I'm feeling like stirring up trouble tonight, so I'm asking you all to put on your thinking caps (does anyone actually own a thinking cap, if so send me a picture).

It's been 20 years since Reagan declared the "war on drugs." Seems to me that we've been fighting ever since with little positive result. So, I ask, do we keep fighting? Change our course of action? Or say forget it altogether?

I'll chime in with my libertarian opinion after I hear from you folks.

I own a thinking cap. It is camouflage. I never take it off.

But seriously.

This is one of those issues on which I disagree with the Republicans.

I think the Conservative Republicans have it all wrong when it comes to the war on drugs.

A true conservative stands for smaller government, and less government interference in the lives of citizens.

How can conservatives believe that they know what is best for every American, and what clause of the constitution gave them the right to ban intoxicating substances?

I have a lot more to say, but it's getting late.

Mike

i can see banning drugs that are potentially damaging to society like crack/cociane because that would make it so there were a bunch more crackheads walking around, have you ever met a crackhead? freaks. crime would go way up, all gas stations would have bullet proof glass where you pay on the inside((they have a KFC like that in ybor, a city right by me)). but harmless drugs, or drugs that are harmful just as long as its not damaging society would be ok.

i became a 'contributer' in less then 24 hours, w00t.

It's not hard to become a contributor in 24 hours when you don't puctutate or capitalize.

Really, though. Why would the crime rate go up? The cost of crack would bottom out very fast, and most crackheads steal or kill for crack.

The crackheads wouldn't need to be out "walking around", because they usually only do that when they can't find crack. If it were available to them, we would mostly see them walking to the store and back to wherever they call home.

It could actually help society. More crackheads get more crack, and overdose quicker. That equals less crackheads on the street, less crackheads in society. And certainly less crackheads on welfare or in jail.

Mike

The war on drugs, as it stands, is ineffective, but I don't know if legalizing them would be any better. I'm stuck in the middle on this one, because while I think that drugs are extremely harmful, I also think that people should be able to make choices about what they do to their own bodies. The unfortunate thing is that people who are addicted to hard drugs are going to commit crimes in order to obtain money for drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not. It is also a possiblity that making drugs more accessible would increase the number of drug users. There are advantages to legalizing drugs, though. There are a lot of drugs that are more dangerous than they need to be because of the chemicals that they are cut with. Legal drugs still wouldn't be safe, but they would be more safe than they are now because they would be regulated. It would also remove the smuggler / dealer aspect at least to a degree.

The war on drugs may be ineffective as it is presently organized but trust me legalizing drugs will be the last blow to a number of American communities. If you've seen people who have being doing drugs for a while you'll know what I'm talking about. These substances are too mind-altering to be legal.

My personal opinion on all of this, is that we are bass-ackwards when we have something as (reletively) harmless as pot made illegal, whereas, liquor, which is way more dangerous on many, many fronts is legal.

The question is...what do you legalize, and what don't you? Can you legalize one, without the other, or is it all in the same bag? (ie, heroin, crack, etc)

I am all for the legalization of pot, but other drugs are just more dangerous. I don't know how I feel about the others.

With that said, take into account the vast resource this is.

[scenario]
Pot get's legalized (or 'de-criminalized). Marlboro sells the 'Green Box' of joints (20 total, cleaned and rolled. about a 1/2 oz, maybe more?) for 10$/pack. The govt tacks on a tax (not that I am for taxes, but hear me out) of 5$. now, you have about 1/2 oz of probably good, and well processed MJ, for 15$. Well, this is a great deal for a user. The dealers are undersold, and put out of business. The deficit in the country would be illiminated, almost immediately from the 5$/pack tax...some benifits...amongst others.
[/scenario]

Dont have much time, but I just wanted to interject that point and get thoughts on it.

First post, btw!

The only problem whith that is a slippery slope issue. The real problem is that drug laws aren't enforced in the communities which drugs are a real problem. I war isn't being lost, it's not being fought.

Great points, Mike.

I'm all for ending the war on drugs. Telling someone they can't do drugs is a violation of their personal property rights.

