already alcoholics.

You call Bottle an "isolated incident" more or less for saying that current legislation has no bearing on his drug habits. Laughable at best, horribly uninformed and disturbingly inaccurate at worst. I've been a member of the drug culture for about 4 years now; I've smoked weed on an average of once a day every day for probably the last two and a half years. I have never met a single person who claims to abstain from marijuana or any other drug solely based on the merits of our current legislative code. I've met a few people who were rather paranoid about it, and still more that went to ridiculous lengths to conceal their usage, but no one who abstained altogether for the simple fact of it being illegal. I'm sure they're out there, but I've been fortunate enough to be exposed to a nice little sample of my local drug culture, and I think overall the amount of people who think like that is probably negligible.

Great points against the drug war and for legalization of all drugs! Brava

Lazy hippies you are hilarious with your lack of facts because what you believe should just be obvious to people. lol

The war on drugs is a sham. It only serves to make drug dealing more profitable for those willing to take the risk and keeps the jails full of addicts. Drugs should be taxed and regulated, and the funds we spend on the drug war should be funneled into drug treatment programs that work and services that minimize the harm done by drugs to individuals and society.

You dont need numbers, logic alone tells you this is true. But if you must have concrete data, I recommend "Deliver us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition" by Norman H Clark. The book its self is good (and disproves the myth you just mentioned), but perhaps better than the analysis in the book its self is its extensive bibliography

i'm afraid logic leads me to a different conclusion than you. i also am familiar with that book, and i remember noting an interesting trait when i first read it: it has no footnotes. it isn't really history, and is heavy on the sociology. if that's the best source you've got...well, it doesn't "disprove" a thing, in my opinion, but you can believe what you like.


Of course, but the people who arent interested in doing it are not the ones who are going to cause the number of drug users to fluctuate, so there is no need to count them.

well, if you pick and choose which parts of the population you will "count" you can pretty much "prove" anything you like. :)


So? You are one person. An exception to every rule can always be found.

according to pretty much every study conducted, the majority of drug users do not commit any crimes beyond owning and using their drug or drugs. the majority of drug users never endanger another human life with reckless behavior connected to their drug use. the majority of drug users are quite normal people who happen to use drugs, just like most people who eat bacon are normal people who happen to eat bacon. the "rule" in this case appears to be that drug use is a private behavior engaged in for personal pleasure, and the exception is cases where other individuals are harmed.


None of those things are worth regulating.
that's your opinion. why is your opinion so very precious, that we should abridge the freedoms of adult citizens in order to please you? feel free to regulate your own personal life as you choose, and kindly refrain from commanding other people to subscribe to your values.


Read the story of Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, Machine gun kelley, or any of the other top dogs of that era. The ones who didnt end up dead ended up in prison, their empires crumbling.

as i said, many of the most visible gangsters were caught and stopped. the impact that their captures had on the influx of alcohol was virtually nonexistent; a brief pause in supply might occur, but the gap would quickly be filled by new suppliers with more subtle methods.


First year economics tells you this is not true.

history, FBI source statistics (the UCR, specifically), and international data on the development of drug cartels informs me that it is precisely true.

you seem very interested in theory and not at all interested in fact or hard data. perhaps your economics class gives you a simple "supply and demand" model, but any practicing economist (or any practical person, for that matter) will tell you that economic models don't apply cleanly in the real world.


They increased in power and profit because demand increased.

supply and demand is most certainly not the only factor at work. because a comodity (drugs, in this case) is made difficult to obtain, the same level of demand will be associated with higher costs. drug pushers and cartels can charge far more even if they have the same number of customers. they also have the luxury of a "captive" market; their customers cannot turn to the authorities if unfair practices are employed, because the customers are buying a forbidden product. the cartels do not need to provide any particular level of purity or quality, and they don't have to waste time with any safety standards or such things, because their customers have no recourse. the cartels can profit from dangerous, dishonest, and violent methods because there is no regulation of their practices. this means that the same demand can result in extortive prices for impure (or even 100% substituted) goods.

and that's just the tip of the iceberg.


Like I said before, the focus on fighting this at the supply side instead of the demand side is ineffective. Fighting it at the supply side drives up prices, it doesnt lower demand.

on this we agree, which is why the buying and selling of drugs should be 100% legal. if you want people to stop wanting to use drugs, the worst thing you can possibly do is make drugs illegal...hell, half the users i know started using specifically because drugs were a no-no and they wanted to be a rebel. the illegality didn't phase them one bit, and for some it might have been a turn on.


This doesnt mean profits increase, because the increase in prices is to make up for the losses of captured shipments, the cost of bribing officials, having to pay people more to make it worth the risk to smuggle it, etc.

lol, spoken like somebody who has no idea of what the drug trade is like. the captured shipments, bribes, smuggling...it's a drop in the bucket. those costs are negligible, and certainly don't infringe upon the profit margin. the cost to the user is simply raised whenever the cartel wants, and because they have tightly throttled markets and well-established turf they have no fear that raising prices will lose customers.

in fact, law enforcement isn't really the problem facing major drug cartels. what bothers them more is the independent growers and cooks who produce drugs on their own and undercut the cartel prices. if you want to put cartels out of business fast, the best way to do it is let college kids grow their own pot in their dorm rooms. :)


What it does do is increase the burden on the consumer which in turn increases crime. I never said fighting it at the supply side is effective, I said the opposite. Simple, first year economics however, will show you that what increased their power and profits is an increase in demand. Unless you can show that the war on drugs increased demand, then the war on drugs has nothing to do with it.

again, your "simple first year economics" is far too simplistic and naive to combat this problem. it's thinking like this which costs countless lives and tens of millions of dollars in a useless and ineffective attempt to force a complex issue into a simple formula.


The consequences of legalizing drugs to society are simply too great to warrant this approach.
since the consequences of prohibiting drugs are far more directly dangerous, and since prohibition is inherently unjust, i don't see how the consequences of legalizing drugs could be "too great" to outweigh such considerations.

supply and demand is most certainly not the only factor at work. because a comodity (drugs, in this case) is made difficult to obtain, the same level of demand will be associated with higher costs. drug pushers and cartels can charge far more even if they have the same number of customers. they also have the luxury of a "captive" market; their customers cannot turn to the authorities if unfair practices are employed, because the customers are buying a forbidden product. the cartels do not need to provide any particular level of purity or quality, and they don't have to waste time with any safety standards or such things, because their customers have no recourse. the cartels can profit from dangerous, dishonest, and violent methods because there is no regulation of their practices. this means that the same demand can result in extortive prices for impure (or even 100% substituted) goods.


Well spoken. Many people like to point out how drugs cause all sorts of crime in the name of more profits, turf, more product, or what have you. However, few are prepared to think about it long enough to realize that the reason for this is that there is no other way to solve disputes on the black market than violence. They'll throw all sorts of heartbreaking stories about kids mowed down by drug gangs, but when you get right down to it, there's only two ways to stop that: you can either go 1984 on their asses and watch your citizenry for every second of their waking lives and strip them of anything vaguely resembling a civil liberty, or you can admit you're wrong and legalize the shit so legitimate industry can take over. We may not like the alcohol and tobacco companies but I don't see them doing drive-bys.

The Drug war is an industry all-on-its-own, with billions of dollars (both sides) being generated annually. It employs thousands of specialists,many of whom have no other marketable skills, and that's the real roadbloc to ending it.

The US already won the war on drugs. Don't believe me? Read on:

I've smoked Americans up with simple, hydroponically-grown weed from Canada - and had them freak out, claiming I'd "spiked" the dope with something dangerous, like PCP. When I explain that all they've had is just good, clean weed they don't believe me.

