Everyone is familiar with the "War on Drugs" we have here in America. It is of course morally right, but is it right for the nation to have as a law, where if you do drugs or traffic them, you most likely go to jail or forced rehab. But is the moral satisfactory worth the price and cost, and should there even be a reason for it?
The drug war is costing us 55-60% of our federal jail space, and approx. 20% in state prisons.
Website
In addition to this, it costs immense money to keep all these "criminals" in prisons, where more violent offenders could be kept.
Website With Drug War Facts For Further Reading

So the questions for debate are:
Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.?

Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime?

Explain all answers.

Yes for many drugs such as crack cocaine, and meth


Use should be a crime for the drugs sure to kill the user – such as crack. A far stiffer sentence for trafficking in same

No. There is no Constitutional or ethical basis for it. If I decide to use cocaine, crack or meth then that decision is mine and mine alone. If I want to sell cocaine, crack or meth to someone else who wants to use cocaine, crack or meth, then that is between me and him/her. There is no reason to believe that an increase in drug use will occur if these drugs are legalized and it is not unreasonable to believe that legalization/regulation would make drug use safer.
Neither should be illegal.

CP

Fell free to kill yourself – But I object to having my medical costs (and welfare etc.) increased when you “live” and are just an invalid – a burden to society – that is the rest of us must support. Certainly if you would like to waive all care that would be required to save you after using crack for years I might reconsider.

Ted, this isn't an argument against drug legalization, it's an argument against our government run health care system. I'm with you, no one should have to pay for the medical attention drug addicts need. That having been said, that argument ignores the fact that today your tax money is going to take care of drug addicts, drugs are being used despite the fact that they're illegal and their effects are being paid for by the taxpayer despite the fact that they're illegal. Legalizing drugs would not change that. Again though, your argument is a great reason to privatize health care, not continue to criminalize drugs.

CP

Legalizing drugs such as crack and meth will lead to wider use – do you agree? And wider use will lead to more people suffering from the inevitable consequences of same = greater medical costs. Yes we have a problem now – no we don’t need to make it worse. Legalize marijuana - not crack.

This is Irrespective of the medical “system”.

No, I do not agree that legalization will lead to wider use. There is no reason to believe that, and I've seen no proof that that would be the result of legalization. If you are the type of person who wants to use crystal meth, you'll probably find a way to use it, regardless of law. But again, if we privatized the health care system, would you have any objection to legalizing all drugs?

That's an arbitrary line to draw. So we legalize pot, then we can legalize the next less harmless drug, and then the next, and then the next. As I said, arbitrary.

CP

We have a “private” healthcare system now. Do you mean “socialize” as in government run?

And if you think legalization will not lead to wider use you are dreaming. Drugs would be legally “marketed” – that is made attractive and sold everywhere. Certainly use would increase. And crack and meth are killers - weed is not and that is not "atbitrary".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/leshner.html

No, I mean eliminate the gov't from the health care system to taxpayers money is not used to fund drug user's medical care [or anyone else's for that matter].
You're going to have to prove that, Ted. I don't believe that there would be much, if any of an increase in drug use. You claim it would, okay, prove it.


And neither is PMA [paramethoxyamphetamine], a drug classified in the same group as pot, so I'm assuming that that should be legalized as well? My point is that ending legalization at marijuana is arbitrary, unles your qualification for drug legalization is that a drug not be a "killer". If that is the case, you'll find that you're advocating for the legalization of many more drugs than marijuana.

CP

Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.?

The war on drugs may be well intention, but it falls flat when you have mandatory sentences for a crime with no victim. The jail space for these people is freed up by putting other criminals on parole. Do what you will should be the whole of the laws until you violate the rights of another. Just my opinion.

But it makes sense. If you legalize every drug, you can regulate it. Which leads me to...
[b]Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime?[b]
Just trafficking. In the sense of pushing on the street. Allow drugs to be sold in stores like cigarettes. Tax them heavily, require warning labels, and put age limits on them. Then put extreme penalties on selling to minors and selling unregulated product. This ends the 'pushers' on the streets. The kids have to seek out the drugs instead of the drugs seeking them out. And if you use the tax money generated to go towards education, a smaller portion of the populace will choose to make those poor decisions. Throw in the money saved from housing these sorry souls in prison, and the regular tax payers win in both penitentiary costs and crimes committed to support the habit.

You have to ask yourself, would we have less drug users if it were legal and highly regulated? That's really the biggest question. If the answer is yes, then certainly everyone would want to do that. Right???? I think that the answer is yes, IF you regulate the industry heavily enough and provide prevention education.

one of my all-time intellectual heros, Dr Milton Friedman, advocated legalization of all drugs. in this, he was in error -- not just on my terms, but on his.

Dr Friedman himself summed up his philosophy with three words: "free to choose". the problem with hard drugs is that they leave those addicted to them utterly unfree to choose.

moving on to 'neighborhood effects' (a bugbear of Friedman's), hard drug use also leaves residents of the communities unfree to avoid the inevitable blighting of their community. of course, those communities most adversely affected are those of the poor, a group neither Dr Friedman, nor William F Buckley (another legalization advocate), spent a lot of time rubbing shoulders with.

as to whether or not legalization would increase drug use, one need only ask oneself if legalization of abortion increased its use, or if not having speed limits on Germany's Autobahn increased speeding, or if legalizing driving while intoxicated would increase drunk driving.

i know of no communities where drug use is widespread that are not blighted. the notion that the broader society would not wind up paying more to address increased hospital emergency room admissions, increased crime (legal access to drugs doesn't suddenly make people too stoned to hold a job into law abiding citizens), the flight of the middle class, etc, is simply unrealistic.

Why? If using the drug is sure to kill the user, then isn't making it a crime a bit pointless, since the perpetrators will always be dead? Further, if these drugs are indeed sure to kill the user, won't the traffic eventually dry up as everyone in the market would be dead? Why the need to have a war then, as the people we'd be fighting against are only too happy to exterminate themselves with no further involvement from us required. We'd be wasting resources for no purpose whatsoever, as the purpose would already be being achieved on its own. I would also add that cigarettes are sure to kill the user (when might be in doubt, but not the eventual end), yet we not only have no war against them, they're not even illegal.

In a broader sense, exactly what is achieved by having such a war? People think Iraq is a quagmire, and we've only been fighting that war for a few years. We've been fighting this one for decades...yet drugs are still around, aren't they? What is being achieved then? Outside of political aims, nothing is being accomplished at all, at least not from the criminalization part of the war. It's just a waste of resources. We might as well all bang our heads on the wall to stop drugs. Everyone would say that's pure foolishness--yet it is exactly what we have been doing for decades now. If anyone doubts this, please cite any drug available before the 'war' began that is unavailable now. They're all still around, aren't they. I guess we just need to bang our heads harder, then, huh?

I agree wholeheartedly with this reasoning. The drug use and trafficking level hasn't been going down, its a political aim. If you create a "war" on anything, then say if you elect me again or my same party we'll continue the war, you'll repeatedly get elected. Especially on this topic, because if you speak out against the War on Drugs, man, are you committing political suicide. You'll immediately be labeled "soft" and "pro-druggy", which will ruin any political chances. Believe me I think drugs are wrong to use and im proud to say I'm drug-free, but if its their own personal bodies and they want to mess it up, kill themselves, its their personal choice.