The problem is that this "right" causes pain to other people. Telling someone not to keep an illegal gun is a violation of their rights, but the danger outweighs freedom in that case. Drugs are extremely dangerous to the general public, they should be controlled.

It seems to me the biggest problem in our drug war is where it's being targeted. The feds have an obligation to go after smuggulers and larger targets, but like politics, all crime is local. The local authorities should be much more aggressive in seeking out illegal drugs. We all know they are not hard to find in some areas...

It is all well and good to say that drugs should be legalized because it infringes on peoples rights to do to their bodies what they want. But, what I haven't seen mentioned is the affect the crack/meth head has on their children. . .ya got to think that if these people care nothing for what they do to their bodies, they surely don't care about their kids' well being. Their children are innocents, their was no decision on their part to be born addicted to drugs, or to have mommy setting up a meth lab in their bedroom (true story of a woman I booked). Maybe if they legalize drugs they can have a mandate that says that if you buy meth or crack cocaine or heroin or PCP you have to be sterilized first. . .but, then again, that would again be infringing on the rights of the poor poor drug addict. . .and we wouldn't want to do that would we.

-Kisov

Exactly, these substances are a major cause of harmful action. They aren't like guns, which depend on the choices of the user. Rather, once they are used your ability to make choices is greatly compromised. Anyone who has seen a person "burnt out" on drugs, knows there is more at stake then just the user. These users are mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. They come into contact with other citizens and are a danger to everone around them.

My 2 cents...

Drugs is not the problem, it's the symptom of deeper problems. Without addressing the underlying reasons for drugs, the war on drugs is futile.

There are many fundamental reasons: poverty, hopelessness, lack of moral values, lack of discipline, etc.

Just saying no to drugs is a naive approach to drugs. Arresting pushers, smugglers, dealers, producers, abusers, etc does nothing to address the fundamental issues. I'm not saying to discontinue arresting people, but more emphasis should be placed on looking deeper into the root issues.

I am heartened to see so many rational approaches to the so-called "War on Drugs" here.

Frankly, I've seen no good argument for the illegality of any drugs. Then again, I'm of the opinion that no government has any business legislating the human body at all - on any issue. How much more intrusive can a government get than that? Therefore, I'm also opposed to legislating reproductive rights, consensual sexual practices, prostitution, and suicide - assisted or otherwise - as well as drug use. (And Jaime thought she was going to stir things up!) All of that is the stuff of different threads, though.

Regarding drug use, I should perhaps mention that one of my foster sons is a heroin addict in recovery - and that I did a reasonable amount of experimentation with euphorics, hallucinogens, and the like during my well-spent youth in the early seventies (and still occasionally smoke a bit more than tobacco). I also do volunteer work with a rehab center here in central Florida - and have done counselling work with a number of addicts in Ireland when I lived there. So, I'm not speaking entirely from ignorance...

As stated above, I would obviously agree with Cyan that "people should be able to make choices about what they do to their own bodies" - but disagree that addicts "are going to commit crimes in order to obtain money for drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not". Nicotine, for example, is far more addictive than, say, heroin. How many cigarette-related crimes are suffered in this country annually? The difference between opiates and more addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco is simply a matter of legality.

Were substances like cocaine and heroin legal, there would be a number of ramifications all of which would impact on drug-related crime. Foremost, the price of such substances would drop drastically. Second, sales would be government-regulated and subject to the same sort of restrictions as alcohol or tobacco sales. Third, users would not automatically be criminals - or among a criminal milieu - simply by virtue of using. Fourth, there would be less allure for those who are attracted by the transgressive, renegade aura of drug use. Fifth, there would be less social stigma attached to addiction - rehab would be more readily available when necessary (especially if the money going into the "Drug War" were going into education and treatment where it might actually do some good). And, finally, such drugs would no longer be cut with other substances which can lead to the sort of psychotic behavior which can exacerbate crime.

The problems of addiction aside, though, the "War on Drugs" was a pointless exercise from the outset. As Osteng mentions, we must first address "the underlying reasons for drugs" - in which most administrations have little interest. But more than that, the illegal drug trade is very big business - and far too many politicians are on the payroll.