On one such occasion I asked if they had any of their own stash with them, so as to compare the two. Folks, shittier weed than what these American pot-heads keep around can only be had from smoking rope. Seriously.

I'm talking dirt-weed here. Schwag. The stuff you clip off your buds and hopefully remember to use for making brownies. Stuff so weak, and laden with stems and seeds, that i'd give it to my parrots as snacks and chew-toys.

There is a very real need on the part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens to 'get out of' their heads, this is nothing new, this has been a trait of ours since before recorded history. Whatever the substance, chances are someone has already tried to get high on it at some point. Some things are better than others. I'd say pot and hash are probably the substances best suited to the task.

But there's the war on drugs. Pot is easy enough to target, it's bulky and smelly and with sniffer dogs, it's easy to detect in transit. Any cop with a working nose can usually spot it on someone's person. So pot gets targeted, people go to jail for stupidly small amounts of it, it's vilified, etc.

So, given that it's become more difficult to obtain a good drug like pot, the people who, naturally enough, want a chemically-induced escape from what ails them, will turn to other substances, substances that can more readily escape detection by authorities - but these substances are 'harder' than marijuana - more harmful, certainly addictive. There's a good chance you'll develop some very nasty habits indeed if you get mixed up in cocaine, crack, meth, speed, or smack.

But there's that war on drugs again. In some places, the cops have been able to crack down on the illegal drug trade to such an extent the only means available to people to get 'out of their heads' is to drink alcohol (also addictive, as well as health-damaging, and a depressant to boot), or to abuse proscribed substances, such as solvents. And that's where the war on drugs is taking America, as well as any place America decides must also take part in their war on drugs (like Canada).

Sure, if they're successful, there'll be no illegal drugs available. But that won't stop those who want to escape their situation. They'll use whatever they can lay their hands on to get the job done. If that means buying or stealing a can of gold spray paint, or a jug of industrial adhesive to sniff the toluene, or buying a litre of gasoline to sniff that, then they'll do it.

If you've ever encountered someone who has been abusing solvents for some time, you know firsthand just how degraded a human being can become. The brain damage it quickly inflicts cannot be undone. It is a slow form of suicide. So why do people do this? Because they can't safely secure and enjoy the relatively benign effects of cannabis without fear of persecution.

Is it really a better world where people destroy themselves through solvent abuse because a joint'll get them thrown in jail? Is it better to see people staggering and getting violently rowdy during a session of binge-drinking than to see the same people laughing and eating junk-food during a session of bong hits?

Don't hand me the line about living a life of sobriety - that's the line you hand out to the gullible chumps. No-one lives life that way, unless you've got some bizarre medical condition. In fact, I'd say it's the self-proclaimed 'tea-totallers' who stand the greatest chance of being closeted 'escapists'. They'll say one thing to the public, and do the exact opposite behind closed doors.

And if you're under the age of majority, don't try telling me I'm wrong. What the hell do you know about real, bona fide human behaviour while you're still eating Corn Pops and living in your parent's house?

Just out of interest, do those arcade game warnings come under the 'war on drugs' umbrella? The first time I went to the US those things made me laugh! The complete lunacy of writing 'winners don't do drugs' or somesuch, and expecting people not to take them just tickled me. :p

Your american friends must have horrible connections.

I have several sources for the chronic buds. They are just as good as the best stuff you can get in Amsterdam too, as I have had it.

Dammit, now I wish I was home puffing from the vaporizor

I dont think that quite qualifies as having "won" the drug war, but I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

Also this myth of all Americans smoking shitty pot is starting to get under my skin. I've been to Amsterdam, so I've taken the Pepsi challenge. Commercial green weed over here obviously isn't as good, but high quality weed can still be found if you know where to look.

And I do ;)

Most drugs that have been outlawed and labelled the spawn of all evil dont have one death associated with them, unless it was caused by obscene overuse... like at levels where as much water would kill you.
Plenty of deaths are linked to banned drugs, if you read the news. Many more peoples lives are ruined by "hard core" drug use, and their families have suffered immeasureably.

Perhaps the US war on drugs has failed and needs to be revamped. Instead of targeting the customers, law enforcement should go after the suppliers, and increase funding for rehabilitation programs for those with serious addictions instead of sending them to jail.

Plenty of deaths are linked to banned drugs, if you read the news. Many more peoples lives are ruined by "hard core" drug use, and their families have suffered immeasureably.

Perhaps the US war on drugs has failed and needs to be revamped. Instead of targeting the customers, law enforcement should go after the suppliers, and increase funding for rehabilitation programs for those with serious addictions instead of sending them to jail.

The US has done everything than is even remotely feasible short of monitoring its citizenry 24hrs a day. We jail people for simple possession, we jail suppliers, we jail people who are working as lookouts for suppliers. We impound all sorts of private property from cars to houses even if the owner had no idea that their friend/cild/spouse whatever was using said property in relation to the drug trade. We destroy farmers fields in foreign countries. We run para military operation on our own citizens and others.

If you had read any of the articles I linked to, you would have realized that we jail more people in the US for drug violation than Europe(with a larger population) does for ALL crimes.

The govt has wrecked wanton devestation upon its own citizens(in terms of otherwise productive lives ruined, and the dead) and undermined its police/judicial/penetentiary system by greatly overburdening it and subjecting them to great amounts of corruption. And lets not forget about the freedoms we have lost because of this war. The level of intrusiveness into normal peoples lives by the govt (because of this war) is simply insane.

The Govt as done all this and has had ZERO impact. Drug purity has gone up considerably and prices in real dollars have plumeted since the wars inception, while consumption has vastly increased. A strong indication of the utter failure of the war on drugs. I mean really, all this money spent and they cant even get the prices to keep up with inflation?

EXACTLY. Heroin now is something like 600x more pure than it was in the sixties, and it's also much, much cheaper now than it was back then. I think thats a pretty strong endictment of how horribly our national drug policy has failed.

Originally Posted by LazyHippies

...First year economics tells you this is not true.

Originally Posted by Bottle (in response)

History, FBI source statistics (the UCR, specifically), and international data on the development of drug cartels informs me that it is precisely true.

Owned

Originally posted by Melkor Unchained

Well spoken. Many people like to point out how drugs cause all sorts of crime in the name of more profits, turf, more product, or what have you. However, few are prepared to think about it long enough to realize that the reason for this is that there is no other way to solve disputes on the black market than violence. They'll throw all sorts of heartbreaking stories about kids mowed down by drug gangs, but when you get right down to it, there's only two ways to stop that: you can either go 1984 on their asses and watch your citizenry for every second of their waking lives and strip them of anything vaguely resembling a civil liberty, or you can admit you're wrong and legalize the shit so legitimate industry can take over. We may not like the alcohol and tobacco companies but I don't see them doing drive-bys.

*raucous applause!* (I love that name BTW)

Originally posted by Isanyonehome

The Govt as done all this and has had ZERO impact. Drug purity has gone up considerably and prices in real dollars have plumeted since the wars inception, while consumption has vastly increased. A strong indication of the utter failure of the war on drugs. I mean really, all this money spent and they cant even get the prices to keep up with inflation?

*MORE raucous applause!* *gives Melkor and Isan a cookie! :) *

Originally posted by Cadillac-Gage

The Drug war is an industry all-on-its-own, with billions of dollars (both sides) being generated annually. It employs thousands of specialists,many of whom have no other marketable skills, and that's the real roadbloc to ending it.

