NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an idea! Let's make drug use and dealing illegal, that way drugs will become more expensive and people will have to resort to crime to get their fix, also, violent criminal gangs will have an even better source of revenue than prostitution and money laundering! Drugs will also become more dangerous because of lack of an open market and regulation dissuading people from their use. Then our prisons will overflow with drug users and dealers and we'll have to build more expensive prisons and fill them up too! The best part of this is that it will completely end all rape of white women by burly negro dock workers hopped up on cocaine and other immoral activity, after all, if something is illegal then it's impossible for someone to do it! We should call this the "War on Drugs" and pour billions of dollars into propaganda and then use political pressure on other countries to help us out with this war!

For all of you naysayers who say this will result in terrible oppression, all I can say is that you are commie-fascist-negro-crack heads and your opinions and rights don't matter.

Dare I say... Flamebait?

I have an idea! Let's make drug use and dealing illegal, that way drugs will become more expensive and people will have to resort to crime to get their fix, also, violent criminal gangs will have an even better source of revenue than prostitution and money laundering! Drugs will also become more dangerous because of lack of an open market and regulation dissuading people from their use. Then our prisons will overflow with drug users and dealers and we'll have to build more expensive prisons and fill them up too! The best part of this is that it will completely end all rape of white women by burly negro dock workers hopped up on cocaine and other immoral activity, after all, if something is illegal then it's impossible for someone to do it! We should call this the "War on Drugs" and pour billions of dollars into propaganda and then use political pressure on other countries to help us out with this war!

For all of you naysayers who say this will result in terrible oppression, all I can say is that you are commie-fascist-negro-crack heads and your opinions and rights don't matter.

That's the best idea ever. It's sure to work. You are a gangster and just want a quick easy way to make money right?

I have an idea! Let's make drug use and dealing illegal, that way drugs will become more expensive and people will have to resort to crime to get their fix, also, violent criminal gangs will have an even better source of revenue than prostitution and money laundering! Drugs will also become more dangerous because of lack of an open market and regulation dissuading people from their use. Then our prisons will overflow with drug users and dealers and we'll have to build more expensive prisons and fill them up too! The best part of this is that it will completely end all rape of white women by burly negro dock workers hopped up on cocaine and other immoral activity, after all, if something is illegal then it's impossible for someone to do it! We should call this the "War on Drugs" and pour billions of dollars into propaganda and then use political pressure on other countries to help us out with this war!

For all of you naysayers who say this will result in terrible oppression, all I can say is that you are commie-fascist-negro-crack heads and your opinions and rights don't matter.

um....its to late, most of what you have said is already true....sorry...o and try and be a little nicer next time

S-s-sarcasm intended I do believe. Haha foolish Americans not understanding any humour besides poo and wee jokes.

...first of all making drugs illegal would just give more power to gangs
we should make it legal but tariff it heavily


Be a little less racist

While we're at it...

Don't make rape illegal - it will still happen
Don't make murder illegal - it will still happen
Don't have any laws, or any police, or any judiciary - crime will still happen.

Fool.

...first of all making drugs illegal would just give more power to gangs
we should make it legal but tariff it heavily


Be a little less racist

Note, the only reason I included racial slurs is because the drug prohibition was started because of racism.

Oh, and if you didn't think that was sarcasm you deserve my idea to be true.

While we're at it...

Don't make rape illegal - it will still happen
Don't make murder illegal - it will still happen
Don't have any laws, or any police, or any judiciary - crime will still happen.

Fool.

Drug use isn't inherantly harmful.

Rape, murder, theft, ect are. Nice strawman.

Since I ended up with egg on my face in Eolam's thread about intelligent design, I'm going to play the role of sarcasm spotter today.

I'm fairly certain Aggretia is venting through sarcastic ranting and is neither racist or all for the 'War on Drugs'.

Just a warning to all who may respond in an angry, warned-by-a-mod-for-being-foul-mouthed-and-rude way.

EDIT: And even before my post hits the tread, Aggretia admits to the sarcasm...damn my slow fingers...or is it my slow brain?

Drug use isn't inherantly harmful.

Rape, murder, theft, ect are. Nice strawman.

Not to mention they involve damage or use of other people's property without their consent. Drug use on the other hand involves only a person using his own property in a way that directly affects only himself, like gamling, buying a car, watching TV, or eating watermelon.

