NationStates Jolt Archive

Why exactly do you think (ALL) drugs shouldn't be legalized?

Why I think they should.

1. It's a person's choice to do drugs.
2. Alcohol was legal, then prohibited -- the crime rate skyrocketed, gangs formed, violence went up, etc.; alcohol prohibition was repealed -- crime went down. Legalization of drugs would do the same; all those drug lords would be put out of business. Why go to a dealer when you could to the drug store and not have to worry about being threatened, robbed, raped, etc?
3. The War on Drugs would be no more; all that money could go back to our pockets.
*4. The government could tax (even regulate...) the sale of these drugs.

I really don't see why these drugs should be kept illegal other than moral issues.

*Libs, what are your opinions on this? If drugs were to be legalized, would it be against the Libertarian/libertarian ideal of no government regulation?

Another question for Libs/libs; would government have to stop its regulation of alcohol as well? I'm not as knowledgeable on the issue of government regulation with alcohol as I should be; enlighten me.

Well I think they shouldn't be legalised because, alhtough it is the person's choice, I reckon the government should take a bit of responsibility for civilians. Like instead of just letting us tough out the temptation, simply remove it and problem solved... at least that's what would happen ideally at any rate. Of course the obvious answer to this would be to use money formally spent on fighting the drug war to fund drug awareness campaigns so people realise how dumb it is.

As for alcohol, I dunno really - personally I don't drink, but then... well I dunno. I know it's dangerous and everything, but it doesn;t seem as dangerous as, say, heroin.

*This has been a coherent and convincingly argued post*

Well I think they shouldn't be legalised because, alhtough it is the person's choice, I reckon the government should take a bit of responsibility for civilians. Like instead of just letting us tough out the temptation, simply remove it and problem solved... at least that's what would happen ideally at any rate. Of course the obvious answer to this would be to use money formally spent on fighting the drug war to fund drug awareness campaigns so people realise how dumb it is.

As for alcohol, I dunno really - personally I don't drink, but then... well I dunno. I know it's dangerous and everything, but it doesn;t seem as dangerous as, say, heroin.

*This has been a coherent and convincingly argued post*

A drug is a drug! So with your logic, marijauna should be legalised and cigarettes should be prohibited because they're more dangerous?

Just because someone takes a drug doesn't mean they're going to die instantly, become addicted or harm others. Granted plenty will (hey, that's their choice, no one forced them to do the drug).

Should we ban vehicles because they're extremely dangerous and COULD cause damage? No.

because some drugs can seriously fuck up your life in a very long-term capacity, and often the decision made to take some of the drugs i'm referring to is done without due consideration of this fact. some are looking for a short-term fix, some just don't know truth or full details about whatever it is they're taking. if they did understand all the relavent information regarding what they're about to take and decide to take it anyway, then it is a matter of personal responsibility.

in light of that not being the case it becomes a matter of social responsibility to stop people harming themselves. this is why i could only ever be in favour of legalising all drugs if there were a massive effort made in drug education in schools, drug research - not only biomedical, but also social and cultural - and if the drugs were sold by licenced outlets that gave you the facts each time you bought your vice.


the drugs i'm talking about are the majorly addictive ones like heroin, crystal meth, coke, and others.

non-addictive ones that don't particularly fuck up your life unless you have absolutley no self control, such as weed, shrooms, acid, E, and the like, should well be legalised.

*Libs, what are your opinions on this? If drugs were to be legalized, would it be against the Libertarian/libertarian ideal of no government regulation?

Another question for Libs/libs; would government have to stop its regulation of alcohol as well? I'm not as knowledgeable on the issue of government regulation with alcohol as I should be; enlighten me.
That's the entire idea of libertarianism. Libertarianism demands that such substances be legalised and deregulated.

A drug is a drug! So with your logic, marijauna should be legalised and cigarettes should be prohibited because they're more dangerous?
yes. i agree with the dude.