America has been here before. Alcohol was prohibited by law. A sensible decision, when one considers the negatives. Alcohol was often the major reason behind rapes and murders. Prisons would be less populated if there was no alcohol. Prohibition didn't last becuse the people rejected it. They wanted to drink, sometimes. Why? At worst, one does terrible things that would never happen if sober. At best, one enjoys the high. Many a dull meeting turns out to be fun if a few beers or wine is drunk. Alcohol alters something in one's brain that makes one interact in a way that is different to normal. Mostly for good, sometimes for bad.

Drugs. I see no difference. None. Between the prohibition on drugs now, and on alcohol back then. I do see that it is better for a government to have control over a mind altering substance. IMO, it was wise to legalize alcohol. It can be controlled; kept away from children; and taxed. And corporations, despite their ills, do not murder competitors with drive-by-shootings, as some did in the 1930's, and today. Yes, some otherwise decent person will perform a horrible act because he/she is drunk, but the gov't back then realized that the will of the people was too strong. Yes, somebody probably did a horrible thing while under the influence of drugs. I don't take drugs, and never will. I know some people who do. They are all functional, barre one. So, let's talk about the real reason why drugs are illegal.

Drugs are illegal because they are considered "immoral" by some. Conservatives think they are bad. Liberals thik they are OK. The others don't care. I am apolitical, and view things scientifically. Like Global warming, abortion, immigration, nuclear energy and wars; most people will make decisions from their heart and upbringing. Hell awaits for those who challenge a belief held by their peers. Most people just agree with those around them. Therefore, most arguments on here are mute. If you are a Conservative/Republican, you have to angrily fight for the war on drugs. You have no choice. You will not belong, otherwise. Drug-taking Rush Limbaugh would not tolerate you. If you are a Liberal, you must advocate legalization of drugs. It's the way of your group. I guess that there are many "pro-drug-legalization" Democrats who would die if their child puffed on a joint, but they lie anyway. I long for social scientists to visit this subject. however, in their absence, I expect this post to bre ignored,

As of now, I've yet to see any data/stats/facts to back up the notion that a meaningful number of people [meaning enough to negatively affect society] would do drugs if only they were legalized. I reject the notion and again, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. In addition, are those neighborhoods blighted as a direct result of drugs, or are there other factors at work? I'd be willing to bet that drugs aren't their only problems. In addition, if the residence of poor neighborhoods were given the opportunity to sell these drugs on an open market, I'd be willing to be that their financial situation would improve.

Also, I'm still waiting on the Constitutional basis for the war on drugs, as far as I can tell, it's illegal. I understand the argument regarding the interstate commerce clause, however, growing and using drugs within a state is not covered by that particular clause.

CP

Come on sir. Ever hear of a product that good marketing and distribution could not sell? The push would be to increase the number of users. The drugs are cheap and the potential market huge. I can see the adds now – “need a little morning boot – try our super meth”. Or “need to relax after a hard day? - big H is the proven product for you – used by millions”. And the targets would be our most productive – young people 18-35.







This is the only way legalizing drugs could work. But you would have to include no required coverage by insurance companies, employers etc. All the above would immediately start constant testing (which would have to be legal) to identify and not cover people who will – by definition be needing far more healthcare. There drugs kill users.


“What most people don't realize is that the majority of long-term, hard-core drug addicts are dying in their 40s and 50s. The latest studies show that the life expectancy of a drug addict is 15 to 20 years after they start being a drug addict. So what we see is a replenishment of the population, a new crop of addicts. There are no 90-year-old heroin addicts. Most of those we were recording 20 years ago have died. The numbers are relatively stable, but they're constantly being replenished.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/leshner.html

And even if they only make people less productive we all pay for this. We would also have to disallow all emergency treatment at hospitals – I am not paying to save the lives of idiots using these types of drugs – you?

Bottom line is – if you want to be free to do any drug that hits your fancy and if the drug companies are free of all liability (as they would have to be) then don’t expect me to care a lot about you as you get sick and die.

I don't think any major corporations would touch this...the potential backlash would be too big. Drugs are still considered immoral by many (most?)...and any company that initiates a large campaign to sell drugs would potentially be losing many many millions more dollars from other products they sell. So, no, this is by no means evidence that increased usage would occur. The de facto answer without any evidence would be that drug use would not increase significantly...and it would require a lot more than this to change that. Personally, I think the only real change we'd see is that we'd stop spending so much of our law enforcement dollars and resources on it---stop beating our heads on the wall, in other words. Funny, because I don't really see "Let's keep banging our heads on the wall for no reason until we all pass out" as a winning campaign slogan, even though politics is what is driving this. But then facts and politics don't seem to intersect very often.

Also, just supposing that corporations did step in and promote certain of these drugs. So what? Take marijuana, for example. What great harm does its usage do to society? In particular, what causes it to be more detrimental than alcohol or cigarettes, two drugs we've already decided are legal? Even stronger drugs, such as cocaine? The answer almost always comes to two things...certain people trying to enforce their moral code on others, and side effects related to the criminalization of same. The actual usage of most drugs is purely personal, and has no adverse effect on society outside of the criminalization of these items. Alcohol had the same set of adverse effects when it was criminalized. Also, alcohol has a much more deletirious effect on society than most illegal drugs would when you examine their effects on our system...yet it is legal. So, clearly, that is not the issue.

Hobbes covered this one pretty well, so I won't reiterate what he said. Bottom line, all this is is speculation with no factual basis to it.

CP

My contention is even if drug companies do not get into it if you make it clear there will be no enforcement of the law usage will go up. Do you agree? And with increased usage are increased health problems.

Abuse potential
Depending on the actual compound, drug abuse may lead to health problems, social problems, physical dependence, or psychological addiction.
Some drugs that are subject to abuse have central nervous system (CNS) effects, which produce changes in mood, levels of awareness or perceptions and sensations. Most of these drugs also alter systems other than the CNS. But, not all centrally acting drugs are subject to abuse, which suggests that altering consciousness is not sufficient for a drug to have abuse potential. Among drugs that are abused, some appear to be more likely to lead to uncontrolled use than others, suggesting a possible hierarchy of drug-induced effects relative to abuse potential.[6]

[edit] Approaches to managing drug abuse
In addition to being a major public health problem, some consider drug abuse to be a social problem with far-reaching implications. Stress, poverty, domestic and societal violence, and various diseases (i.e., injecting drug users as a source for HIV/AIDS) are sometimes thought to be spread by drug use. Studies have also shown that individuals dependent on illicit drugs experience higher rates of co morbid psychiatric syndromes.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_abuse.

Some MDMA (ecstasy) and cocaine users are switching to methamphetamine, ignorant of its severe toxicity. Increasingly, due to it being less expensive, dealers or manufacturers have begun to introduce methamphetamine into ecstasy and cocaine without the user being aware[citation needed].