This, more than any other reason, is why the Drug War will never end. It ties into my first post, and you made it much more clear than I did. There are too many now who have their entire lives dependant upon fighting the war on drugs, from policemen to lawyers to politicians. Things will never change.

the majority of drug users are quite normal people who happen to use drugs, just like most people who eat bacon are normal people who happen to eat bacon.


this is your brain:
http://www.cheapcooking.com/images/fried-egg.jpg




this is your brain with bacon:
http://no-information.de/media/1/20040216-sd_fruehstueck.jpg


mmmm, bacon.

this is your brain:




this is your brain with bacon:



mmmm, bacon.

where did the extra egg come from? Are you saying bacon creates eggs? and French toast?

another interesting read from a veteran police officer

January 13, 2001

Make Drugs Legal for Adults, Says Former Cop
by David Klinger

David Klinger is professor of criminology at the University of Missouri. This article is adapted from his chapter in the new Cato Institute book, After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century.

ST. LOUIS -- When I joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1980, I was a strong supporter of the notion that illegal drugs should stay that way and that the enforcement of drug laws should be a top priority.

But my views quickly changed once I hit the streets. Assigned to the rugged 77th Street Division in the heart of South Central, I saw firsthand the social problems one could find in any community awash in the trafficking and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other controlled substances.

During my first months on patrol, after handling hundreds of drug calls and arresting scores of people for possessing various illegal substances, I began to doubt what my peers and I were doing.

I saw violent criminals walking the streets because the jail space they rightfully deserved was occupied by nonviolent drug offenders. When we carted small-time drug dealers off to prison, I saw other sellers quickly step in to fill the void.

I started to view most people involved with drugs either as broken souls who made self-destructive choices or as harmless people who indulged their appetites in moderation -- not as crooks who needed to be punished.

I tried to reconcile what I saw with my views about firmly enforcing drug laws. At first I accepted the arguments of politicians, policy wonks and my peers who asserted that ever harsher laws and firmer enforcement would turn back the tide of illegal drugs.

But by the end of my tenure with the LAPD I came to believe that marijuana -- a drug I had never seen anyone overdose on or influence anyone to do anything more violent than attack a bag of potato chips -- should be legalized.

I held a bifurcated stance toward illicit drugs -- legalize pot but strictly enforce existing laws against the rest of the stuff -- through my time with the Redmond, Wash., police department and into my graduate studies.

As the years passed, however, I saw a nation fighting harder, devoting more money and jailing increasing numbers of individuals -- all the while falling further behind in the war on drugs.

The price of the drugs didn't rise with increased interdiction, usage rates didn't fall and the number of lives damaged or destroyed by chronic use, overdose and drug-related criminal activity mounted. No matter how much I disliked the idea, I became convinced the United States should legalize illicit drugs.

Ever since I concluded we should call off the hounds, I have discussed my ideas with people in many walks of life.

Interestingly, both my hardiest supporters and my harshest critics come from the same group: my law enforcement associates. Many of them on both sides of the debate share my views about the futility of the drug war and agree it carries a substantial downside.

What generally separates those who agree with me from those who don't is their take on a question they almost invariably put to me: Won't legalizing drugs lead more people to take them and thus make things worse?

I do not know whether legalizing drugs will increase their popularity. But I suspect that if we approach legalization thoughtfully and pursue a sensible post-legalization strategy, then the drug rolls will not swell. They may in fact decline.

But even if more people do take drugs in the wake of legalization, we would live in a society where citizens suffer far less from the predatory crimes spawned by the illicit drug trade.

In the end, we cannot protect free adults from their own poor choices, and we should not use the force of law to try. In a free society negative consequences befall people who use their freedom to do foolish things.

Victimless self-destructive behavior is its own punishment, not the business of the legal system.


link here http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-13-01.html

People who take illegal drugs should be eliminated. They are a taint on society.

where did the extra egg come from? Are you saying bacon creates eggs? and French toast?

clearly the bacon has warped your sense of reality

clearly the bacon has warped your sense of reality

Well, its my reality to warp as I please, with bacon or otherwise. Oh wait, I forgot damnit, for a minute I thought I was in a free country where my thoughts and body were my own.

Hands back the bacon [sadly]

People who take illegal drugs should be eliminated. They are a taint on society.

How do you plan on going about that? Do you plan on eliminating some of your family friends and neighbors? Do you plan on killing the tens of millions of people who have taken illegal drugs.

While I think drugs are stupid, it a person's right to be stupid.

oo looky, a cool drug clock

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

One question:
Has anyone in the Unites States ever considered that all other coutnries on this planet face similar problems? Has it ever occured to anyone to take a look over the border (or overseas, for that matter) to see what approach other nations are taking? I think it might be informative nad instructive for all.
Especially since you would be presented not only with the concepts that other country's came up with, but also with the results up to date...
Take the Netherlands, for example (ok, EVRYBODY takes the Netherlands for example when it comes to drug questions, but then tey were the first to break the taboo). They legalised "soft" drugs quite a while ago, and would you believe it, the numbers of drug use have neither risen nor declined. But the government is making a nice profit on the taxes it could impose on those drugs once they were legal. By the way, other countries are following this example. Many of the Scandinavian countries have legalised certain forms of drug use, and none have experienced any problems with this apporach.

How do you plan on going about that? Do you plan on eliminating some of your family friends and neighbors? Do you plan on killing the tens of millions of people who have taken illegal drugs.

While I think drugs are stupid, it a person's right to be stupid.

My family and friends don't do drugs. We're not stupid.

Although it's not the right of people to be stupid. If you're stupid, you're no use to the nation. And if you're no use to the nation, clean up or get the **** out.

Im not going to waste my time digging up research on the link between drug use and violent crime for a bunch of potheads on a forum. The link is well documented and plenty of research exists if you feel like looking for it yourself. The fact is that there is a statistically significant correlation between drug use and violent crime. There is also a statistically significant correlation between domestic violence and substance abuse.

Some of the harder drugs (most notably heroin) have a tendency to render a person useless to society. The nature of these drugs is such that the addict's goal in life gradually changes to the point where their primary purpose in life is to seek and use the drug.

Most illegal drugs impair people's ability to drive. As we have learned with the legalization of alcohol, no matter how harsh the penalties, people will still drive intoxicated.

Most drugs also cause serious harm to a persons body which translates into higher medical expenses. This may not be as big a deal in the US since we are willing to let people die if they cant afford health care, but it is my hope that in the future health care will be a guaranteed right, and at that point this becomes a tax payer issue.

So lets see how it stands right now:
1. Correlation between drug use and violent crime
2. Correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence
3. Correlation between substance abuse and traffic accidents
4. Loss of productivity and eventual uselessness due to a change in life goals brought on by addiction.
5. Higher health care costs

The reason why drugs need to remain illegal are obvious.

[snip]
They legalised "soft" drugs quite a while ago, and would you believe it, the numbers of drug use have neither risen nor declined. But the government is making a nice profit on the taxes it could impose on those drugs once they were legal. By the way, other countries are following this example. Many of the Scandinavian countries have legalised certain forms of drug use, and none have experienced any problems with this apporach.

That is a sensible approach that I would definitely support. But to legalize all drugs is just madness. I could care less if some people like to smoke a blunt or two after work. That really doesnt hurt anyone but themselves. But when you start talking about drugs that have a tendency to render a person useless to society or lead to violence, then I have a problem with it.