Just because someone takes a drug doesn't mean they're going to die instantly, become addicted or harm others. Granted plenty will
of course, which is why you differentiate betweent the drugs in terms of relative risk, and legislate accordingly

(hey, that's their choice, no one forced them to do the drug).

ever heard of peer pressure? ever actually bought from a dealer? :rolleyes:

Making something highly addictive and unhealthy widely accessable won't neccessarily make things better.

I do support legalisation of Weed. I mean most dealers push on harder stuff and if on its own it was legal class B's and A's are gonna be a tight market since less dealers will get into it so overall those might be less avalible.

Well I think they shouldn't be legalised because, alhtough it is the person's choice, I reckon the government should take a bit of responsibility for civilians. Like instead of just letting us tough out the temptation, simply remove it and problem solved... at least that's what would happen ideally at any rate. Of course the obvious answer to this would be to use money formally spent on fighting the drug war to fund drug awareness campaigns so people realise how dumb it is.

As for alcohol, I dunno really - personally I don't drink, but then... well I dunno. I know it's dangerous and everything, but it doesn;t seem as dangerous as, say, heroin.

*This has been a coherent and convincingly argued post*


You lay your points out with skill and percision, but I shall do my best to conuter your oh-so-convincing and coherent arguments. Have at you, sir!

The problem with what you said it, the government is not removing the temptation. Although I don't use hard drugs, I could easily get coke, E, heroine, acid, or 'shrooms within a matter of days. Trust me, the law is no obsticle. I do agree with education programs, though. Real education programs. That let people make informed choices. Not the bullshit propoganda we have now. See, people realise that it's bullshit, and they don't believe the real dangers, because you can't tell truth from spin.

because some drugs can seriously fuck up your life in a very long-term capacity, and often the decision made to take some of the drugs i'm referring to is done without due consideration of this fact. some are looking for a short-term fix, some just don't know truth or full details about whatever it is they're taking. if they did understand all the relavent information regarding what they're about to take and decide to take it anyway, then it is a matter of personal responsibility.

in light of that not being the case it becomes a matter of social responsibility to stop people harming themselves. this is why i could only ever be in favour of legalising all drugs if there were a massive effort made in drug education in schools, drug research - not only biomedical, but also social and cultural - and if the drugs were sold by licenced outlets that gave you the facts each time you bought your vice.


the drugs i'm talking about are the majorly addictive ones like heroin, crystal meth, coke, and others.

non-addictive ones that don't particularly fuck up your life unless you have absolutley no self control, such as weed, shrooms, acid, E, and the like, should well be legalised.

You make some good points. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of the government having businesses advertise the negative aspects of their product... but I'm sure a private group (a la TRUTH) would come along and take the place of the government in providing people with the truth about these products.

Either way, people that want a quick fix are going to get it. It doesn't matter if the drugs are illegal or not. The only difference will be where/who they purchase it from.

Well..... I'm not. :fluffle:

I'm against the legalisation of "hard" drugs because they are more dangerous.

I'm all for the legalisation of marijuana. It's still a drug, but how can it remain illegal while alcohol and tobacco are accepted?

Because fighting off hordes of meth addicts isn't a fun idea.

prohibition has never been succesful reguardless of the reason.why not make carbs illegal or cigs or oreos or bad relationships.people live there one life for themselves and that will never change!

You make some good points. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of the government having businesses advertise the negative aspects of their product... but I'm sure a private group (a la TRUTH) would come along and take the place of the government in providing people with the truth about these products.



well my ideal scenario would be the government selling the drugs themselves: if people are going to get hold of it one way or another like you say, may as well have the government control supply completely.
which means legalising drug use and possession, but kicking the ass of anyone who supplies.

kinda like how it works in holland: when i was in utrecht we couldn't find anyone on the street to sell us some skunk after the coffeeshops shut... damn annoying... but effective.
meant we weren't subjected to the criminal element or pushers - at least, not as much as would have been otherwise (we did have the opportunity to buy some coke or meth as it happened...)

then again in amsterdam's red light district getting hold of some beans was as easy as pie, so go figure :P

Because fighting off hordes of meth addicts isn't a fun idea.