I have no problem with legal marijuana. Cocaine, meth, and crack are clearly a health hazard – and I have no perblem with adults doing what they want if I am free of their health concerns later. NO drug company would ever, ever sell cocaine or meth without immunity from the kind of law suites that tobacco has seen.

Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.?

No. You know something is wrong when the police are breaking down doors to prevent transactions between willing parties. I do not say that taking drugs is a good thing; perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I merely say that it is something that an adult should be able to decide for himself.

If taking cocaine or methamphetamines turns a person into a zombie, fine. It is no concern of mine if another citizen wants to injure himself for the sake of pleasure. Or rather let me put it this way: it may be a concern of mine, but it would not be in my interest to intervene. It certainly is not in our mutual interest that the massive power of the police and the law courts is marshalled to prevent people from doing something that affects only themselves, and which might reasonably be viewed as the mere pursuit of happiness.

Alcohol and tobacco are also very harmful drugs. But it is very good that we do not prohibit the use of these.

Today, most of our police, court and prison resources are tied up in a very questionable attempt to stop people from doing that which they have a perfect right to do. Better these same resources were free to address actual crimes as robbery, rape and murder: crimes where, unlike someone's taking drugs, one party is unjustly and unwillingly injured by another.

It is often said that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the prohibition of drugs, which perfectly mirrors in folly this country's failed experiment with the prohibition of alcohol. When you make illegal a good for which there is a very substantial demand, you place trade in this good outside contract law, and you institute in place of that law a regime where arm-breaking and killing decide business disputes. Criminal gangs are organized, and battle each other for the sake of maintaining their local monopolies in the sale of the banned good. Thus, the associated violence that is widely perceived to be caused by drugs is, in fact, caused by prohibition.

The main casualties of the war on drugs are the fourth amendment rights of citizens and their liberty in the pursuit of happiness.

Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime?
No, for the reasons that I have said. There is a liberty interest in the consumption of goods. "Trafficking" would be an irrelevant concept in a world where drug trade were legal. The likes of Phillip Morris and Seagrams would sell marijuana and cocaine through the likes of the local liquor store.

An ancillary benefit of this would be that the drug trade could be regulated and taxed, just like any other business. Purity requirements, for example, could be instituted.

The "War on Drugs" has always been a terrible idea. It's time that it came to an end.



Of course some businesses will get into the sale of drugs if this is made legal. Why wouldn't they? There's great money in it. By the forces of competition, local distribution by gangs will be wiped out. This is an argument for legalization, not against it.

Likewise, if many more people would take drugs when prohibition ended, this is an argument for legalization, not against it! These people are cognizant of the risks, and it is for them, no one else, to decide whether the pleasure they obtain from taking drugs outweighs the risks. In this way, human welfare does not decrease, but rather increases. This is a very simple principle of human liberty.

You may say, more people will die early. Well, so what, if that is the consequence of their own choice? Don't vast numbers of people die early now, from unwise alcohol and tobacco use?

No one here has yet observed that the cost to the public health of some degree of increased drug-taking is balanced by current costs to the public health of taking unregulated, impure drugs; gang violence necessary to administer the illegal drug trade; and the social cost of so many police, court and prison resources tied up with the War on Drugs.

For example, however great the marginal increase in health care costs caused by one person's taking drugs, it certainly is less than the cost of imprisoning that person to prevent him from doing so. We pay for the prisons as well as for health care, you know?

We do things that have associated health problems all the time. The acceptable standard has already been set...the associated health problems would need to be significantly higher than those for alcohol and tobacco. There are a great many drugs that are currently illegal that would fall under that standard. Marijuana, ecstacy, and probably even cocaine fall under this, whereas heroine is probably above it. The point being that if this is the standard, and logic dictates it is, it should be fairly easy to come up with a list of those drugs that fall under it, and make them legal immediately. Drugs that fall above it could remain illegal.





Again, such problems would need to be worse than those for alcohol and tobacco to be sufficient to make such a drug illegal. I would further add that any health problems that only affect an individual are correspondingly an individual choice. Society should only make illegal those drugs that have an impact on society. If an individual chooses to inflict issues upon himself, then murphy's law dictates that society is best by simply allowing those individuals to self destruct and remove themselves from the gene pool.



These seem to be issues which would benefit from regulation, which could only be accomplished in conjunction with legalization. Makers of illegal drugs have little reason to comply with any regulatory requirements.



The actual list of which drugs could be legalized might require some debate (I'd probably suggest cocaine could be on it, but if presented with other evidence I might change my mind)...but it sounds like we're basically in agreement.

So you are unconcerned that your tax dollars will go toward the health care of drug abusers? Not in your interest? And I would assume you would give back the billions the tobacco companies are paying Americans for hurting their health? You think meth would be worse or less harmful?

Personally I could care less if a person wants to do drugs – I object to paying 10 cents for his resultant, illness, job loss, crimes, Hospitalization, death etc. etc.



They wouldn’t unless they had protection from liability. Certainly meth and crack can hurt you more than tobacco – they will need to be protected from lawsuits – and I want to be protected from the medical costs of those who damage their health. How about you? I say more users = more health concerns.




Actually heroin is far less harmful (if you can get it) then crack but whatever. Again my concern is that people just don’t “die” – they get sick, go nuts, commit crimes, draw others into the practice and all of these things effect society. They all hurt us as a whole.

And I agree that drugs deemed no more harmful than alcohol should be looked at but IMO crack and meth are not such.

Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.?
No.

Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime?
Neither should be a crime. If anything, drug use should be regulated like regular commerce.

U.S. drug laws are wrong as a constitutional matter and as a libertarian/liberal matter. I think any elected federal official brave enough to challenge and lucky enough to overturn federal drug laws would need to watch their back. Invalidating statutory law like the 1970 Controlled Substance Act and leaving it to individual states to legalize or illegalize drug use would slash premiums associated with the risk of importing illegal drugs. Users would no longer pay the same amount for legally accessible goods, cutting into profits illicit suppliers enjoy.

As a matter of welfare, which Ted brought up, federal and local governments already subsidize prevention programs and medical care associated with legal vices. One of the recipients is my father, whose recent gall bladder removal surgery was covered by Medicare. If you want to make a fiscal libertarian argument against legalizing drugs you have to advance the argument in every circumstance. The fiscal "wrongness" of legalizing drugs has nothing to do with your objection if you countenance assistance covering legal behavior. The feds spend around 12 billion a year (.pdf) on drug prevention and enforcement. Idiot supporters of congressman Tancredo's border fence idea could see their wall in 4 ½ years if these programs are discontinued and funds diverted to border security.

Law enforcement aggressively targets users and small time traffickers. Drug laws disproportionately affect minorities, especially blacks. According to both the Sentencing Project (.pdf) and the Bureau of Prisons, half of all federal prisoners are drug offenders. According to the Sentencing Project, only 1 in 10 of all inmates commit a violent crime and racial minorities make up the bulk of the inmate population, with blacks representing the largest group.