Im not going to waste my time digging up research on the link between drug use and violent crime for a bunch of potheads on a forum. The link is well documented and plenty of research exists if you feel like looking for it yourself. The fact is that there is a statistically significant correlation between drug use and violent crime. There is also a statistically significant correlation between domestic violence and substance abuse.

Some of the harder drugs (most notably heroin) have a tendency to render a person useless to society. The nature of these drugs is such that the addict's goal in life gradually changes to the point where their primary purpose in life is to seek and use the drug.

Most illegal drugs impair people's ability to drive. As we have learned with the legalization of alcohol, no matter how harsh the penalties, people will still drive intoxicated.

Most drugs also cause serious harm to a persons body which translates into higher medical expenses. This may not be as big a deal in the US since we are willing to let people die if they cant afford health care, but it is my hope that in the future health care will be a guaranteed right, and at that point this becomes a tax payer issue.

So lets see how it stands right now:
1. Correlation between drug use and violent crime
2. Correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence
3. Correlation between substance abuse and traffic accidents
4. Loss of productivity and eventual uselessness due to a change in life goals brought on by addiction.
5. Higher health care costs

The reason why drugs need to remain illegal are obvious.


You logic is so poor that I fear for the species. Do you not understand the concept of weighing the positives of drug legalization with negatives and then comparing the net result to situation that exists now.

Even if everything you said is true(And I in no way concede that) you would have to show that drug(and the negative consequences thereof) use would rise so much that the negatives would outweigh the positives of legalization.

As can be seen from the experiment with alcohol, your doomsday scenario does not exists.

Now lets go through your points

1. Correlation between drug use and violent crime

a) you provide no data(not that you ever have). It is very easy to find also because there is 1 govt agency solely dedicated to perpetuating this myth about the horrors of drug legalization.

b) correleration is not the same as causation. Given that most drug users dont go off and commit a violent act(check arrest numbers in some of links), it far more likely that these people would be violent on or off drugs

c)Heavy Alcohol consumption is the substance that is most strongly correlated with violence. If you want to be consistant, you must call for the prohibition of alcohol as well.

Your 2nd point is the same as your first, and once again, alcohol has the strongest correlation and prevalence.
quote]
3. Correlation between substance abuse and traffic accidents
[/quote]

Punish those that do stupid things like drink and drive or take drugs and drive.

4. Loss of productivity and eventual uselessness due to a change in life goals brought on by addiction.

this is your stupidest point till date. Are you so dense that you dont understand the following

1) loss of productivity/absenteeism did not decrease during alcohol prohibition

2)Whatever productivety is lost because people are getting high is VASTLY overshadowed by the productivety lost by incarcerating otherwise productive people for drug offenses. Not to mention all the resources consumed by this war. The govt spend more on this than programs like food stamps. What about all those people that cannot get proper jobs because they are felons? Dont you think that productivety is lost?

3) only a small percentage of people who try/use drugs become addicts/hard core perpetual users. People who are so addictedd that they become unproductive

5. Higher health care costs

I suppose the open gang warfare in the streets doesnt cost any health care dollars. Or the health care dollars spent on AIDS because of no needle purchase programs.

My family and friends don't do drugs. We're not stupid.

Although it's not the right of people to be stupid. If you're stupid, you're no use to the nation. And if you're no use to the nation, clean up or get the **** out.
Ayaaaaaaah! (In fake Malaysian accent)

Lots of smart people do drugs, and they are no less intelligent for it. Trust me, I know a few and they're doing pretty damn well. Hell, there are people smoking bongs at Melbourne Uni med parties. ;)

Edit: Australia's "zero tolerance" policy has been a total failure. Now there are moves to introduce safe injecting rooms and counselling etc. Anyone who has done basic psychology knows that negative reinforcement is the worst form of motivation... Help should be offered to people who need help; they shouldnot be coerced and forced into things. And prison just creates more social problems anyway, so what's the point?

Ayaaaaaaah! (In fake Malaysian accent)

Lots of smart people do drugs, and they are no less intelligent for it. Trust me, I know a few and they're doing pretty damn well. Hell, there are people smoking bongs at Melbourne Uni med parties. ;)

Edit: Australia's "zero tolerance" policy has been a total failure. Now there are moves to introduce safe injecting rooms and counselling etc. Anyone who has done basic psychology knows that negative reinforcement is the worst form of motivation... Help should be offered to people who need help; they shouldnot be coerced and forced into things. And prison just creates more social problems anyway, so what's the point?

Where I come from, druggies are put into jail naked, in winter, and sprayed with cold water. I come from Ukraine, which is next to Russia. You know how cold and long the winter is in Russia?

Where I come from, druggies are put into jail naked, in winter, and sprayed with cold water. I come from Ukraine, which is next to Russia. You know how cold and long the winter is in Russia?
Um... Do you want me to congratulate you? :rolleyes:
And I thought you were Australian?

Where I come from, druggies are put into jail naked, in winter, and sprayed with cold water. I come from Ukraine, which is next to Russia. You know how cold and long the winter is in Russia?
In Russia or in Ukraine? The winter in Ukraine is nothing compared to ours. And what winter has to do with drugs?

Um... Do you want me to congratulate you? :rolleyes:
And I thought you were Australian?

Just because I live here, doesn't make me Australian.

Just because I live here, doesn't make me Australian.
I wouldn't ordinarily give a shit about someone's nationality, it just seems to me that you pick and choose what you identify as to suit your argument. One minute you're German, now you're Ukranian (who doesn't know the difference between Ukraine and Russia evidently) and a while ago you were Australian...

I wouldn't ordinarily give a shit about someone's nationality, it just seems to me that you pick and choose what you identify as to suit your argument. One minute you're German, now you're Ukranian (who doesn't know the difference between Ukraine and Russia evidently) and a while ago you were Australian...

I'm both German and Ukrainian, and I live in Australia. I was hardcore German, until people here pointed out that thanks to Muslims, we're ****ed. So now I don't give a damn.

As can be seen from the experiment with alcohol, your doomsday scenario does not exists.

Alcohol legalization is a perfect example. The country went from one where alcohol was relegated to something people did in secret clubs (the infamous speakeasies) to a social problem affecting countless families and accounting for 40% of all traffic deaths.


a) you provide no data(not that you ever have). It is very easy to find also because there is 1 govt agency solely dedicated to perpetuating this myth about the horrors of drug legalization.

You obviously know that it is easy to find, so why do I need to do your homework for you? Ad hominem logic is useless, the person who publishes the statistics is irrelevant as long as the statistics are accurate.


b) correleration is not the same as causation. Given that most drug users dont go off and commit a violent act(check arrest numbers in some of links), it far more likely that these people would be violent on or off drugs

Of course correlation is not the same as causation. No one in their right mind has ever claimed that drug use alone causes people to commit crimes (except for drug crimes of course). But your statement that most drug users do not commit violent crimes is meaningless. That kind of flawed logic would apply to every fact we know of. Most people who have a high fat diet do not die of a heart attack either, but this does not change the fact that fat increases the risk of heart attacks. Most people who smoke do not die of cancer, but this does not change the fact that smoking causes cancer. Most people who come into contact with radiation will not develop mutations, but it does not change the fact that radiation poisoning causes mutations. Most people who take X drug (pick one) will not be get Y side effect, but it does not change the fact that X drug causes Y side effect. The examples of how your logic is flawed could continue for ever.


c)Heavy Alcohol consumption is the substance that is most strongly correlated with violence. If you want to be consistant, you must call for the prohibition of alcohol as well.


I would if it werent too late. I have said so in previous posts. Unfortunately it is much too late to ban alcohol at this point. Alcohol has become an integral part of popular culture (to the detriment of society). Attempting to ban it would be futile.