Incase you didn't know... there are hordes of meth addicts arround all ready. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the percentage of people who get addicted to a drug first time around are fewer in number than those that don't.

The point is, people are going to get drugs no matter what.

I think the answer to solving the drug problem is to not legalize drugs which will only increase the number of people addicted to them but rather change the world drug policy. To effectivley deal with the problem with drugs two actions must be taken. First put in place a program which aims to keep drugs from being droped by air planes (which is one of the primary ways drugs get in) thus circumventing customs becasue when the plane lands it is clean. By doing this it will cut the suply of drugs significantly which will inturn drive up the price making them less accessable and hopefully decreasing the number of people who try them. Secondly institute stronger punishment becasue many people do not fear the consequencys of using drugs. These things in conjunction with border security and other things will dramaticly cut drug consumption and availabilty.

when did the coffieshops shut down? I was just there about a month or 2 ago, and they were open and thriving, from what I saw.

And yea, walking through the Red Light District, I was offered coke, e, and meth on nearly every street corner. As I said, laws are no obsitcle, in Holland or the US

well my ideal scenario would be the government selling the drugs themselves: if people are going to get hold of it one way or another like you say, may as well have the government control supply completely.
which means legalising drug use and possession, but kicking the ass of anyone who supplies.

kinda like how it works in holland: when i was in utrecht we couldn't find anyone on the street to sell us some skunk after the coffeeshops shut... damn annoying... but effective.
meant we weren't subjected to the criminal element or pushers - at least, not as much as would have been otherwise (we did have the opportunity to buy some coke or meth as it happened...)

then again in amsterdam's red light district getting hold of some beans was as easy as pie, so go figure :P

What's the crime rate in Holland due to drug related crimes? Relatively small, I bet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If the government/business was allowed to sell these drugs the dealers would be put out of business! Why would you buy from a thug on the street when you could buy from your local CVS, for cheaper prices?

If it works in Holland with government regulation, then I'm sure it would work even better with private business!

because a) drugs mess your health up
b) they're dangerous to society, when they lead to an increase in crime, violence etc... yep, even alcohol and tobacco.

drug laws make drug dealers rich .the government creates a black market for every drug they make illegal.empowering people who are more than willing to break the law,providing a means to provide for there familys in some cases to provide for there habit for others.some people are willing to be cops or fire fighters risking themselves why wouldnt people do the same to be a well paid drug dealer when they dont risk there lives somuch as there freedom?:confused:

I'm against the hardcore stuff that is addictive and the ones that can actually encourage violence and crime due to perception alteration. Things like marijuana and nonaddictives should be legalized, but the social and economic costs of the others are simply too much more than the money saved from enforcement.

because a) drugs mess your health up
b) they're dangerous to society, when they lead to an increase in crime, violence etc... yep, even alcohol and tobacco.

Fatty foods, lack of excercise, etc. all mess up your health. Should they too be banned?

Despite the (minimal) increase in crime due to the availability of these drugs, it would be nothing compared to the crime rate now (and in the 1920s) with all the gangs, cartels, etc. based around the thriving black market business of selling drugs.

because a) drugs mess your health up
b) they're dangerous to society, when they lead to an increase in crime, violence etc... yep, even alcohol and tobacco.

a) so does caffine, to a greater extent then some illigal drugs, so do not exercising, so does tabacco, so do alot of things. Also, this is imaterial, as it is MY health, and the government has no right to it.

b) they cause more crimes, violence, and harm to society when illigal

when did the coffieshops shut down? I was just there about a month or 2 ago, and they were open and thriving, from what I saw.