Perhaps the story of a small town in Texas presents the perfect example of out of control enforcement. For cash-strapped counties facing federal budget cuts since Contract With America, the federal Byrne grant program, which provides for costs associated with prosecuting but not defending accused drug offenders, is too tempting an opportunity to pursue normal enforcement that would not allow, let alone convict defendants, on the basis of uncorroborated testimony. Due process rights are subordinate to Byrne "performance benchmarks":


For more on Tulia and the Byrne grant, click here and here.

As a matter of abuse affecting people of all color/ethnic background, the CATO institute has a drug- and no-knock warrant-related raid map covering the United States. The raid map describes paramilitary tactics like giving the accused reaching for their gun a dirt nap after breaking into their homes in the middle of the night, launching stun grenades into rooms and administratively circumventing the need to get warrants. One of the most shocking examples of abuse of power between corroborating federal agencies comes from the following story in Malibu, California:

Hey as I have said I am for legalizing some drugs that we know to be no more harmful than alcohol – marijuana for example. And as we know alcohol does far more damage then tobacco. But my point is that if we offer drugs we know are not just more harmful but far more addictive – crack, meth, etc. all we get is more illness and earlier in life. So rather than a 50 year old with a liver problem we have a 35 year old with a bad heart and a shot nervous system etc. And I am not willing to pay for this. Even if you could show that the meth and crack folks would just be drinkers otherwise the drugs are clearly more harmful. So “legal behavior” is not my problem – making behavior legal we KNOW will cost us billions $$$, lost lives, and lost productivity is just stupid.

And believe me I would love to take the profit out of drug crime – which by the way would leave us with problems with the “minorities” you mentioned that today make a living on drug profits. Where do they go??? Bank robberies? Murder for hire?

Does this mean you are in favor of repealing federal drug laws and leaving the matter to the states?


Can you prove states legalizing drugs will encourage residents to engage in more risky behavior? This is a very anti-gay marriage/sex education-like argument.

BTW, no one has a right to a man's labor, or are you forgetting you identify as a conservative?


Oh I suppose the minorities will manage to adapt and maybe even capitalize. I know their tanned and dark selves is enough to put some people off indefinitely, but trust me, those "people" are capable of recognizing a shift in drug policy.

Not if I though any state might legalize crack or meth and I would end up paying for them in my Medicare Taxes. If that were not the case then yes.


.


You lost me. All I am saying is that if drugs are legal (and cheap) then more people are likely to use them and IMO the consequences of doing so could be bad for the country and me financially. Is there a country you can point to that legalizes all drugs?


Not sure what you mean. We all pay taxes and the money IS earned by our labor. And if CA wants to legalize crack and my taxes go up to cover it – they have my “labor” like it or not.


People with no other source of income will be in trouble from day one – white, black or yellow. Ans many will still be addicted to the drugs they were selling.

Ted- your entire premise seems to be that drug crazed newly minted junkies will start robbing your home and living off your taxes- okay, fine.

Are you consistant with this then, and wish to illegalize tobaco and alcohol, either one of which has more negative impacts of the type you talk about than all the illegal drugs combined.

Also- ths is goverment intrusion into personal lives- and, in fact, socialism, You see, when the goverment controls the means or rate of production, it is the definition of socialism- are you for socialism Ted?

Also- you have decried the "nanny state" if I am not mistaken before- why are you for a nanny state now?

Can you prove, in any society where drugs are legal , that thier harmful effect woudl even EQUAL the money spent on Tobbaco.

NO drug will EVER rise to the level of alcohol or tobbaco in terms of cost, addiction and ill health effects.

NO person, EVER has been able to provide any evidence that ALL the illegal drugs in the world, if FREELY distributed tomorow- where it doesn't even cost user a dime, would STILL even ome close to Alcohol or tobbaco in it's negative impact on society. Even in the Netherlands, were it is totally decriminalized, you still have more alcoholism and tobacco related illnesses than all the de-criminalized drugs in that nation.

So ted, is this another one of your double standards, or are you consitant in your beliefs?

Also Ted- the VERY BEST argument is how much money it will SAVE taxpayers-NOT what it costs- the drug war costs many, many times whatever you think medicaid will have to absorb- in fact, if we just shifted all that money for prosecution, incarceration, etc etc- I bet your taxes would go down, and we could have universal health care so cheap even a scottish cheapskate person like myself would order TWO medicaids LOL

AND- on that note- here is the real biggie- when you have laws you can't possibly enforce- you weaken all laws- why? Because of the limited resources of law enforcement- that is why SOO many LEO's favor legalizing, or rather, de-criminalizing, drugs.

We don't have the money to prosecute all the users

We don't have enough money or manpower to arrest all the users/dealers.

We don't have enough money or manpower to house all those users/dealers

So what is the logical thing to do, what is the best solution for making our society a lot more safe?

Easy- decriminalize the drug- and strengthen the penalty for BEHAVIOR,

In other words- if you commit a Violent crime, under the influence of a drug, Or steal and defraud FOR a drug- you should have mandatory minimums with uber-long sentances and draconian punishment for the crime.

Only a mall percentage of the addicts will ever commit crimes for thier drug- most are "functional" addicts.

I know, I have been counselling in this field for over 20 years.

You would be suprised to see who is addicted to what hard drug. It is no respecter of position, gender or race.

I point out the gay prostitute meth head preacher as a prime example.

Means of “production for what” – illegal drugs. Have you slipped and banged your head CR. And crack/meth make alcohol look good for you so I disagree. The issue with adding drugs to the list of “leagal” ones is to not do massive harm to society. IMO legal coke,crack and meth etc. would. Society has the right to prohibit some activities and make some “illegal” – this is not socialism.

So alcohol and tobacco are bad enough – lets not try for more. Can you point to a country where crack, meth and coke are legal?



Nice idea. But the behavior I am most worried about is illness and death – and the cost to the medical system in the process. I would be happy to allow you to kill yourself with crack (not you personally) IF I could be assured I would not have to pay big medical bills for you later. How can we do that? We get BILLIONS from the tobacco industry now (and oddly 0 from alcohol – which is worse) – SOOOO – how will you get money out of the new drug “industry” of crack, meth etc. Do you think and company selling it will risk the liability?





Yes and my fear is that the list will grow if the drugs are legal and widely available. Crack “rewires” the brain/dopamine centers so that people who would ordinarily get pleasure from running or working, playing etc. only care about the next hit. Not the kind of drug I want to be legal.

So would you like all the drugs listed in the link below legal???

http://ctclearinghouse.org/topics/customer...tial-071105.pdf

http://www.drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/addiction.html

Hmmm, I am not sure about meth or coke, ( and there is a difference between "legal" and "decriminalized") but I do know that heroin is decriminalized in the Netherlands- and saw an indication of less "harm" overall to society, Also
Marijuana use in the Netherlands DROPPED by 30%, and today, teenage use of marijuana is 1/5th what the use is in America- gee, seems to work there huh>

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/m.../harms_way.html

Is a pretty balanced article, states that some hard drug use went up (which I think is more to reporting than any actual increase- because there was no fear of getting caught now) and a massive decrease in MJ use.