Drug use isn't inherantly harmful.

I think just quoting this line is sufficient condemnation of it...

While we're at it...

Don't make rape illegal - it will still happen
Don't make murder illegal - it will still happen
Don't have any laws, or any police, or any judiciary - crime will still happen.

Fool.

Except that making rape and murder illegal hasn't made the problem worse.

I doubt his point was "people will still use drugs, so make them legal", but rather "making drugs illegal has made the problem worse".

Not to mention they involve damage or use of other people's property without their consent. Drug use on the other hand involves only a person using his own property in a way that directly affects only himself, like gamling, buying a car, watching TV, or eating watermelon.

You might be interested to learn that you don't have a right to do whatever you want with your own property. There are laws against destruction, for instance.

So you're basically in favour of poeple being allowed to do whatever they want...as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else??

Drug use isn't inherantly harmful.

Rape, murder, theft, ect are. Nice strawman.
Yes, it is.

Drug addiction destroys what could have been a happy, productive life.

It also affects those that don't use them, because those that use drugs are responsible for a large proportion of violent crime.

Except that making rape and murder illegal hasn't made the problem worse.

I'm sure he is appalled at all the POOR RAPISTS in jail though...which was one of the points raised initially... :D

So you're basically in favour of poeple being allowed to do whatever they want...as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else??


"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

You might be interested to learn that you don't have a right to do whatever you want with your own property. There are laws against destruction, for instance.

So you're basically in favour of poeple being allowed to do whatever they want...as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else??

Precisely sir!

Yes, it is.

Drug addiction destroys what could have been a happy, productive life.

It also affects those that don't use them, because those that use drugs are responsible for a large proportion of violent crime.

1. Few drugs are physically addictive.

2. Addictions may cost money if the drugs are legal, but they don't necessariily destroy peoples lives.

3. The only reason drugs are responsible for violent crime is because the are illegal, few people kill each other over booze, even though it is just as potent if not more than marijuana.

4. Even if it did cause vilent crime, the violent criminals are held responsible for their actions regardless.

The War on Drugs has disasterous effects on people, especially the poor, it is quite possibly the most inhumane domestic program of the U.S. government since the slaughter and removal of Native Americans.

Precisely sir!

Ditto and appluad that 'Precisely'.

Yes, it is.

Drug addiction destroys what could have been a happy, productive life.

It also affects those that don't use them, because those that use drugs are responsible for a large proportion of violent crime.

Drug addiction yes, not drug use. The majority of users are not addicted.

If drugs were legalized there would be far less violence associated with them. Most drug-related violence is a result of illegal trafficking, not users.

Violent criminals will still be dealt with under the law if drugs are legalized.

Precisely sir!

Well there you go then...I think it's sometimes appropriate to protect people from their own stupidity. Drug use is a prime example. Whether it works or not is entirtely up to the individual of course - they can still choose to take them if they want. Making it illegal is a sorta-kinda hint that they shouldn't do it, but if they are still too STUPID to see the warning signs, who's fault is that? Not the gov't surely...

If drugs were legalized there would be far less violence associated with them.

Yeh, just like there's so little alcohol related violence, because it's legal...

Well there you go then...I think it's sometimes appropriate to protect people from their own stupidity. Drug use is a prime example. Whether it works or not is entirtely up to the individual of course - they can still choose to take them if they want. Making it illegal is a sorta-kinda hint that they shouldn't do it, but if they are still too STUPID to see the warning signs, who's fault is that? Not the gov't surely...

Doing drugs may be stupid, but that doesn't automatically make people who do drugs stupid. If Steven Hawking smoked weed, would you call him stupid?

Anyway, the 'War on Drugs' isn't about protecting people from their own stupidity anyway. Its about justifying the billions of dollars already spent on the damned thing and keeping the millions of North Americans already brainwashed by anti-drug propaganda happy.

S-s-sarcasm intended I do believe. Haha foolish Americans not understanding any humour besides poo and wee jokes.
fuckin diss america one more time and ill kick your piece of shit ass

note i was high on cocaine at the time

1. Few drugs are physically addictive.
Heroin, cocaine, crack-cocaine, methamphetamine - all highly addictive.

2. Addictions may cost money if the drugs are legal, but they don't necessariily destroy peoples lives.[Aggretia]
Recreational use, maybe not, but many do become addicted, and do nothing but focus on taking their drug of choice or acquiring money to get their drug of choice.