In short, drug addiction is a medical problem, not a legal one - and should be approached as a health issue, not a "military" one. Further, drug laws are red herrings primarily used to persecute "undesirables", be they racial minorities or political dissidents. When senators, members of Congress, judges, and presidents can snort cocaine with impunity, there is no "equal justice" here. The "War on Drugs" is a vast, hypocritical PR exercise which none of our leadership is genuinely interested in "winning".

The first statement is true most of the time, though not all drug use is caused by despair. However, this does not mean we should stop fighting the war on drugs. Realistically there are some problems which cannot be solved at the root. Drug is one of these problems, unless you feel you can end all poverty some time soon....

Put it this way, murder is not the problem, it's a symptom of deeper problems. So let's stop prosecuting murders. Sound ridiculous? That's because it is.

This does not mean we end trying to teach kids values in order to prevent murder. But the problem must be fought from both ends.


Perhaps you should consider the thousands of American communites suffering because they are burdened with mentally incapacited, dangerous people roaming the streets. I am is no way exaggerating this description, I've seen it far too often. Violence because of the high price of drugs is one problem. However, homes with parents whose minds are, frankly, gone is a MUCH larger problem.


As one of those racial minorities perhaps I can offer a bit of perspective. The black community has been under siege by the drug epidemic for decades because the government is either unwillling or unable to address our concerns. Our problem with drugs is underpolicing . If the police would kindly fight the drug war were it is doing the most damage (the black community) we'd be happy. However some of our misguided "leaders" stir up hatred for the police officers when they could be building real relationships with those in the best position to help us. The drugs war is not persecution for blacks, if it were fought more effectively it would be salvation.

I would love to hear the opinion of more law inforcement officers concerning the war on drugs. Since it is these people, those in the medical profession, and social workers who I would suppose would have the most expirience with the drug issue.

I think a critical issue in this debate is that the drug problem is self-perpetuating. Parents get burnt out on drugs, kids are poorly raised, exsposed to drugs, get burnt out at an even earlier age and on and on...

I know you were looking to hear from someone in law enforcement. the medical profession, or social work, but I could offer an opinion as someone who worked for a criminal defense law firm.

One thing I noticed about our drug cases were the enablers (how's that for pop-psych?). Every drug dealer or user who was put in jail had someone there within hours to post bail. Usually that same person put up thousands to secure a lawyer to get that dealer/user off or off lightly.

(Aside note: Don't kid yourself thinking we send these people to jail right away. We don't. Most states already offer rehab and counseling MANY times before prison is the answer.)

There were countless times where the same offender would hire us for the same crime and the same person would be there bailing them out. This cycle would repeat until the record got large enough and finally some prison time was required. There are always people to help the people who screw up.

This drug war just seems like we have been beating our heads on the same wall for twenty years and then we wonder why we don't get any different results than a large headache. Why shouldn't we try legalizing some or all drugs for awhile? It couldn't hurt anymore that our efforts now. If it doesn't work, we make them illegal again.

Often this is the case but even some well raised children who have enjoyed every advantage end up abusing durgs. One such person was in the news recently.

You can't always blame the parents. I think peer pressure is an important factor.

There are problems with our current war on drugs. However they are problems which can be addressed without ending efforts to bring some relief. I can't see how legalization will go any distance towards solving the "spaced-out" parenting problem which is very common these days.

Again, what I said was, "I'm not saying to discontinue arresting people, but more emphasis should be placed on looking deeper into the root issues. "

We can put band-aids all we want on the "war against drugs", but deeper issues needs to be looked at.

I think we both agree on this.

So, what I'm saying is that without addressing the root issues, the "war against drugs" cannot be won.

By won I asume you mean the end to all drug use. In that case what you say is true. However, just because the war of drugs or any war on crime, injustice, etc. cannot be totally won does not mean the effort to control drug use in completly futile. I think we agree the war on drugs should not be stopped. Our efforts can minimize suffering, which is the best anyone can hope for in law enforcment.