BTW Ted- which do you think really costs more, a war or a treatment program? If you are answering "treatment program"- I would have to think that YOU are the one that is smokin' crack or something- because what we do today is NOT cost effective at all.


So, I wonder, you stll "cut and run" on your questions again- why not make tobbaco illegal-it costs YOU TED- more money than all the illegal drugs combined

Do you advocate making ciggerates illegal and why or why not? Please don't say "because it is too hard to enforce"- because that is the same at this time

BTW Ted- do you have any idea how much more money it takes to house an inmate vs provide him a treatment program via medicaid? I do know that prison costs are pretty darn high, and that medicaid treatment programs, well, shoot, they take less than a 10th of the personel alone, not to mention you can use any old building for a treatment program, but costs millions and billions to run a prison.

It costs over 100 million dollars for a new prison for Alaska, whereas it can cost less than 2k a month to rent a strip mall space for a treatment program.

If costs are your problem- the drug war costs billions of dollars more than a medicaid problem.

The single most expensive drug to medicaid, by far, is smoking related illnesses, even more than alcohol, becuase of the uber-expensive diseases that smoker's get- lung cancer- one operation costs taxpayers over 100 grand!

Oh, Italy and Spain HAVE decriminalized Coke and Heroin- and no effects have been able to measured at all!

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/0799testimony.html

Critics of current U.S. policies argue that many if not most of the harms associated with drugs are actually caused by our drug prohibition, or by the way it is enforced [12]. Defenders of prohibition counter that legalization would significantly increase drug use and drug addiction in American society. Both arguments are at least partially correct.

First, it is almost certainly true that many of the harms currently associated with heroin and cocaine are due to the fact that those drugs are illegal [13]. Prohibition deserves much of the blame for the crime and violence around illicit drug markets, for a large fraction of all drug overdoses and drug-related illnesses, and for corruption and violations of civil liberties.
Second, other harms are clearly due to the drugs themselves and the influence they have on the user's health and behavior. Legalization would eliminate the harms caused by prohibition, but it would not eliminate the harms caused by drug use.

And third, as we argued with respect to Dutch coffeeshops, we believe that legalization would significantly increase the number of drug users and the quantity of drugs consumed. We limit this conclusion to legalization in the form of commercial availability; the available evidence does not suggest that medical prescription, decriminalization, or harm reduction programs increase drug use to any appreciable degree.

So on the one hand, legalization would probably reduce the adverse consequences (to the user and to others) associated on average with each drug taking episode. And on the other hand, legalization would increase the number of incidents of drug use, by increasing the number of users and possibly by increasing the amounts they would use [14].

You see, as usual, Americans are really just too stupid and ignorant and ideology bound to really come up with a pragmatic solution, to well, about anything- the Dutch have started to do the opposite- have a rational debate on what works and what doesn't. Obviously- America's system doesn't work, same with our fascist style health care system we currently have (not to be mistaken as actual free market health care, which no one on earth currently has) =-so, instead of fixing it, we rely on the same stupid behaviors, despite an INCREASE in drug use in the USA


http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolic...p/thenetherlan/

During the 1970’s a violent heroin market led the Dutch government to establish a drug policy working group which came to be known as the Baan Commission. Its recommendations largely determined the course of the Netherlands’ drug policy. The core features of the Dutch system as established by the Baan Commission are rooted in the concept of harm reduction, i.e., the minimization of the risks and hazards of drug use rather than the suppression of all drugs. Dutch drug policy gives priority to health care and prevention while, simultaneously, directing aggressive enforcement measures against organized crime



Sounds pretty smart to me, why can't the USA figure this out too?

I believe this years budget is lik 12.7 billion dollars. Do you seriously think this is a savings over a treatment program? If so, you are either incredibly bad at math, or need to check into a clinic ASAP


And the final proof that de-criminalization is a much better alternattive- there is no debate against this- is the use of drugs in the Netherlands"

Illegal drug use in the U.S. and the Netherlands (1997)


http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm

AS you can see, the dutch use less drugs than the US counterparts in EVERY category.

CR
From your article:

"It is time to state the truth. ... The legalization movement is cruel because it would create more addicts, more abused children, more victims of muggings and robbery, millions every single year. It is selfish because it would move the burden of fighting drugs from the totality of society to neighborhoods that already suffer most. It is both cruel and selfish because it glides over the ruined lives of those who abuse drugs, legally or not," he state.

I tend to agree! And have no problem with the methods discussed.




Would love to and by the way I believe that if tobacco pays 10 billion – the booze industry should come up with 100 billion.


I am for treatment.



Ya sure – except you don’t know what the policy is do you?

The Dutch drug policy is based on the general principle of self-determination in matters of the body. Specifically, that it is not illegal to hurt yourself; however, you remain liable for the consequences of your actions. Because of this, users are not prosecuted for possession of small quantities of soft drugs ("for personal use"). Driving under the influence of drugs is nevertheless prohibited, as is being under the influence in public (of either alcohol or other drugs), mainly from a public nuisance perspective

And this is my point – liable for the consequences of actions.

A distinction is drawn between hard drugs (which bear "unacceptable" risks; e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc.) and soft drugs such as the psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms as well as cannabis products: hashish and marijuana (as defined in the Dutch Opium Act). The distinction is drawn on whether the substance is only psychologically addictive (i.e. producing no worse effect than moderate craving when withdrawn) or also physically addictive. One of the main aims of this policy is to separate the markets for soft and hard drugs so that soft drug users are less likely to come into contact with hard drugs. This policy also aims to take the soft drug market out of the hands of the criminals, thus reducing crimehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands


Notice this is a far cry from legalizing all drugs.

Ted- that is the position I have always had- addiction is legal, bad behavior is not- you rob someone to pay your addiction habit (let's say it is fabrege' eggs, a simpson reference ) okay, that in and of itself is not worth arresting someone over- however, if he goes jesse james and starts robbin' for thier watches and change- then we lock them up for a very, very long time.

I am even for the death penalty for crimes commited "under the influence" when they are violent or commit some kind of theft, even for non-violence- I stated that before- that is the Dutch way as well- you are still responsible for your actions.

I don't want the drug making the criminal, but rather, the criminals behavior towards others while on the drug.

Just like with prohibition, with no appreciable drop in drinking, but, a massive increase in organized crime- just like we have today- we switched from making booze the boogey-man to makin the behavior, when it is unacceptable (bad karoke is NOT a crime ) but drink and drive, go to jail, and, IMHO, drink and kill, you should get the death penalty if it is your fault.

That is the best way to deal with any addiction- you will note how much less the Dutch use drugs compared to the US, hard or otherwise- though smoking seems to be just as bad there- you deal with criminal behavior AND reponsible inebriation (is there such a thing ) as different animals.

Similar with guns

Are you against the ownership of guns Ted? After all, they cost you lots and lots of money because THEY TOO are used in crime- I am guessing no, you would prefer that we lock up the criminals that use them for bad purposes- it should be the same with drugs.

If you want to kill yourself from meth or whatever- fine, be my guest- and it should be a pretty cheap medicaid bill actually Ted- methheads don't live long and die quick deaths- unlike smoking, which can cost millions to fight a losing battle!