[QUOTE=Aggretia]3. The only reason drugs are responsible for violent crime is because the are illegal, few people kill each other over booze, even though it is just as potent if not more than marijuana.
Even when legal, addicts will still need money to obtain the drugs, unless you are advocating giving drugs to the addicts?

Also, people on drugs often tend to be more violent and more likely to commit crimes not necessarily related to obtaining the drug. For example, someone hopped up on meth robs a bank, and decides to shoot someone because he is so twitchy from the drug.

4. Even if it did cause vilent crime, the violent criminals are held responsible for their actions regardless.

The War on Drugs has disasterous effects on people, especially the poor, it is quite possibly the most inhumane domestic program of the U.S. government since the slaughter and removal of Native Americans.
Indulging in just a little hyperbole here?

Ever think that the reason that at least some (I said some, not all, not even most) of the people who are poor are that way because of a drug habit?

I would argue that drugs themselves have had these disastrous effects, not the War on Drugs itself.

fuckin diss america one more time and ill kick your piece of shit ass

Hurrah for internet bravery!

fuckin diss america one more time and ill kick your piece of shit ass

Hey man, you might want to cool it with the threats. Mods, you know, they're all into, like, people being nice to each other and stuff.
Weird concept, eh?

marajauna and Shrooms are the only drugs that i believe could be safely legalized

fuckin diss america one more time and ill kick your piece of shit ass

note i was high on cocaine at the time

America....there's the joke.

Yeh, just like there's so little alcohol related violence, because it's legal...

Yes, but we don't ban it's sale because of it. I'm all for regulating the drug trade, just ending prohibition.

fuckin diss america one more time and ill kick your piece of shit ass

oh yeah, they'll respect us now.



S-s-sarcasm intended I do believe. Haha foolish Americans not understanding any humour besides poo and wee jokes.

I Resent that...

I personally like fart jokes, thank you very much.




Seriously though.
you're forgetting the respectable americans, like... San Franciscans and.....
Jon Stewart

No offense to any respectable americans I forgot to mention.

See, that would just be "encouraging" drug use, and that isn't good, because that cuts the productivity of the nice little worker drones.

And as an American, I can too appreciate humor that isn't poo poo and wee wee jokes. I'm actually quite found of any humor that ISN'T either of those two.

Heroin, cocaine, crack-cocaine, methamphetamine - all highly addictive.

And only a few of the drugs availible to the modern psychonaut. If all drugs are legalized it's likely trade would move away from the most profitable ones such as cocaine and meth and toward more enjoyable ones like LSD and MDMA as well as to cheaper/safer to locally produce ones, such as marijuana and mushrooms.

The drug trade is currently restricted in ways that the free market would ignore, most drug cartels specialise in one drug, only the ones with enough money inflow to protect themselves from government interference make a difference. Small rings that produce LSD or most other synthetic hallucinogenes only rarely have the means to distribute on a decent scale. LSD enjoys an advantage due to small size of dose. Various amphetimines(meth, ecstacy) and other pharmaseutical drugs(ketamine and PCP) occassionally become profitable to enjoy success, however the majority of these drugs that have high addiction rates are already legal for medical usage, like methamphetimine. Legalizing drugs would also cut into trafficking of phamraseuticals, selling sleeping pills or painkillers gotting by prescription.

Legalizing the drug trade would basically allow safer drugs easier access to the market. Cocaine and heroin could be legalized, but better controlled, heroin could be used in hospitals. As well heroin users would know the actual dosage they're taking, enabling them to adjust their doseages in a controlled fashion.


Even when legal, addicts will still need money to obtain the drugs, unless you are advocating giving drugs to the addicts?

Also, people on drugs often tend to be more violent and more likely to commit crimes not necessarily related to obtaining the drug. For example, someone hopped up on meth robs a bank, and decides to shoot someone because he is so twitchy from the drug.

Yes, yes they would. And punishing people who break the law will continue. We arrest people who steal to support their alcohol habit, don't we?

At the risk of starting a religious flame war on this thread, I'm going to put my two cents in.