Dunno what I can add to this one...

The war on drugs has been lost and will continue to be lost unless we can change our mechanism from "crisis oriented" to one of proactivity. Meaning, that once we validate the reasons and mechanisms wherein which people acquire and use them, we may effect progress similar to when you choose to swim WITH the current vs against it. Keep your friends close... your enemies closer. Divisiveness and punishment have NEVER been effective tools "against" the human spirit.

By the way... whatever happened to pursuit of happiness? Some people should never be "allowed within 10ft of a cup of coffee", as well, some people should not be "allowed" to drink any alcohol. Perhaps I'm a personn who should not be "allowed" within a forward-slash of a discussion forum URL?

drugs will not be legal as long as the American gestapo, the CIA, is supplying dealers with mass amounts of drugs. they have been running drugs for at least 50 years, the most famous operation was depicted in "air America" in which the CIA was running heroin out of Cambodia, Laos and 'Nam. they still run drugs. they make huge profits off of them. this is why drugs will remain illegal. if a kilo of cocaine goes for $1000 when it is illegal, and a $100 legal, which would you choose if you were the main supplier? this is the sad truth. check out http://www.ciadrugs.com/ for more info.

onto addiction: some people are saying that legalization would create more addicts, I disagree. those people that use drugs and are addicted will use them wether they are illegal or not. legalization would likely create fewer addicts because many that are now addicted started because it was rebellious to use drugs, because it was illegal and no other reason. thus if drugs were legal, the who "they are illegal, and I'm going to use them cause it is rebellious" motive would be gone. this brings up another point, why people use in the first place. some use drugs for the fun they provide, some to deal with problems (much like alcoholics do) some for medication (pot for example has endless medicinal uses) and so on.

another reason drugs should be legal is personal liberties. it is my body, if I wish to dump mass amounts of harmful substances into my body, I should be allowed to. the solution is not legislation, but education. they should stop lying about things like weed, because that leads people to think "they said pot would do all this crap, and it is obvious it doesn't, so therefore they lied about it, if they lied about weed, maybe they are lying about coke" which leads people to trying harder drugs. tell the truth about ALL drugs, and teach people about the dangers of them. this has kept me from ever trying harder drugs, because I am aware of the dangers of coke use, or heroin use. (I will usually only use something if it grew from the ground, such as peyote, pot, coca beans[in the way the Columbian natives use them, eating them] with LSD-25 being one of the only exceptions)

the drug war is lost. (lost meaning it hasn't stopped drugs from getting here or stemmed drug use) also, to put into perspective just how insane the whole thing is, think about this: there are a couple of substances on the scheduled substance list know as 5-meo-DMT and DMT, they are schedule 1, the highest. your brain, through the pineal gland, secretes seratonin and melatonin among other things. it also secretes a hormone called pinoline. melatonin when combined with pinoline is then metabolized into 5-meo-DMT, and through further metabolization, DMT. this can be achieved through light deprivation, (among other methods) or can occur if you are blinded. you get that: a naturally occurring chemical in your brain is illegal, thus we are all criminals!(BTW, 5-meo-DMT and DMT are hallucinogens) anyway I'm done with my rant.

Welcome to the board, unabomber.

A suggestion if I may: break your posts into paragraphs; more people will be likely to read it all the way through.

The CIAs past drug fiascos are well known, however I question whether they are currently involved in this at the level you speak of. The web site you referenced does not, in my opinion, offer much in the way of evidence. I haven't read through the whole site yet, so I'll let you know if I find something to change my mind.

You don't really get your facts from movies do you?

--cheers

no, I am sure many things in that movie were not exactly as it happened, but is based upon a true story. like "blow" was. the CIA has been involved in the drug trade in the past. they are probably still heavilly involved. wouldn't surprise me at all. we do/have support/supported dictators in south america (through the CIA) which protected the druglords of those countries. so directly or indirectly the cia is involved in the drug trade. also did you knowthe largest supplier of Ecstasy to americ is the jewish mafia? no kidding! my brother used to get the drugs he dealt from them. (he is currently in prison for parole violation and was on parole from charges of conspiracy to distribute shrooms and other dealing charges)

I'm for legalizing them all. I don't use any drugs and I don't approve of drugs, but OTOH I know of no convincing evidence that making them illegal reduces their use, and there are reasons to think it may even increase drug use.