This issue is very complex, lacks empirical understanding for the most part, and is again for the most part ruled by subjective tones. We can see in places where drugs happen to be legal or not really punished for that it can lead to many different outcomes. Personally I think on average that America would suffer from drugs being legal largely in terms of social ills it would cause, the reason I say this is simply because America internally seems to have some deep seated issues that conflict with say items like drugs or guns you don’t find occurring likewise in many other nations. For instance pornography, and even rape simulated pornography is easily obtainable and in the open in Japan, but on the flipside there are not many cases reported of any negative sexual conduct of peoples liberty being denied or violated, or in short rapes. Japan also has a very low crime rate, and very low homeless rate, why this is, who knows overall at this point. I know from seeing it personally that meth for instance basically turns a human being into something other then that over time, and it highly addictive almost instantly, these harder drugs really should be destroyed, but on that note with alcohol it seems policing such is really a never ending war that does not solve the problem. With that being said the real repercussions of drugs being legal would be the magnitude increase of use by the general population at large of such substances.

Now if meth use went up by say 35%, the impacts this hold would be far and wide worse then it currently is. The war on drugs will never win, but to me it does seem to reduce possibly the amount of hard core addicts that may be on the streets. Some drugs like marijuana really have no purpose for being illegal, they are by large orders of magnitude no where as dangerous as say even tobacco, or alcohol. The government has spent billons of dollars attempting to support why marijuana should be illegal, to basically be only able to say it will make you lazy while on it and so on. This of course does not mean the substance is of no harm, I doubt humans evolved to routinely inhale marijuana smoke, or many other kinds of smokes like exhaust, but anything taking to an extreme can be devastation to a life, heck even the internet. Marijuana though is no where as potent as say drugs like heron or meth or crack cocaine in regards to addiction, or destroying health.

Bottom line to me is the war on drugs only reason for existence that I could muster for support is the reality that it might possibly cut down on the problems that drugs can or do lead to, such as robbery or assault, or rape. On that note though many of those cases and such can also be attributed to alcohol. In the end though the ban of such items never really ends the existence, and it packs our prisons and robs or wallets of money that is currently tied into an idea based on the common good. I can agree to a point, but its not ever going to change, and within population growth comes the need like anything else based from socialism is to take more and more from every individual that is able to give for the system that supports such.

So bonus points to me for it being legal, large amounts of revenue, serious damper on organized crime, but such people could obtain legal licenses and go into business really, could even be a co-op of sorts LoL. People that commit crimes on dope are going to commit the crime regardless save for the people staved away from drug use do to its illegal nature, so those people would still end up in jail, and legal drug sales could be what pays for the prisons, if not organized healthcare on a national level.

Negative points, hardcore drug use like meth skyrockets in the populous, leading to a large increase in various crimes, including violent crimes.

Overall I cant really say I would go either way, such is why I voted neutral. I do think that drug laws in general should be thought over, such as beer being legal, alcohol not, tobacco not, marijuana yes, and so on.

to say that illegality doesn't decrease drug use, or that legalization wouldn't lead to its increase, is as contrary to common sense as saying decreasing the speed limit by 10 mph wouldn't cause anyone to drive more slowly, or that increasing it 10 mph wouldn't lead to anyone driving faster.

it contradicts everything that is known about incentivizing human behavior vs disincentivizing it.

Common sense would lead me to believe that someone who wants to do crystal meth probably isn't doing a drug for the first time. It would also lead me to believe that there aren't many people in this country saying, "Well gee, I'd love to do some heroine, but it's illegal so I won't." So both of us have a perception of holding the common-sense POV. So, what can we do to end the stalemate? Well, it seems common sensical to me that if you're going to base your argument on the premise that a significant number of people who don't do coke now are abstaining from it because it's illegal, you should probably have some data to prove it. That's all I'm asking for, support your thesis with facts, not claims of common sense. If it's common sense then surely finding data to support it would not be difficult.

Also, and just for the sake of moving the debate further: let's say that hypothetically, more people use hard drugs after legalization...Can anyone prove that that will leave to any kind of substantial social decay? And can anyone explain to me why that kind of decay isn't occuring now given the fact that there are a substantial amount of drug users today?

CP

But there IS empirical data- the Dutch have a much lower drug use than we do- and there ya go.

The dutch have one of the most dense urban populations on the planet- 15 million poeple in a very marshy piece of land. Great diversity of ethnicity. However, nearly none of the problems, when compared with the US, as far as drug problems. They were able to shift thier resources to punishment of bad guys, not folks just wanting to have a good time.

Gordo- the issue is not so complex. It is NOT counter-intuitive that drug use increases with decriminalization- perhaps total legality- but not simple decriminalization.

After prohibition ended, drinking may have went up a bit in the short time, but it stabilized, as addictive behavior is pretty much hereditary- you have it or you don't. We will ALWAYS have a % of the population that are hard core users, a probably very large population of "expiramenters" that never have a long term "relationship" with addictive behavior etc.

Another great way to look at it is Gambling. Gambling has it's own addicts too ya know. When Gambling became the business de jour here a few years ago- folks were worried that we would have this massive problem with new gambling addicts yak yak yak- same as drug decriminalization.

Then, a couple casinoes went BANKRUPT from NOT having enough customers- at some point, the casinoes had saturated the market- and hard core gambling addicts turned out to be finite, much more finite than the investors in those casinoes had been led to believe!

Same with hard drugs- very few folks are going to run off and start doing meth because it suddenly won't get you arrested for mere possesion.

It is simply too extreme of a drug- most folks won't touch it, and those who would, already are.

Now, I am thinking marijuan would increase in adults, decrease in teenagers, but that is only an opinion, and my belief is that would be a short term "bump" for the adults, and, if we treat MJ as cigs on campus, we would eventually see a major decrease among the young.

But that is just an OPINION- just as Ted's and Quicks were

the only empirical evidence we have is from other countries- and Spain and Italy have legalized the hard drugs too soon to really have a long term study.

I am curious- has anyone else here done any drug/alcohol counselling?

I have yet to have ANYONE EVER suggest that drug use would go up from decriminalization (though, I have heard mixed debates when it comes to outright legalization) - though, I just turned and asked a 20 year "veteren" of d&a counselling say "if we went so far as to even distribute the drugs for free- you probably wouldn't see much of an increase in the use long term- those kinds of poeple are on the edge anyway, you just don't see well balanced individuals start doing hard drugs just because they are legal. maybe weed- but not the hard stuff- folks don't like that out of control feeling, and meth is very, very out of control for the hard user!

I have a poly-substance patient right now- we took away all her drugs- you know what she abuses now- WATER- no foolin'!! She drinks water until she washes her electrolytes out and becomes high.

It is called "h2o intoxication" (look it up if you don't believe me)

Those fringes will always exist, and casting a wide net for everyone, well, it is just stupid, and a collosal waste of resources.