Your 2nd point is the same as your first, and once again, alcohol has the strongest correlation and prevalence.

3. Correlation between substance abuse and traffic accidents


Of course. Because drinking is far more popular than using drugs. But most drugs (the only exception I can think of is cocaine) does in fact impair driving just as bad, and quite often far worse than drinking. So, the same would be true of drug users if drugs were legal and became a more prominent part of our culture.


Punish those that do stupid things like drink and drive or take drugs and drive.


Sure. We already do that, however, and it has not worked. Substance abuse still causes approximately 40% of all traffic fatalities, despite the heavy consequences to those who do this.



1) loss of productivity/absenteeism did not decrease during alcohol prohibition

Alcohol does not have that quality hard drugs like heroin have. I wouldnt expect it to affect productivity/absenteeism as much as those drugs that do change the focus of your life. BTW, if you are in the workforce, then Im sure you know people who have missed work because of a hangover.


2)Whatever productivety is lost because people are getting high is VASTLY overshadowed by the productivety lost by incarcerating otherwise productive people for drug offenses. Not to mention all the resources consumed by this war. The govt spend more on this than programs like food stamps. What about all those people that cannot get proper jobs because they are felons? Dont you think that productivety is lost?

Sure, but thats because its being fought wrong. I dont support continuing to use the same failed strategies to combat drugs. I support a socially responsible approach that focuses on rehabilitating addicts instead of locking them up. These types of programs have been highly successful in other countries and I see no reason why it would not work here too.


3) only a small percentage of people who try/use drugs become addicts/hard core perpetual users. People who are so addictedd that they become unproductive

That depends on the drug you are talking about. If you are talking about marijuana or cocaine, that is true. If you are talking about crack, heroin, or meth, that is incorrect.



I suppose the open gang warfare in the streets doesnt cost any health care dollars. Or the health care dollars spent on AIDS because of no needle purchase programs.

Like I said before, the war is being fought wrong. If you fight it correctly you can minimize these things. Gangs will never go away completely no matter what you legalize. Gangs are a social unit, like families. They will continue to exist with or without drugs. To deal with gangs you have to deal with other issues first (like fixing up families so that kids dont need to join gangs to feel like they are part of a family). But thats another topic.

People who take illegal drugs should be eliminated. They are a taint on society.

A radical statement, to be quite sure.

Let's just leave it at this: if you should presume to try to change the way I live, or the way I choose to conduct the business of my life; of if you should presume to kill me based solely on what substances I choose to put into my body, I will do anything and everything to eliminate you before you become a threat to my well being. I'm the only one who should be allowed to "eliminate" myself, and I'll be god damned if someone tries to horn in on that.

I am fully aware of the consequences of my actions, and I will not let my lifestyle become imposed on anyone else. Everyone has a right to self rule: you and me included.

Alcohol legalization is a perfect example. The country went from one where alcohol was relegated to something people did in secret clubs (the infamous speakeasies) to a social problem affecting countless families and accounting for 40% of all traffic deaths.

So, you're saying : Regulate the use of alcohol? That never worked and it will never work.

Fact is, it is not possible to regulate the way people use drugs - and I mean ANY drug, including alcohol, nicotin, caffein as well as currently illegal ones.

All attemps of regulation such as prohibition, smoking bans and high taxes never showed any results on the amount of drugs being consumed. Every culture has a certain numer of traditional drugs, criminalising drug use won't ever scare them away.
By randomly declaring one drug as legal and another one as illegal, you are creating criminals and you are creating all resulting problems for yourself (cost of fighting those crimes, cost of judging them, cost of prison etc.)



Substance abuse still causes approximately 40% of all traffic fatalities, despite the heavy consequences to those who do this.

And what would be different if drugs were legal? Don't you think there's people out there at this very moment who are high on drugs and driving???

A radical statement, to be quite sure.

Let's just leave it at this: if you should presume to try to change the way I live, or the way I choose to conduct the business of my life; of if you should presume to kill me based solely on what substances I choose to put into my body, I will do anything and everything to eliminate you before you become a threat to my well being. I'm the only one who should be allowed to "eliminate" myself, and I'll be god damned if someone tries to horn in on that.

I am fully aware of the consequences of my actions, and I will not let my lifestyle become imposed on anyone else. Everyone has a right to self rule: you and me included.

Couldn't have said that any better

A radical statement, to be quite sure.

Let's just leave it at this: if you should presume to try to change the way I live, or the way I choose to conduct the business of my life; of if you should presume to kill me based solely on what substances I choose to put into my body, I will do anything and everything to eliminate you before you become a threat to my well being. I'm the only one who should be allowed to "eliminate" myself, and I'll be god damned if someone tries to horn in on that.

I am fully aware of the consequences of my actions, and I will not let my lifestyle become imposed on anyone else. Everyone has a right to self rule: you and me included.

So you'd kill me for the right to get high?

Americans are pathetic...

So you'd kill me for the right to get high?

Americans are pathetic...

Incorrect. I'll kill you if you try to kill me: that's about the only reason I can think of as to why I'd feel justified in harming another human being. Please re-read my post and the context in which it was placed. As far as I'm concerned you're allowed to believe that $DRUG is Satan in the flesh, but as soon as you try to push that belief on me and change the way I live and operate that's when I take issue with it.

I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for anyone to have more grossly misinterpreted my statement any more than you already have.

Alcohol legalization is a perfect example. The country went from one where alcohol was relegated to something people did in secret clubs (the infamous speakeasies) to a social problem affecting countless families and accounting for 40% of all traffic deaths.

So you are saying that alcohol only became a problem after prohibition ended? That flies in the face of the research done. Yes alcohol reduces productivety, but prohibition didnt change the productivety loss so what is the point of prohibition if is based on recovering the lost productivety? It didnt work. People drank only slightly less in quantity and substantially more in terms of alcohol content(much higher proof alcohol during prohibition).

Yes alcohol is a danger when mixed with driving. How would prohibition change this? The same thing that happened in the 20s would happen now and there would still be drunk drivers.


You obviously know that it is easy to find, so why do I need to do your homework for you? Ad hominem logic is useless, the person who publishes the statistics is irrelevant as long as the statistics are accurate.


Because you are the one claiming to have hard facts behind you(but are too lazy to get them). I on the other hand believe those facts are garbage spewed by an agency who survival depends upon drugs being illegal.


Of course correlation is not the same as causation. No one in their right mind has ever claimed that drug use alone causes people to commit crimes (except for drug crimes of course). But your statement that most drug users do not commit violent crimes is meaningless. That kind of flawed logic would apply to every fact we know of. Most people who have a high fat diet do not die of a heart attack either, but this does not change the fact that fat increases the risk of heart attacks. Most people who smoke do not die of cancer, but this does not change the fact that smoking causes cancer. Most people who come into contact with radiation will not develop mutations, but it does not change the fact that radiation poisoning causes mutations. Most people who take X drug (pick one) will not be get Y side effect, but it does not change the fact that X drug causes Y side effect. The examples of how your logic is flawed could continue for ever.


I completely agree with you. Now explain to me again why YOU brought up drugs, violence and correlation again? Dont you realize that you are only expounding on the argument I am making? What you need to show is that there is somesort of relationship between taking drugs and turning an otherwise non violent person violent. Just like research has shown the effects(not just the correlation) of a high fat diet or smoking on health effect.

You havent bothered to do that. All you have mentioned is correlation. You pull some info out of the air and expect others to blindly follow along when you say something?