Addicts are going to use regardless, and with them illegal you have pushers with an interest in creating more addicts, and they'll use every dirty trick they can think of to do it. Those addicts have to feed an expensive habit and few of them make enough money to do so, so you have more and more street crime.

We also have jails filled up with nonviolent drug users who are taking up space that could be better used for real criminals. That way the hardcases could serve out their full sentences instead of having to be released for overcrowding. And we could free up an enormous police and court load that isn't doing much good, and then I think we'd really make an impact on street crime.

The WoD also funds terrorism and organized crime, because the only reason they're involved in the drug trade is because of the enormous profits from selling at black market prices. Make it legal and there'd be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Columbia and the poppy fields of Afghanistan, and perhaps at the CIA as well. So? Fully fund the CIA on budget so they don't have to resort to such methods of funding themselves. I think they'd accept that deal, and if they don't, the heck with 'em. They don't have much domestic political power.

And then there's the civil liberties side. I don't know anybody who'd argue that the DEA has been good for civil liberties. More and more intrusions into personal privacy and violations of rights are justified in the name of the WoD, as with the War on Terrorism, but that at least is IMHO a good cause.

I won't go into everybody having to right to do whatever they want with their own bodies because I don't think it'll convince anybody that doesn't believe it already, but where exactly in the Constitution is authority given to make drugs illegal? It isn't there, is it? If you think it is, then explain why the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments were necessary.

I'm hoping to see more penalties for drug use under the Bush administration. Taking away all personal property would be a good start.

Folks will be a lot more careful about drug use if it comes with real consequences instead of a slap on the wrist. Those habitual cocaine users will get a real wakeup call if their house and car gets impounded. We ought to take a page from the israeli playbook and break out the bulldozers

Asset forfeiture with the burden of proof being on you to prove your innocence, in an apparent shift from English Common Law to the Napoleonic Code, is exactly the kind of loss of civil liberties I was talking about in my post above.

Yes, if we're going to "win" the War on Drugs, it would have to be by using really draconian means, and even then I'm not sure it would work. But even if it did, I wouldn't want to live in the kind of police state success at the WoD would entail. Would you? Would you really?

You make the assumption that these habitual users have property to impound. If someone is using drugs, and they are functioning responsibly and effectively enough to own property, what's the problem? It seems that the problematic drug users are those who are so addicted that they will stop at nothing to acquire the drugs, including violence and theft, and you can prosecute those people for those particular crimes.

Edited to fix my quotes.

You can apply the same logic to someone trading in child porn from their home. They aren't participating in creating the child pornography. They are functioning responsibly and effectively enough to own property, whats the problem? No need to answer the question, everybody knows what is wrong with it, just like most people in America know what is wrong with drug use.

The truth is that both drug use and child pornography are against the laws in this country, the second is enforced effectively, the first is not. If the anti-drug laws were backed up with a real penalty, we would not have a drug problem anymore, we would have a "too many homeless loser potheads" problem.

Sure, with sufficiently draconian enforcement we might eliminate the drug problem. We'd have replaced it with a police state problem instead. I'd rather keep the drug problem if that's the alternative. Luckily it isn't. By legalizing it all you cut the legs out from under all the organized crime and terror types who profit from the drug trade, and you eliminate the need for addicts to commit street crimes to pay for their habits. That's how you win the drug war without creating a police state.

The War On Drugs has been a war on poor black and brown people and a windfall for rich white people who have profited from it.

The War On Drugs is being waged against people of color and lower economic status. When I see a SWAT team breaking down the door of a suburban home where Mom and Dad are having a coke party with the neighbors then I'll believe that it's serious. Until then, I say "Legalize It."