I agree that its hard to pull any stats together to support the idea that drug use will increase with it being legal, but how would you really test that in the first place. As for what crusingram said to go along with the idea that most of this debate is subjective that legality of the issue has made such more common place. I don’t know if its because its come out of the shadows or not so you can see how much a typical item like gambling is truly used, but how again would you find such out. Again drugs in American culture behave differently then they do in other cultures, and no its not always people that are hardcore that go to the hardcore drugs right off the bat, that’s a myth of sorts sprouted by people that claim the idea of a gateway drug, enjoyment period is a gateway if you really want to look at it like such.

I think the best way to test it would be to make it legal in certain places at first, or just some drugs. I would say in a couple of different extremes culturally, such as a large populated city, a midsize city, a small town all in regards to population and a set that deals with issue such as diversity, and then of course in Vegas. I think such a "social experiment" would lead to a good general topology of such but that of course of an experiment would at least have to span a few generations of people. I think the results of such would be really neat but who is going to do it, what politician is going to say I will end the war with drugs being legal, everything bad that occurs now, such as drunk driving, I mean some methead robbing and beating a person would then automatically become the fault of that person, and then party or group.

You can look at other nations and see that drugs can be legal, but the reality is in many other nations the society is different to, crime is different, human interactions are different, so its really hard to say its just a human thing, you get into nature and nurture, and far be it for me to say that’s a debate far from reaching empirical grounds overall.

All I know is regardless of the war on drugs, its still rampant and all over the place, so what is it really doing? If you cant prove that its really doing any good, then why have it. the only reason I think it could be doing some good is simply ruling by fear, you use drugs, get busted and boom game over for the most part for a period of your life. Most people probably do not realized until its rehab that hard drugs really have an adequate name for such, or I have never met a person that can use such recreationally, though I am sure some exist. More often then not these people end up in the system, and not because they simply were caught using it, but simply because the become some zombie slave really of the addiction, and no longer could continue a life that’s adequate for our system.

It is a complex issue, I mean day to day life you have a billion people on a soapbox spreading there subjective truths, but what changes really? Is there some utopia existing I just am not aware of?

Who knows what legalizing drugs would lead to in America, to say you know simply is not true, and if you did know you really should be getting paid billions of dollars and hour for some reason.

If they were legal what would you do when the person started having issues with dope, and the family paid for it, bust them, put them in jail? Rehab them, what percent go through rehab and leave behind an addiction to a substance like meth?

I really don't know one way or the other.... imagine, if robbing banks was not illegal would it increase banks being robbed? I've thought about this often, honestly ask yourself if you would currently do anything that you, and I know a lot of people have thought about... if it wasn't illegal, would you do it?

I believe the answer is yes, otherwise we wouldn't need laws, because if people are going to do what they want anyways whats the point of laws?

The difference being, Vampiel, that robbing banks does not systematically destroy your body and ultimately lead to addiction and/or death. The analogy doesn't work.

CP

Ahh but drug addiction can lead to bank robbing, also the adrenaline rush is addictive. Just do a few searches "addicted to robbing" or "bank robbing addiction". Im really on the fence about this one. I believe some drugs should be legal but other's im not so certain. It's easy to say that someone should be able to make that choice for themselves, which I agree with. However I don't necessarily agree that if it's legal that it won't increase the use of drugs. So the question for me at least is, does the increase in drug use justify it being legalized?

My point is that bank robbing does not physically harm the person doing it, drug use does. More people may rob banks if it were legal because it would cause no damage to them; drugs would.
We still don't know for a fact that it would increase the use of drugs and we don't know for a fact that that increase would cause any major societal harm. As, CR said, the only case studies we have for this kind of policy are some European countries. Based on their example, drug legalization would not bring with it any of the social ills that are being brought up here.

CP

I know what you are saying CP. However I believe you are not thinking it through. Robbing a bank can certainly cause you bodily harm and lead to addiction, much like drugs can. Just like drugs, maybe the first time or tenth time you are not able to see bodily harm, eventually it could catch up to you... I don't believe that people using crack think the first time they use it that it will kill them or consume their lifestyle. Just as bank robbers may not think that but they can die their first time unlike crack which takes a bit longer.

I'm thinking it through, Vampiel. Explain to me how robbing banks weekly [given the fact that it would be legal] physically harm a person? But I digress...

There is no proof that drug use would increase in such a way that would significantly harm society, in fact the only evidence that we have [using some European countries as case studies] indicate just the opposite. In addition, if drug use increased we ALSO don't have proof that that increase in use would do significant harm to society.

CP

CR.

Different people but I would be willing to consider it – BUT look at the drugs they legalize- NOT crack, or cocaine, or meth or prescription meds – get it? Are you ok with their list????

Read again - A distinction is drawn between hard drugs (which bear "unacceptable" risks; e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc.) and soft drugs such as the psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms as well as cannabis products: hashish and marijuana (as defined in the Dutch Opium Act). The distinction is drawn on whether the substance is only psychologically addictive (i.e. producing no worse effect than moderate craving when withdrawn) or also physically addictive. One of the main aims of this policy is to separate the markets for soft and hard drugs so that soft drug users are less likely to come into contact with hard drugs. This policy also aims to take the soft drug market out of the hands of the criminals, thus reducing crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands



NO Hard Drugs are legal – because of “unacceptable risks” – and this is all I am saying. The risk of addiction, sickness, death or violence with crack or meth is too high for them – and me. But apparently not for you.

Okay- I suggest you watch penn and tellers- um B followed by an S on HBO- you can view it on youtube- it is a three part download- and you can find out EXACTLY what you get for your money in the "drug war"- that being, cocaine use is up 62% among youngsters- despite a spending of 20 billion a year- 20 billion dude- and you seriously think a drug war is cheaper than shifting it to a societal problem that we can control?

If you can handle the raw language- it is one of the best shows on cable- they lambaste all B and S on that show!

And the B and S that comes from the drug war is possibly one of the biggest boondoggles of all time.

and As Penn so eloquently said "In a free country, you have the right to put whatever you want into your body- otherwise, it is not a free country"

Do we live in a free country Ted? Do you want to live in a free country?



Hmm, there is some bad info I think in wiki there- because they DO NOT arrest heroin addicts, and in fact, GIVE them FREE heroin- and I just saw the documentary on the heroin addict that just earned his PHD- in engineering IIRC- no easy feat, considering thier schools are much harder and more competitive for entry than ours- but he had flunked out of like 7 treatment programs, and instead of jailing him, they simply supplied him the heroin. They said it kept hard core addicts from becoming desperate enough to commit crimes to feed the habit.

I do know that it isn't legal- any more than prosititution is legal in Holland either- but it is tolerated!

?




Well sure and these folks can kill themselves all day long as long as I don’t have to pay. And you do notice that not one country legalizes crack or meth. I agree heroin may be different because if you don’t have to kill to get it, it does less harm to you body then many other drugs. Problem is – even if cheap it will not be free and I will be dammed if I will support some fool stoned on heroin all day.

I believe you are mixing up decriminalization and legalization if I am not mistaken?

But look at the abuses that have happened in this country due to a "drug war"- confiscation laws, etc etc- pretty much every abuse of authority leading up to GW was for "the war on drugs"- now, GW just cooked up another one with the WOT- but the bottom line is, because of the war on drugs, we are less free, we spend more, and get less, for this war.