I think most of the disagreements I've heard here stem from religious beliefs. Let me explain. Those that are coined conservative are the ones that are typically anti-drug. The pro-drug factions are generally more liberal. Now, I've noticed that most conservatives are, in fact, Christian of one denomination or another. I'm not attacking Christianity (even though I probably should, but that's another thread for another time.) The morals of the average Christian tell that person that drugs are a sin and should be avoided. They are bad because they can do you physical harm as well as emotional and mental harm, IMO.

Now, I'm an atheist, and my morals are a little tweaked in comparison. The way I see it, if something has the ability to kill you, it isn't inherently bad. For instance, the number one killer of all time, period, is time. Given enough time, every single organism will die. Is time a sin? No, of course not. It isn't something we can control. However, it kills without mercy, and is inevitable. The only positive thing time does it give us a chance to live our lives the best we can.

Now, drug users, back me up on this. Drug use is a way for us to improve out lives for a little bit of time, to forget about all the garbage and negativity of today's world. Whether it's three mintues on a crack pipe, a couple hours on a bong, six hours or more with an E-pill, or days and possibly weeks on meth, the drugs make us feel better about ourselves and about life. They take away pain and hurt. Yes, coming down can have dangerous and/or depressing effects, but that's something those of use that use drugs are completely concious of and we accept it.

Those that condone the 'War on Drugs' assert that drugs can lead to violence toward other people. I ask myself every day, 'doesn't alcohol do the same thing? Doesn't traffic do that, too? Don't taxes make people angry?' All are legal, and all have caused deaths and will continue to do so.

Those of you that don't approve of drugs are, I think, unbelievably selfish and ignorant. You've probably never tried drugs, and, if you have, I'd be willing to bet that you've never done 'hard drugs' more than once. If you don't have the ability to fully understand both sides of an argument, it's pretty apparent that you're going to run out of responses in a debate with someone more 'in the know' about both sides of the issue.

What I'm trying to say in a rather long-winded way is that other people's beliefs and ideals shouldn't be forced upon anyone else, ever. We were all born atheists and anarchists, but government and religion were forced upon us before we could make a concious decision one way or another. How can anyone really know what the world would be like if people were completely free to make all their own decisions and actually live for themselves? I think it would be a much better place, but that's my simple opinion. If you think you can prove me wrong, go ahead so I can laugh at you.

Thank you and have a nice day. :)

Well there you go then...I think it's sometimes appropriate to protect people from their own stupidity.
That's nice, but I dont see what it has to do with the current drug legislation in for instance the US. There is a vast difference between protecting someone and persecuting. Evidently I believe it is inappropriate to protect people from their own stupidity at the cost of protecting people from other people. Law enforcement services in many nations are increasingly stretched beyond breaking point and instead of finding the scuzz who broke into my house, the police are off trying to stop some hippy having a joint in his own lounge. While I dont necessarily wish the hippy any harm, I'd rather the police protected my property from actual criminals, than wasted my tax dollars 'protecting' the hippy from himself, apparently by dragging his butt off to a policestation to process him or her before wasting inordinate amounts of my money shunting him an already overburdened 'justice' system.

Drug use is a prime example.
Drug legislation is a prime example of stupidity. Not only does it appear to not reduce drug use, and worse to not reduce the harms associated with drug use, it actually increases the harms caused by drug use, and extends those harms throughout a society to people who otherwise would not have been materially, directly effected by drug use.

Whether it works or not is entirtely up to the individual of course - they can still choose to take them if they want.
It doesnt work, and why should I and others suffer the harm it causes soley at the discretion of those supposedly being protected? If drug use is going to cause harm, that's sad, but it doesnt justify causing more harm to more people in order to not prevent it.

Making it illegal is a sorta-kinda hint that they shouldn't do it,
You shouldnt cheat on your husband or wife, but that's not illegal. You shouldnt lie about your dog eating your homework, but that's not illegal. You shouldnt forget to brush your teeth, once again, it's not illegal. Heck you shouldnt eat at McDonalds (in my opinion) but that's not illegal....despite these things not being illegal, most people are aware that they are things that most people think should not be done.

but if they are still too STUPID to see the warning signs, who's fault is that? Not the gov't surely...
Their own, so why should I have to suffer? Why should my tax dollars go to not protecting them from themselves at great expense? Why should I find that my local law enforcement excuses it's inability to solve real crimes more effectively (like burglery, street muggings, sexual assault, child abuse etc), by claiming that it suffers from a lack of resources, whilst inordinate amounts of resources are used up not protecting people from themselves...? I see no good reason why people are so determined to increase the harms of drug use, nor why the empiracal evidence regarding the increased harm of drug use caused by prohibition, are ignored in favour of a head in the sand mentality.