And yea, walking through the Red Light District, I was offered coke, e, and meth on nearly every street corner. As I said, laws are no obsitcle, in Holland or the US
the coffeeshops shut at 11 pm lol :P

but outside amsterdam the laws *do* work... in utrecht and the other places we visited (can't remember names) they certainly did. amsterdam red light district is just a bit of a free-for-all :D

[QUOTE=Kuzmieria]I think the answer to solving the drug problem is to not legalize drugs which will only increase the number of people addicted to them
:headbang: just because things are legal doesent make people do them for example,sky diving is both potentialy fatal and legal .but i know lots of people who would never do it just because its legal!

I'm against the hardcore stuff that is addictive and the ones that can actually encourage violence and crime due to perception alteration. Things like marijuana and nonaddictives should be legalized, but the social and economic costs of the others are simply too much more than the money saved from enforcement.

Nonaddictives? I believe all the drugs (alcohol, tobacco, even caffiene) are addictive. Though the severity varies. Perhaps you mean something else... ?

Your point about the social/economic costs is one I cannot refute right now. It is indeed a good point. But would increased availability mean increased usage? Would the costs be higher than what they are now? People still have to suffer the loss of loved ones, pay the expenses, etc, and the drugs are illegal; would the cost to society increase that much if legalized?

Nonaddictives? I believe all the drugs (alcohol, tobacco, even caffiene) are addictive. Though the severity varies. Perhaps you mean something else... ?

Your point about the social/economic costs is one I cannot refute right now. It is indeed a good point. But would increased availability mean increased usage? Would the costs be higher than what they are now? People still have to suffer the loss of loved ones, pay the expenses, etc, and the drugs are illegal; would the cost to society increase that much if legalized?
no!

A drug is a drug! So with your logic, marijauna should be legalised and cigarettes should be prohibited because they're more dangerous?

Just because someone takes a drug doesn't mean they're going to die instantly, become addicted or harm others. Granted plenty will (hey, that's their choice, no one forced them to do the drug).

Should we ban vehicles because they're extremely dangerous and COULD cause damage? No.

A vehicle serves a purpose of transportation. It serves a good, legitimate purpose. An ambulance or a rescue helicopter can save someone's life.

Illegal drugs serve no good or legitimate purpose. While a vehicle may cause harm, it serves a purpose whereas drugs don't serve a purpose and only harm.

Useful drugs that can still cause harm, like morphine, should be strictly regulated by the government, just as the government regulates automobiles, which likewise are useful but can be harmful (seat belt and car seat requirements, driver's licenses, etc.)

The choices of those who do drugs are often heavily influenced by peers and the media, which give drugs a label of 'coolness'

The libertarian argument is illogical, because libertarians want freedom to do themselves harm. The purpose of a government is to protect its citizens, and not just from external threats like terrorists and aggression, but also from internal enemies. By regulating drugs and other aspects of life, the government is protecting its citizens from harm.

Likewise to my aforementioned arguments, cigarettes serve no beneficial purpose and are intentionally harmful. Cigarette makers intentionally include toxins in cigarettes. Therefore, I believe smoking should be banned, but not imediately. The instant ban on alcohol was a mistake. Any sudden policy changes such as that are doomed to cause problems. By gradually phasing out tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.

Using the money spent on drug crackdowns to increase awareness is not going to solve any problems, as people will simply complain that their tax dollars are being wasted educating stupid people about the risks of drinking and inhaling poisons.

Nonaddictives? I believe all the drugs (alcohol, tobacco, even caffiene) are addictive. Though the severity varies. Perhaps you mean something else... ?

They are (anything is, especially if you've got genetic predispostion) but aren't really if used in moderation. More or less anything that isn't addictive when used recreationally. The key is information and moderation

Your point about the social/economic costs is one I cannot refute right now. It is indeed a good point. But would increased availability mean increased usage?

Maybe, depending on the price. If they are very cheap, there will undoubtedly be a rise. For example, sugar (which was once as expensive as some precious metals) was not consumed considerably by the general population until large scale production made it cheap enough for most people to afford.