I might even be with you IF I thought it was saving money- but it is obviously not happening- BTW- I really, really encourage you to watch the Penn and Teller episode of um, "product from a bull"- I can't say the word they call thier show- but it basically exposes the fallacy of many arguments of a great many issues in our society- calling them, um, fecal matter from a bull- and the drug war is the biggest fecal mess we have in this country next to the recent GW quagmire he got us into-

but a great deal many of your arguments are dealt with- with annotated proof.

It is extremely interesting to see the outright lies Penn and Teller catch the "drug czar" saying- total crap, and they call it.

Penn says "Where did this goverment official get these numbers? Well we couldn't find them because he pulled them right out of his A__" LOL

Right now, we spend over 20 billion PER YEAR on this 'WAR"- do you really believe you are saving money by having this war?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qtIrfuDzM

Starts the series Ted- WARNING- offensive language!

Here is a interesting factoid that Penn and Teller pointed out

in 1970, 30 bucks bought you a bag of heroin that was 5% pure. This was prior to Richard Nixon's "war on drugs".

Now- you buy four dollars for the same size bag- that is 90% pure.

Right now, it is cheaper and easier for a kid to buy heroin than to buy alcohol- why? Because you see, drug dealers don't check IDs!

Penn and teller made this point with donuts- in 1970 you paid for a dozen donuts- you got half a donut- today- you pay for a dozen donuts, you get over 20 dozens of donuts- so, what the war on drugs has done

1) create a criminal underworld
2) throw addicts in jail- even though they have commited no other crime
3) make it easier for children to get these things.

So- what has your 20 billion in tax money bought you Ted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIkZUCwcFw

Hey Ted- you channeling that goverment dude in the third installment? LOL

Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.? Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime? Explain all answers.

A drug war overseas, no. A drug war in the U.S., not the one we're having, but not a free-for-all on everybody getting high and going on hallucination-fueled crime sprees, either. The answer to the question cannot be fully explained without offering an alternative. What kind of drug policy should America have instead of the drug war? Crack houses in every neighborhood and lunatics running amock shooting randomly into crowds at the monsters that exist only in their heads? Nobody wants that.

If we were to allow completely unrestricted access to hallucinogenic drugs without restrictions on public intoxication, then opiate dens would spring up in every neighborhood as during the late Victorian era. So, I'm guessing the alternative most imagine is that some drugs would be regulated the same way as alcohol, and others would be regulated the same way as prescription medicine. Crimes committed under the influence of drugs might carry a tougher sentence, but consuming drugs legally in the absense of otherwise criminal behavior would not be illegal. Trafficking in alcohol-class drugs would only be illegal if serving minors or without a license, while trafficking in prescription drugs without a valid prescription would probably remain criminal, too.

There would be few federal laws regulating peaceful recreational drug abuse, but you'd have to go through proper channels to get it. Some localities would be "dry" (no recreational drug sales or consumption allowed), while others would be "wet" ("run to the local pharmacy to pick up a gallon of milk, a stick of butter, and a six-pack of LSD, dear"-- drug stores would be drug stores again). State and local governments would have a much larger role in setting drug policies than the national government. Some cities would be full of coked-out junkies growing pot in every window planter, while others would be clean and sober. You're free to choose which kind of community you'd rather live in.

In such a climate, illegal drug smuggling would be investigated no differently than the smuggling of fake Gucci handbags, Rolex watches, Cabbage Patch dolls, or pirated music-- something to investigate and discourage, but not worth invading another country and killing people. If a foreign country asked us to help them locate and dismantle unruly drug producers with guns, we might consider helping out an ally; but otherwise, we'd probably move our efforts back inside our own borders and reassign DEA agents to work Customs duty or border patrol, inpecting imports for all kinds of smuggling, not just drugs. Confiscated drugs would be diverted to pharmaceutical companies who would remove impurities and guarantee quality. Such free sources of drugs might drive the price down and eliminate the market influences motivating the smuggling, similar to the post-prohibition era.

I'm not saying what I just described is what I think the best policy would be, but what I imagine the policies might be (whether I liked them or not) if we were to "dismantle the drug war" tomorrow. I'm not entirely averse to the environment I described. However, I also doubt it qualifies under the "free drugs for all-- everybody get high together for America and rock-n-roll" hippie-era mentality. Drugs that impair judgement endanger not only the individual, but also the public, so some regulation would be necessary to avoid an epidemic of drug-induced sociopathic mobs running amock. (cue cheesy horror music)

In the environment I described, I would personally choose to live in a "dry" county. I lived for several years in an apartment overlooking the main drag in a college town that served more liquor per square foot or per capita than anywhere else in the country. It was a loud, violent madhouse every night-- dozens of nightly brawls, and a few weekly shootings and stabbings over idiotic things like parking places, spilt beer, or looking at somebody the wrong way. Later, I moved to a dry county, which was far more peaceful, civilized, and safe. Whatever we replace the drug war with, if I am deprived the freedom to choose to live in a quiet town free from the imminent danger of drunken or otherwise high mobs, then liberty is dead.

Well Seamus- you are kinda going down the road of ol' Ted here- it appears the drug war IS creating that "drug den culture" you describe- crack houses on every corner? Well, that already exists -despite billions to eradicate it- instead of making it smaller- it has made it WORSE.

Like I said- in 1970, pre-drug war- you could buy heroin for 30 dollars for 5% pure heroin- the ol' "French connection" - not to mention, it was darned hard to get- pretty much, big city only.

Now? We have heroin that is 90% pure, for 4 dollars, of the same amount.

How has the drug war helped drug use in America exactly?

It has been a 110% pure failure- and why is this?

Because when you pass insane laws that make no sense- it weakens ALL law.

Drug laws are simply unenforcable- it can't be stopped, it can't be eradicated, and it can't be reduced, in the manner we are going about it now.

The only way we could do it, is to go totally to a totalitarian state and police and thought police.

Even then, it is highly unlikely it would have that big of an impact.

Right now, with the Netherlands permissive drug laws, and it's reluctance to prosecute the hardest of drug USERS, while quite pro-active in arresting gangsters- the Netherlands has a far, far lower drug use than the US-

Bottom line is- the war is useless, unless you are a politician looking for some easy pork- 20 billion a year.

It costs 20k a year to house a non-violent marijuan- 20 thousand, and some folks can't seem to do the math here- you think that a marijuana treatment center is going to run 20k per year, per patient?

Wars are expensive- treatment, cheap. You take away the incentive to steal to provide thier habit- and you have less crime.



It is a silly and stupid war- and I call it just like Penn and Teller- fecal matter from a bull.

Hmm... perhaps, but your response seems to assume I support this WoD, which I don't, so it would be helpful if you could itemize how my post supports the WoD, so I can defend myself. From your generalized opposition, I am left to assume you are opposing even the most lenient regulation of controlled substances, including how the U.S. currently regulates alcohol and antibiotics (and apparently, if Ted is right, how the Netherlands currently regulates dr