I would if it werent too late. I have said so in previous posts. Unfortunately it is much too late to ban alcohol at this point. Alcohol has become an integral part of popular culture (to the detriment of society). Attempting to ban it would be futile.

At least you are consistant. What makes you think that drugs arent a large part of our society already? 'have you read any of the article I have provided? Have you looked into this issue on your own? Over 50% of high school seniors have tried drugs. A ridiculous number of high school freshman have also. How can you say this isnt part of our society?


Of course. Because drinking is far more popular than using drugs. But most drugs (the only exception I can think of is cocaine) does in fact impair driving just as bad, and quite often far worse than drinking. So, the same would be true of drug users if drugs were legal and became a more prominent part of our culture.

Yes, the popularity of drinking does acount for its prevalence in many crimes. Why do you think this would change if drugs were legalized? Why is it better or worse if a drunk driver kills someone or a crack addict drives while high and kills someone?


Sure. We already do that, however, and it has not worked. Substance abuse still causes approximately 40% of all traffic fatalities, despite the heavy consequences to those who do this.


Yeah, and? How does making drugs legal or illegal change this?


Alcohol does not have that quality hard drugs like heroin have. I wouldnt expect it to affect productivity/absenteeism as much as those drugs that do change the focus of your life. BTW, if you are in the workforce, then Im sure you know people who have missed work because of a hangover.

Alcohol causes a ton of productivety loss. What we found out though during prohibition was that we did not gain back the lost productivity because people still found a way to drink. Same as is happening now with drugs. How does this part of the lost productivity change by legalizing,or not, drugs.

Answer, it doesnt. But the productivity lost through incarceration and other enforcement actions(DEA budget, penal/judiciary/police bedget ect ect). Then add in all the productive lives ruined simply by criminalizing drug use.


Sure, but thats because its being fought wrong. I dont support continuing to use the same failed strategies to combat drugs. I support a socially responsible approach that focuses on rehabilitating addicts instead of locking them up. These types of programs have been highly successful in other countries and I see no reason why it would not work here too.

Okay, lets see what you are saying
1) spend money on rehab
2) dont criminally punish drug users

sounds like what we do know. 30% of the budget is spend on rehab and people with less than sale weight generally dont go to jail. Bang up job its done so far.

BTW: And how exactly is this policy supposed to curtail demand as you have continually pushed for?


That depends on the drug you are talking about. If you are talking about marijuana or cocaine, that is true. If you are talking about crack, heroin, or meth, that is incorrect.


There are many reasons why I have never tried crack,heroin,meth..any number of other drugs. None of my reasons ever had to do with their illegality/or not. If you think people are detered from doing these things because they fear the law, then you are sadly mistaken. I would say many of these people are already well beyond wondering what the law allows or not(and not just in relation to drugs).


Like I said before, the war is being fought wrong. If you fight it correctly you can minimize these things. Gangs will never go away completely no matter what you legalize. Gangs are a social unit, like families. They will continue to exist with or without drugs. To deal with gangs you have to deal with other issues first (like fixing up families so that kids dont need to join gangs to feel like they are part of a family). But thats another topic.

And what, in your wisdom, would you do to fight the war on drugs? Every damn method has been tried, except legalization(or non enforcement if you prefer)


Gangs dont have to go away. But if they are not going to turn neighborhoods into war zones unless they good reason to. Deprive them of that reason(drug revenue) and you have gangs that are considerably less violent.

And what, in your wisdom, would you do to fight the war on drugs? Every damn method has been tried, except legalization(or non enforcement if you prefer)

What about ultra-crackdown, complete with Gatling Gun?

What about ultra-crackdown, complete with Gatling Gun?

We are doing that currently.

Quick question (don't wanna start a new thread)...do you guys consider marijuana a drug? I personally don't..but I'm interested to see what you guys think...

You obviously know that it is easy to find, so why do I need to do your homework for you? Ad hominem logic is useless, the person who publishes the statistics is irrelevant as long as the statistics are accurate.
And, have there been any studies or checks whatsoever to make sure that the statistics are not being manipulated or falsified in any way? How exactly can you ensure their accuracy?

Quick question (don't wanna start a new thread)...do you guys consider marijuana a drug? I personally don't..but I'm interested to see what you guys think...
THC is a drug, while marijuana is just the carrier. Sort of like caffeine is a drug but Dr. Pepper is the carrier.

well this doesnt legalize all drugs. but at least the THC ministry can help us smoke pot here legally in the states. imagine if this took hold all over the US?

http://www.thc-ministry.org/

well this doesnt legalize all drugs. but at least the THC ministry can help us smoke pot here legally in the states. imagine if this took hold all over the US?

http://www.thc-ministry.org/
on a related topic... http://www.cannabis-assembly.co.uk/

All drugs should be legalized, for both practical and principled reasons.

All drugs should be legalized, for both practical and principled reasons.


I dont know about principled, but definately for practical reasons.

I dont know about principled, but definately for practical reasons.
I personally feel that the principle of freedom over my body is just as important a reason to end the War on Drugs as all the numerous practical reasons given previously. If we do not have the right to put chemicals in our body, the government is saying we do not have the right to control our personal lives. That's the primary principle behind drug legalization, in addition to the practical reasons of cost, inefficiency, etc.

[snip]
And what, in your wisdom, would you do to fight the war on drugs? Every damn method has been tried, except legalization(or non enforcement if you prefer)
[snip]

Medicalize drugs. Stop treating it as a crime and start treating it as a medical and social problem. Offer methadone treatment for heroin addicts. Dont just get people to stop using drugs, but truly rehabilitate them in all areas of their life. Offer them training, help them find employment. Slowly change the view of the drug user from that of a rebel to what it truly is, a sad, pathetic individual who needs help. These types of comprehensive approaches have been wildly successful in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. This method has not been tried in the US, but it has been tried in other countries with great results. It has a proven track record of working, so why dont we implement it?

Medicalize drugs. Stop treating it as a crime and start treating it as a medical and social problem. Offer methadone treatment for heroin addicts. Dont just get people to stop using drugs, but truly rehabilitate them in all areas of their life. Offer them training, help them find employment. Slowly change the view of the drug user from that of a rebel to what it truly is, a sad, pathetic individual who needs help. These types of comprehensive approaches have been wildly successful in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. This method has not been tried in the US, but it has been tried in other countries with great results. It has a proven track record of working, so why dont we implement it?


And how is this in any way substantially different from legalizing them and providing those services. Legalize doesnt mean encourage, it means simply legalize. As in, stop treating drug use as a crime. As long as you consider it a crime and treat users/seller/producers as criminals, then you run into all the problems we have today(violence, crime, rampant abuse by children, overburdened courts/police and penitentiaries, violent criminals set free to make room for drug users ect).

So now are you saying that you agree with drug legalization? Because that appears to be what you are doing.

The problem with the drug war is that it's being fought like a military war when the whole drug trade is primarily economic.

It should instead be fought like an economic war.

Legalization means that government can theoretically regulate and oversee the exact quality and composition of the drugs that are manufactured, and thus severely reduce or eliminate the chance of additives that result in severe injuries and death beyond what is caused by the substance itself in high dosage. Of course given the recent rashes of drug recalls sometimes I can't help wonder if the difference between the American pharmaceutical industry and the Medellin Cartel was purely academic.

Killing off the supply will not kill the demand. If anything, it will only increase the price people are willing to pay and the lengths they will go to in order to obtain the remaining supply. Human flaws will in the end overcome morality when drugs are involved, and Prohibitio was the biggest example of that lesson.