Incase you didn't know... there are hordes of meth addicts arround all ready. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the percentage of people who get addicted to a drug first time around are fewer in number than those that don't.

The point is, people are going to get drugs no matter what.

Yeh but that's like saying 'oh people are going to die no matter what, so... I'm just off out with my meat cleaver for a few hours' a lot of it is a moral decision.

And as to the fatty foods/lack of excercise thing - has the massive focus on eating healthily thats been around for a while passed you by? Unless that was only in the UK... and thats if you don't live here obviously lol.

Oh and Katzistanza, thank you for recognising the almost artistic skill my subliminally awesome arguing displayed :D You yourself are nothing short of a master of... this sorta stuff.

*This also has been a coherent and convincingly argued post, and also courteous and pleasant. It has in fact made the world a better place in some small way*

the coffeeshops shut at 11 pm lol :P

Oh, I misunderstood :)



The libertarian argument is illogical, because libertarians want freedom to do themselves harm. The purpose of a government is to protect its citizens, and not just from external threats like terrorists and aggression, but also from internal enemies. By regulating drugs and other aspects of life, the government is protecting its citizens from harm.

WRONG! I should have the freedom to do myself harm. Or more correctly, I do have that freedom, the government just tries illigitamatly to take that freedom away.

The porpose of government is to ensure the rights of the governed, not protect them from themselves. Says so in the decleration of independence.

Should the government protect people from fatty foods? No, it's a personal choice. When a group of people start claiming ownership of your own body, there is clearly something wrong.

Because fighting off hordes of meth addicts isn't a fun idea.

Fighting off hordes of anything wouldn't be fun. The solution isn't in illegalizing use of meth, but in illegalizing the formation of hordes.

I think the answer to solving the drug problem is to not legalize drugs which will only increase the number of people addicted to them but rather change the world drug policy. To effectivley deal with the problem with drugs two actions must be taken. First put in place a program which aims to keep drugs from being droped by air planes (which is one of the primary ways drugs get in) thus circumventing customs becasue when the plane lands it is clean. By doing this it will cut the suply of drugs significantly which will inturn drive up the price making them less accessable and hopefully decreasing the number of people who try them. Secondly institute stronger punishment becasue many people do not fear the consequencys of using drugs. These things in conjunction with border security and other things will dramaticly cut drug consumption and availabilty.

LMAO, good one. :D

Nonaddictives? I believe all the drugs (alcohol, tobacco, even caffiene) are addictive. Though the severity varies. Perhaps you mean something else... ?

Your point about the social/economic costs is one I cannot refute right now. It is indeed a good point. But would increased availability mean increased usage? Would the costs be higher than what they are now? People still have to suffer the loss of loved ones, pay the expenses, etc, and the drugs are illegal; would the cost to society increase that much if legalized?

Who says availability would necessarily increase? Sure, there would be "shops" and such, but the illegal dealers would go out of business. I think availability would barely change.

I'm totally against the legalisation of the lethal drugs. That is, the drugs which it is conceivably possible to kill yourself with. Cocaine, Heroin and Ecstacy are some of the ones I can think of.

However, I'm partially against the legalisation of Marijuana; While the laws should be relaxed considerably (maximum penalty for dealer becoming community service, for instance) I think that too great a degree of availability would allow too many of the peons to use it, thus lowering the amount left for us enlightened folk. Also, it would piss me off if it fell into the hands of people who's most philosophical thought was over the state of interpersonal relations in East Enders.

See, it is possible to be a stoner and an elitist reactionary tosser. :)

Maybe, depending on the price. If they are very cheap, there will undoubtedly be a rise. For example, sugar (which was once as expensive as some precious metals) was not consumed considerably by the general population until large scale production made it cheap enough for most people to afford.

I really doubt the government would sell drugs for any less than dealers. If anything, they would charge a little more for the assurance that, if you're caught with dope, but it has a government stamp on the bag, you won't be arrested.