The pro-drug factions are generally more liberal.

This might seem like nit-picking, but it is actually a very important point. Being anti-prohibition does not necessarily mean one is "pro-drug." I am most vehemently opposed to drug abuse. As a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29), I strive to defend myself from anything that could diminish or endanger my free will. (EDIT: Although, as a libertarian, I do not believe I have the right to force that position onto others, if they do not pose a threat to myself or others, so...) I am also most vehemently opposed to drug prohibition, as drug prohibition accomplishes nothing more than forcing the drug trade into the criminal underground, where it empowers criminals, while unnecessarily enlarging the scope of government.

Care needs to be taken in wording arguments so that potential strawmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument#Rhetorical_use) ("anti-drug war = pro-drug") are not given continued life. :)

not all addicts are angry and destroy everything.take people who take mood elavators they kinda mellow and who seen a mellow person destroy things

You shouldnt cheat on your husband or wife, but that's not illegal. You shouldnt lie about your dog eating your homework, but that's not illegal. You shouldnt forget to brush your teeth, once again, it's not illegal. Heck you shouldnt eat at McDonalds (in my opinion) but that's not illegal....despite these things not being illegal, most people are aware that they are things that most people think should not be done.

And vica-verza, lots of things used to be illegal, but turned out to be pretty harmless.

Heroin, cocaine, crack-cocaine, methamphetamine - all highly addictive.

[QUOTE=Aggretia]2. Addictions may cost money if the drugs are legal, but they don't necessariily destroy peoples lives.[Aggretia]
Recreational use, maybe not, but many do become addicted, and do nothing but focus on taking their drug of choice or acquiring money to get their drug of choice.


Even when legal, addicts will still need money to obtain the drugs, unless you are advocating giving drugs to the addicts?

Also, people on drugs often tend to be more violent and more likely to commit crimes not necessarily related to obtaining the drug. For example, someone hopped up on meth robs a bank, and decides to shoot someone because he is so twitchy from the drug.


Indulging in just a little hyperbole here?

Ever think that the reason that at least some (I said some, not all, not even most) of the people who are poor are that way because of a drug habit?

I would argue that drugs themselves have had these disastrous effects, not the War on Drugs itself.

1. You've got me on that one, but there are many illegal drugs that aren't addictive, some have only negligible side effects and are harmless when compared to many legal and even over the counter drugs, AND have tangible benefits.

2. Few people commit crime to raise money to buy candy. The only reason drugs are expensive and profitable is because their legal status introduces much risk. If drugs were legal they would probably be about as expensive as candy, probably less expensive than cigarettes or alchohol(unless they were taxed).

3. Many drugs don't cause violent behavior and the ones that do only do so in a very indirect way. Alchohol probably causes much more violent behavior than any illegal drugs and yet it is legal.

4. Yes, many poor people are poor because of a drug addiction, but if drugs were legal and cheaper they wouldn't need much more money to support their addictions. The war on drugs also turns any intelligent, enterprising individuals in poor communities into drug dealers by default as opposed to more affluent and buisnessmen in other areas. The unnaturally high price of drugs as a result of the War on Drugs is what causes so much poverty, not drug adiction itself.

I'm not quite sure if I should enter into this debate or not. I'll state my positions, first.

I am against the legalization of drugs for recreational use. However, I am in favor of the legalization of drugs for medicinal use (such as medical marijuana) and for industrial use (such as hemp, which technically isn't a drug, but is considered as such by many people.)

I am against the drug war. The reason that I am against the drug war is because I believe that the purpose of any government policy regarding drugs is to reduce the number of people on them, and to do so in the most effective way. The most effective way of doing so is rehab. However, few people are sentenced to rehab, and those who are are the few who can pay for it. I believe that instead of spending money sending people to jail, we should send them to rehab. This policy should also be extended to cigarettes and alcohol.