If you kill the demand for drugs, then the supply will be taken care of at the same time. The same can be said of oil.

did you know that after adjusting for inflation and purity the same amount of crystal meth is now over 300 times cheaper than it was when the war on drugs began. not only that, but it was impossible to get accept for in a few major cities, now its everywhere

did you know that after adjusting for inflation and purity the same amount of crystal meth is now over 300 times cheaper than it was when the war on drugs began. not only that, but it was impossible to get accept for in a few major cities, now its everywhere

But of course some people will still insist that we need to throw more money into enforcement. More funding will be the panacea no doubt even though the current funding has only exaccerbated the problem.

Medicalize drugs. Stop treating it as a crime and start treating it as a medical and social problem. Offer methadone treatment for heroin addicts. Dont just get people to stop using drugs, but truly rehabilitate them in all areas of their life. Offer them training, help them find employment. Slowly change the view of the drug user from that of a rebel to what it truly is, a sad, pathetic individual who needs help. These types of comprehensive approaches have been wildly successful in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. This method has not been tried in the US, but it has been tried in other countries with great results. It has a proven track record of working, so why dont we implement it?

Its something of a misnomer to assume that because something works in another country, it will work here. We've got about 300 million people in this country, which is obviously far above the populations of either the Netherlands or Scandinavia. Also, they're completely different cultures with a completely different set of values.

Secondly, programs like that really only work for people who actually want the help. The vast majority of drug users aren't very likely to take advantage of it.

Thirdly, its an expense I'm not willing to pay for. I'm assuming you'd want all this rehab nonsense to be subsidized, which means I get to make even less money than I already am. It depends, though; I'm not certain how the projected costs for this would stack up versus the drug war. Thanks for pretty much generalizing all of us as "sad and pathetic" by the way. I can see you're obviously incredibly well-informed. Stop worrying about other people and worry about yourself; you'll tear your hair out in frustration if you don't. The human race is far too diverse to apply a single standard to the entire mass. Consider that to date there has never in the history of man existed a 'drug free' culture; and it's highly unlikey there ever will be.

And lastly; you cannot force people to change. Watch A Clockwork Orange and you'll understand what I'm talking about This sounds a lot less like 'rehab' and a lot more like 're-education' the more I read it.

Well, Americans have the saying "Guns don't kill people, poeple kill poeple". I'd like to paraphrase that "Drugs don't do poeple, poeple do drugs". If people absolutely want to ruin their health, who are you to tell them they can't?

Hi I've read a lot of this thread and as per usual with this discussion it's really going a round in circles, so i think I'll join the Merrygoround.

I was lucky enough to spend the last 8 months in South America, and have seen a real insight into how the drugs industry works (i visited a cocaine factory) I also saw 3 of my friends turn from Cannabis all the way up to Heroin, one is dead one is the re-hab and one is now 'only' addicted to Cocaine...he can't hold down any sort of job so resorts to crime to feed his habit.

Firstly i would like to say that I feel sorry for all drug addicts, the same way i feel sorry for people who smoke and who are alcholics...if your life depends upon a chemical to make it interesting then i really pitty you.

Would making drugs legal make the drugs cheaper? Yes of course...would that reduce crime? Probably not my expirence has shown that an addict (even on Cocaine) cannot hold downa job logn enough to pay for a cocaine addiction. Secondly the moment drugs are legal don't you think the government are going to tax them so they maintain a high price...end of the day drugs are not really going to get cheaper.

I spent a little while in Colombia, the reason the war on drugs exists in Colombia is because of the political situation there. FARC and the drugs cartels work together FARC get money from the cartels to protect the cartels and FARC don't have money to fight the government unless they protect the cartels.

The US joins this way because it doesn't want a Marxist government and that it why the war on dugs is a militry one although i do accept the fact that it should also be fought econmically as well.

I think this is really my major point, over the last 20 odd years Western government have tried and to an extent suceeded in forcing rates of smoking down...peer pressure combined with health warning have done so and the recent ban on smoking in public in Italy forced ciggerette sales down 25%.

We know smoking is bad for us and slowly we are stopping basically because the government is telling us not to...either through taxation or propaganda.

Why go through this entire process again with Drugs...the Class A drugs( cocain, heroin) basically are highly addictive result in crime, family break ups and pain and suffering the whole way. (if your not addicted to Cocaine then have a chat with your dealers because he's screwing you)

Cannabis shows a clearly defined link to mental problems, as does speed and a few others also high risk of heart problems.

I'm not advercating the stopping or continuing the war on drugs but i'm just looking at the future and the implications of drugs long term.

this just out on yahoo news
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050424/ap_on_re_us/prison_population

seems like the number of people in jail has soared once again, and it is mostly for drrug use

He said many of those incarcerated are not serious or violent offenders, but are low-level drug offenders.

this just out on yahoo news
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050424/ap_on_re_us/prison_population

"In 2004, one in every 138 U.S. residents was in prison or jail"

jeebus! and that's not even including all the people that are in the system in some other fashion - on probation or parole or house arrest, etc.

"In 2004, one in every 138 U.S. residents was in prison or jail"

jeebus! and that's not even including all the people that are in the system in some other fashion - on probation or parole or house arrest, etc.

Maybe that explains why our Unemployment rate keeps going down, we are constantly hiring more prison guards, parole officers.

Hi I've read a lot of this thread and as per usual with this discussion it's really going a round in circles, so i think I'll join the Merrygoround.

I was lucky enough to spend the last 8 months in South America, and have seen a real insight into how the drugs industry works (i visited a cocaine factory) I also saw 3 of my friends turn from Cannabis all the way up to Heroin, one is dead one is the re-hab and one is now 'only' addicted to Cocaine...he can't hold down any sort of job so resorts to crime to feed his habit.

Firstly i would like to say that I feel sorry for all drug addicts, the same way i feel sorry for people who smoke and who are alcholics...if your life depends upon a chemical to make it interesting then i really pitty you.

Would making drugs legal make the drugs cheaper? Yes of course...would that reduce crime? Probably not my expirence has shown that an addict (even on Cocaine) cannot hold downa job logn enough to pay for a cocaine addiction. Secondly the moment drugs are legal don't you think the government are going to tax them so they maintain a high price...end of the day drugs are not really going to get cheaper.

I spent a little while in Colombia, the reason the war on drugs exists in Colombia is because of the political situation there. FARC and the drugs cartels work together FARC get money from the cartels to protect the cartels and FARC don't have money to fight the government unless they protect the cartels.

The US joins this way because it doesn't want a Marxist government and that it why the war on dugs is a militry one although i do accept the fact that it should also be fought econmically as well.

I think this is really my major point, over the last 20 odd years Western government have tried and to an extent suceeded in forcing rates of smoking down...peer pressure combined with health warning have done so and the recent ban on smoking in public in Italy forced ciggerette sales down 25%.

We know smoking is bad for us and slowly we are stopping basically because the government is telling us not to...either through taxation or propaganda.

Why go through this entire process again with Drugs...the Class A drugs( cocain, heroin) basically are highly addictive result in crime, family break ups and pain and suffering the whole way. (if your not addicted to Cocaine then have a chat with your dealers because he's screwing you)

Cannabis shows a clearly defined link to mental problems, as does speed and a few others also high risk of heart problems.

I'm not advercating the stopping or continuing the war on drugs but i'm just looking at the future and the implications of drugs long term.
You have made some excellent points as to why drugs should not be legalized wholesale.