I'm totally against the legalisation of the lethal drugs. That is, the drugs which it is conceivably possible to kill yourself with. Cocaine, Heroin and Ecstacy are some of the ones I can think of.

However, I'm partially against the legalisation of Marijuana; While the laws should be relaxed considerably (maximum penalty for dealer becoming community service, for instance) I think that too great a degree of availability would allow too many of the peons to use it, thus lowering the amount left for us enlightened folk. Also, it would piss me off if it fell into the hands of people who's most philosophical thought was over the state of interpersonal relations in East Enders.

See, it is possible to be a stoner and an elitist reactionary tosser. :)

How about water? I've heard that people killing themselves by OD on water. It's called "drowning". It's a very dangerous, lethal drug, and should be made illegal.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no meaning or purpose to the universe, other than maybe what Nietzsche said if he turns out to be correct. As such, I really couldn't care less about whether someone does drugs.

How about water? I've heard that people killing themselves by OD on water. It's called "drowning". It's a very dangerous, lethal drug, and should be made illegal.

You can also die if you drink too much water, as happened to Leah Betts, a high profle supposed victim of ecstacy use. the amount of water she drank would have killed her regardless of anything she had taken.

My only concern about legalizing drugs would be the crimes addicts may commit to fund their habits.
If people OD and die, so be it, its their choice. Just natural selection.
If they become useless to society, fine. They can starve.

But if they start mugging people or burgling houses, shoot them.

Soon enough we would have a society where drug use was responsible and stupid people had virtually been eliminated.

You can also die if you drink too much water, as happened to Leah Betts, a high profle supposed victim of ecstacy use. the amount of water she drank would have killed her regardless of anything she had taken.

My only concern about legalizing drugs would be the crimes addicts may commit to fund their habits.
If people OD and die, so be it, its their choice. Just natural selection.
If they become useless to society, fine. They can starve.

But if they start mugging people or burgling houses, shoot them.

Soon enough we would have a society where drug use was responsible and stupid people had virtually been eliminated.

But... addicts already commit crimes to fund their habits. How would legalizing drugs or not change this?

But... addicts already commit crimes to fund their habits. How would legalizing drugs or not change this?

It probably wouldn't. I think we are right in assuming that increased availability will not lead to increased consumption.

It probably wouldn't. I think we are right in assuming that increased availability will not lead to increased consumption.

So what would change if drugs were legalized? There would be a significant drop in crime (as having/using drugs will no longer be a crime), illegal drug dealers would go out of business (a good thing, if you ask me), the government could get taxes out of it like everything else (also a good thing), there would still be some control on it, same as there already is with alcohol (don't get high and drive posters everywhere). What else would change? What would be so bad about it?

So what would change if drugs were legalized? There would be a significant drop in crime (as having/using drugs will no longer be a crime), illegal drug dealers would go out of business (a good thing, if you ask me), the government could get taxes out of it like everything else (also a good thing), there would still be some control on it, same as there already is with alcohol (don't get high and drive posters everywhere). What else would change? What would be so bad about it?

The argument I've been getting back from my Civics teacher thus far has been the socioeconomic cost to society. However, for this to happen increased availability would have to mean increased consumption; as it most likely wouldn't mean that his argument is a bunch of stank poop.

So unless others can prove otherwise, there is no reason NOT to legalize drugs.

The argument I've been getting back from my Civics teacher thus far has been the socioeconomic cost to society. However, for this to happen increased availability would have to mean increased consumption; as it most likely wouldn't mean that his argument is a bunch of stank poop.

So unless others can prove otherwise, there is no reason NOT to legalize drugs.

And anyone with basic understanding of economy knows that increased supply leads to drop in prices, which leads to some very pissed off suppliers taking their stuff off the market until the supply is back in balance with demand. Legalizing drugs would mean the handful of people out there who want to do drugs and don't just because it's illegal might be tempted to start, but if the government really cares about these people (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *ahem*) they can just sell these drugs a bit on the expensive side.