(I plan to, at some point, look at the average price of jail in my state and compare it to the average price of rehab in my state, then factor in their rates of effectiveness and see which is more cost effective. It is also necessary to factor in other expenses, such as the cost of military intervention in Colombia (and previously in Panama), which is also done under the guise of the drug war.)

The arguments against legalization are the facts that more people will use the drugs, and also that other additives will be put into the drugs. While it is true that often additives are put into black market drugs to make them more addictive, it will likely become a definite policy to put additives, (such as ammonia), into the legal drugs, thus making them more addictive than they would be if they were kept illegal. Nicotine, a currently legal drug, is also the most addictive.

Ultimately, however, while I have a distaste against drug use (not drug users, but drug use) if it doesn't make a huge dent on either addiction rates or if the rehab proves to be less effective than originally thought, I would stop advocating this policy in favor of full legalization.

Heroin, cocaine, crack-cocaine, methamphetamine - all highly addictive.

Contrary to popular belief, no form of cocaine is physically addictive. Cocaine is psychologically addictive, but not physically addictive.

Contrary to popular belief, no form of cocaine is physically addictive. Cocaine is psychologically addictive, but not physically addictive.

Does that really mean anything though? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but, food isn't physically addictive, nor alchohol.

S-s-sarcasm intended I do believe. Haha foolish Americans not understanding any humour besides poo and wee jokes.

Silly non american, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Anyway, as someone else pointed out we also like fart jokes. And seeing people get punched in the nuts.

Does that really mean anything though? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but, food isn't physically addictive, nor alchohol.
I originally had a point, but I lost it. I think psychologically was the wrong word anyways.

Dare I say... Flamebait?
Oh, comeon!

While we're at it...

Don't make rape illegal - it will still happen
Don't make murder illegal - it will still happen
Don't have any laws, or any police, or any judiciary - crime will still happen.

Fool.
The use of drugs doesn't hurt anyone except the drug users. Rape, murder, theft, these all do. Almost every negative, non self-regarding effect of drug use is due to drugs being illegal.

And don't put insults, even mild insults, at the end of your post. It contributes to the lowering of the tone.

You might be interested to learn that you don't have a right to do whatever you want with your own property. There are laws against destruction, for instance.Give me one example of a law against destruction of your own property that doesn't have to do with environmental damage (eg: burning it)

So you're basically in favour of poeple being allowed to do whatever they want...as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else??
Well, yeah.

Well there you go then...I think it's sometimes appropriate to protect people from their own stupidity. Drug use is a prime example. Whether it works or not is entirtely up to the individual of course - they can still choose to take them if they want. Making it illegal is a sorta-kinda hint that they shouldn't do it, but if they are still too STUPID to see the warning signs, who's fault is that? Not the gov't surely...
Right... except that tobacco is legal, and its addictive and damaging to your health. But its legal. Here's the thing though; people aren't confused by the message that the government it giving. The awareness that cigarettes are linked to cancer, lung disease and death is 80+ percent. People understand that just because tobacco is legal, it doesn't mean that it isn't bad for you.

S-s-sarcasm intended I do believe. Haha foolish Americans not understanding any humour besides poo and wee jokes.

whos saying the ones not understanding sarcasm are americans, for all you know they are martian

(I plan to, at some point, look at the average price of jail in my state and compare it to the average price of rehab in my state, then factor in their rates of effectiveness and see which is more cost effective. It is also necessary to factor in other expenses, such as the cost of military intervention in Colombia (and previously in Panama), which is also done under the guise of the drug war.)
Its something like a $1: $7 ratio. That is, every dollar you spend on rehab saves seven dollars on police and magistrate time, on jail time, in the cost of things stolen to feed habits, etc etc etc.

Did half of these replies actually read the original post?

Sarcasm.......????? you are all americans aren't you!

Knock knock
Who's there?
:mp5:

Thanks for the great commentary..... person who started this. excellent :P lol

Its something like a $1: $7 ratio. That is, every dollar you spend on rehab saves seven dollars on police and magistrate time, on jail time, in the cost of things stolen to feed habits, etc etc etc.I can believe it. Which brings me back to the point that the purpose of the Drug War isn't to get people off of drugs.