Legalize them, make it a government industry. Regulate production, go into business with current big producers, control their quality, tax the importation, and dispense only from licensed pharmacies. Put more money into rehab programs (paid for by the taxes on sale and importation), and make information plainly available at all of the drug dispensing pharmacies, but don't make it mandatory. You can't force someone to help themself, that's a decision they have to make on their own.

Additonally, this will drop people from dropping dead because they try to buy marijuana, and there's rat poison or some other shit in it.

Fact is, illegality isn't stopping anyone. If I decided that I wanted to start using drugs, it would be simple to find them.

There are some very good uses for illegal drugs.

Marijuana really takes the edge off kemotherapy. Do we presume that cancer patients should suffer because drungs are bad?

Heroin is a really freaking great painkiller. It was originally invinted to be a less addictive alternative to morphine, untill someone noticed that more powerful = more addictive. Still, when deadly amounts of Morphine won't dull the agnoy, heroin is the way to go. There are people out there is excrutiating pain. Should we make them suffer just because some people use heroin recreationally?

Extacy helps treat post traumatic stress syndrome. Should we deny mental healthy to some rape and abuse victims or even some car accident victims, for that matter? Should we tell the Vietnam vet that we don't care that he think Charlie is still lobing morter shells at him because teenagers sometimes use extacy to party? Do we want grandpa to dual-wield M1911's in a death charge at a group of accountants that he mistook for Jap soldiers on Iwo Jima?

Decriminalization doesn't mean that we hand these drugs out on the street like pop-rocks and dump them in the drinking water. It means regulation. Strict regulation. Some drugs would be available only by perscription, just as they are in the current ssytem. The difference is that doctors wouldn't be denied the right to perscribe necessary drugs because they are on an arbitrary list.

For other, softer, drugs it might be reasonable to sell them over the counter. But, that would require FDA aproval and strict regulation, as well.

How many teenagers and pre-teens are drug addicts today? Howeer many it is too many. Do you think the dealer on the street corner will turn away a 10-year-old if his money is green? Certainly not. How many store clerks will sell cigaretts and beer to the same 10-year-old? Not many. Decriminilization helps prevent juvanile abuse if nothing else.


There is, of course, one way to win the war on drugs. Devold a robot brain capible of perfectly emulating the human brain and a method of downloading a human mind into it. Then force everyone to get robot brains. Chemical drugs are useless if no one has a chemical brain.

Simple proof: when its easier to get cocaine than it is to get alcohol, we have a problem.

The US is leading the world in the drug war, however, really screwed up in Afgahanistan. Under the Taliban regime, there were no drugs in the region. Now, it provides 80 % of the world's opium, and herion (whatever comes from poppies, i can't remember.) Yet I guess no laws are better than Taliban ones.

Simple proof: when its easier to get cocaine than it is to get alcohol, we have a problem.


That isn't a proof, it is an assertion.

That isn't a proof, it is an assertion.

I'd count it as proof. When I can get cocaine (hypothetically of course) in an hour but I can't get alcohol, I'd say the US lost its war on drugs.

I was lucky enough to spend the last 8 months in South America, and have seen a real insight into how the drugs industry works (i visited a cocaine factory) I also saw 3 of my friends turn from Cannabis all the way up to Heroin, one is dead one is the re-hab and one is now 'only' addicted to Cocaine...he can't hold down any sort of job so resorts to crime to feed his habit.



I am sorry about your friends. But I dont see how this adds anything to whether drugs should be legal or not except for an emotional plea.

Legal or illegal there will always be addicts. I know plenty of people who abuse alcohol and plenty that do not. I know plenty of people that have tried all sorts of drugs, some have ruined their lives with them, most have not.

The questions that need to be addressed as far as drug legalization are as follows.

1) will there be more or less addicts and abusers if drugs were legal?
2) If more abusers then is this negative offset by the positives from legalization?

Both these questions have been addressed in previous posts, though some people choose to ignore studies and research and settle with the "drugs are bad, I dont want to even think about it clearly approach"


Firstly i would like to say that I feel sorry for all drug addicts, the same way i feel sorry for people who smoke and who are alcholics...if your life depends upon a chemical to make it interesting then i really pitty you.

An addicts life is difficult, as it is for the people around him.


Would making drugs legal make the drugs cheaper? Yes of course...would that reduce crime? Probably not my expirence has shown that an addict (even on Cocaine) cannot hold downa job logn enough to pay for a cocaine addiction. Secondly the moment drugs are legal don't you think the government are going to tax them so they maintain a high price...end of the day drugs are not really going to get cheaper.

Whether they get cheaper or not isnt really of issue, though I believe they will become substantially cheaper. You cannot assume how much or not the government is going to tax the drugs and what added costs like ensuring quality would be. Again though, this is largely irrelevant to why they should be legalized. But to make an analogy to another drug, how many people do you know that commit crimes to support an alcohol habit?


I spent a little while in Colombia, the reason the war on drugs exists in Colombia is because of the political situation there. FARC and the drugs cartels work together FARC get money from the cartels to protect the cartels and FARC don't have money to fight the government unless they protect the cartels.

The US joins this way because it doesn't want a Marxist government and that it why the war on dugs is a militry one although i do accept the fact that it should also be fought econmically as well.

An excellent reason to legalise them. Take away the drrug profits from the cartels and they can no longer fund FARC. Without funding, they will be forced to either negotiate with the government or be destroyed. No more drug cartels = much less chance of war.



Why go through this entire process again with Drugs...the Class A drugs( cocain, heroin) basically are highly addictive result in crime, family break ups and pain and suffering the whole way. (if your not addicted to Cocaine then have a chat with your dealers because he's screwing you)

We have already been using propaganda against drugs for the past 20 years. Probably more so than with smoking. It is nothing new.

And as to strong drugs, there is nothing stopping them now from getting them and being addicted, what would be differant if they would be legal. You argue as if magically everyone is dying to try these things and they dont solely because they are illegal. Thats foolish thinking at best. All sorts of addictive drugs are readily available now, keeping them illegal has not diminished their availability.


Cannabis shows a clearly defined link to mental problems, as does speed and a few others also high risk of heart problems.


Studies go every which way. It is hard to do studies in this sort of environment. And I would almost certainly call "bullshit" regard to cannabis. But even if you are correct, so what? How does that change anything from illegal to legal? Cannabis is readily available now, even if it was the worst thing in the world for you, what differance does it make to the argument.

Actually what studies into cannabis and mental illness have shown is that for people with a predisposition for schizophrenia, cannabis can trigger it off. But then again so can alcohol and abusive parents

It was working under Regan. Bush sr and Clinton screwed it up, and G.W. Bush coun't care less about it.

It was working under Regan. Bush sr and Clinton screwed it up, and G.W. Bush coun't care less about it.

How was it working? Dont get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Reagan, but this program that he pushed so hard was a complete disaster. Incarcerating non violent drug offenders, and giving parole to violent criminals is no way to claim victory. Nor is bringing crime rates down by locking up significant chunks of your populations.

When was the last time someone was killed defending their alcohol distribution territory? When was the last time someone was killed defending their illegal drug distribution territory?

Although I'm from Australia and not from the USA, I think that marijuana should be decriminalised, and the rest of drugs kept illegal.
Do not get me wrong, I hate drugs, but marijuana is too widespread and socially tolerated to be policed effectively. Who are you going to report, the guy who smokes weed or the guy selling heroin?
When I say decriminalisation I mean the possession and use not being prosecuted, sort of like the Netherlands. But, usage in a dangerous manner (Example Driving under the influence), dealing, suppling to minors and other crimes involving marijuana should still be prosecuted. The guy that has an occasional joint is not really the problem, and should not be treated as such.