I'm totally against the legalisation of the lethal drugs. That is, the drugs which it is conceivably possible to kill yourself with. Cocaine, Heroin and Ecstacy are some of the ones I can think of.

However, I'm partially against the legalisation of Marijuana; While the laws should be relaxed considerably (maximum penalty for dealer becoming community service, for instance) I think that too great a degree of availability would allow too many of the peons to use it, thus lowering the amount left for us enlightened folk. Also, it would piss me off if it fell into the hands of people who's most philosophical thought was over the state of interpersonal relations in East Enders.


woah you're like a stoner version of Doctor Tim Leary :p


ps: you can only kill yourself with ecstacy if you're a (uninformed) twat. that, or be allergic to mdma. but either way, fuck all people die from using E each year - just it gets media exposure cos its usually 'youths' out 'partying' and that sort of crap ;)

I dont think one should be allowed to shoot heroin until they die.

I dont think one should be allowed to shoot heroin until they die.

I don't think one should be allowed to die until they shoot heroin. :D

I dont think one should be allowed to shoot heroin until they die.

Suicide is still illegal.

Legalized heroin would be the same as alcohol, generally speaking its not "allowed" to drink until you die is it?

Anyway, I'm pro-legalization. All of it! Legalize everything! Including guns. A drugged out and well-armed populace is a happy and peaceful populace.

First put in place a program which aims to keep drugs from being droped by air planes (which is one of the primary ways drugs get in) thus circumventing customs becasue when the plane lands it is clean. By doing this it will cut the suply of drugs significantly which will inturn drive up the price making them less accessable and hopefully decreasing the number of people who try them. Secondly institute stronger punishment becasue many people do not fear the consequencys of using drugs. These things in conjunction with border security and other things will dramaticly cut drug consumption and availabilty.

Well, I disagree completely. I assume you are refering to the U.S. for your argument, so I will address it in that context. First, although heroin and coke are primarily imported by plane, most drugs are made/grown domestically. Ever hear of a meth lab? Most pot (and mushrooms) is grown in the U.S. or Mexico. X and acid are either manufactured in the states or europe. You would only cut the supply of a few drugs that way, even if it worked. And from the billions of dollars spend doing exactly what you propose (trying to stop air drops), it is obvious that it is a waste of time.

Secondly...STRONGER punishment for drug charges? The vast majority of people in jail/prison in the U.S. are there on drug charges. Overcrowding is at insane levels as it is. Many states have mandatory minimums which are rediculously high. In some states, someone who sells pot to a few friends will do more time than a rapist or other violent offender. Sorry, not buying it.

A drug is a drug! So with your logic, marijauna should be legalised and cigarettes should be prohibited because they're more dangerous?
Yeah, that attitude is one that baffles me too. Did you know that it is on the green party's official platform that marijuana should be legal, but cigarettes should be outlawed? I always knew that party was nuts. Sorry, but if I want a smoke, it should be just as legal as if I want a joint.

ever heard of peer pressure? ever actually bought from a dealer?
Some people have friends who might try to get them to smoke or drink, maybe even smoke pot, I don't know. I actually have cool friends who respect a person's choice to do what they want. But if your friends want to pressure you into bridge jumping, does that mean we have to outlaw bridges too?
And I have bought from a dealer. Most of the time it takes me a week to hunt the guy down, depending on what I want. And I have never been pressured to buy or try anything. The "drug pushers" you must be talking about must be a myth created by the Reagan administration, because I have never seen nor heard of one.

As for regulation, I personally think 18 or 21 would be a good age to set. Regulate marijuana similar to cigarettes, the rest like alcohol. And if you had government regulation, and kept prices the way they are now, 90% would be government revenue you could use for your education and prevention programs. I believe the government profit figure just for marijuana if it was legalized was estimated at 90 BILLION a year. People are going to smoke anyways. Who would you rather make money off of it?