People have always wanted drugs and they always will. America loves drugs and there are no shortage of countries willing to provide our next fix.
Trying to fight a health problem with para-military tactics is doomed to failure.

Stop the hypocriscy and end the war (and the madness).

As someone who lives in a suburban home, that is exactly what I want. I don't think I should have to share a neighborhood with a pothead. Keep that garbage off of my block.

Izdaari,

We don't have to do draconian enforcement. Your posts seem to imply some kind of gestapo tactics. We have plenty of cases where we catch people redhanded. They should be tried, and if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, take all their assets and convert them into a ghetto rehab fund or something. I'm talking about white uptight America that are throwing those aforementioned coke parties. The ghetto is a different problem altogether obviously, in general your average ghetto denizen doesn't have anything to take away, someone else can come up with a solution to that problem, I just want those people out of my neighborhood.

Wouldn't that still be a drug problem and a worse one, at that. Now, you have people who would have normally been doing drugs in the privacy of their own home out on the streets doing drugs. Additionally, this statement still assumes that these people own property.



If they aren't disturbing you, why should you care? Do you even have a concept of what pot does to you? I would be more worried about the alcoholic than the pothead. Admittedly, other drugs can be more serious, but again, if someone is using responsibly, it shouldn't be a problem. Legalize them, and a large portion of the crime connected to them will disappear. Drug use, in and of itself, is a victimless crime. If someone does commit a crime that has a victim attached to it, punish them for that crime.

gandalph,

Even if you don't personally advocate gestapo tactics, the logic of the drug war demands them and every Drug Czar implements them. The longer it goes on, the more and more power drug enforcement agencies accumulate at the direct expense of our civil liberties, and the more powerful the drug lords become. Worse, the further the drug lords are able to corrupt the police and courts themselves, since there are cops and judges who can be bought if the price is high enough.

What makes it completely unwinnable is the economics of it. The demand for the product is almost completely inelastic in that no real addict will choose not to buy no matter what the price. If the price doubles they just commit more or more serious crimes to pay for it. And the pushers are totally dedicated to creating new addicts since they make thousands from each one, and their lives may even depend on it. If law enforcement is successful in restricting the supply (that is one of the key measures they use for success), that just means the prices and profits go even higher. The more the drug agents succeed, short of shutting it down completely, the more money they make for the drug lords, which in turn means the more money they can spend on corrupting the system!

And for what? People who are doing coke parties poolside in the suburbs don't bother me at all, though they would if I lived next door to them and they were loud. Presumably they don't need to commit crimes to pay for it, unlike the poor addicts, so what harm are they doing to anyone other than themselves except being a neighborhood nuisance? For that you want to take somebody's home? Sounds pretty draconian to me. Wouldn't a night in jail for disturbing the peace be enough? Or a civil suit from the local homeowner's association? And if they're involving minors call Child Protective Services or whatever they call it in your state.

I'm not saying drugs are ok. What I'm saying is the cure is worse than the disease, the same way Prohibition was worse than the alcohol problem our nation has today.

Facts - You can't argue against true, solid facts. I would encourage anyone who is serious about considering drug legalization to do their homework before taking a side. Here are some results of the modern drug legalization programs. You only have to research back to 1900 to see America's legalized drug results.

A. Great Britain

With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.

As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53

A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56

To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length:

While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted:

1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts;

2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of

drugs;

3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time;

4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity;

5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves;

6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts;

7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population;

8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive;

9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure.

In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57

B. The Netherlands

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65

C. Switzerland

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70

D. Spain

Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin. Recently, however,

Spanish officials have begun a crack-down on drug pushers due to a dramatic increase in the addiction rate.71 Unsurprisingly, Spain and Italy, which also legalized use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdose of all European countries.72

E. China

Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem.73 Today, opium and other addictive drugs are illegal.74

F. Japan

In the 1950's, Japan was faced with an epidemic of amphetamine use that created half a million addicts. Through socialization and policies aimed at both reducing supply and demand, the number of addicts was decreased to a few thousand within four years.75 A heroin epidemic involving thousands of addicts was dealt with successfully in the 1960's using the same measures. 76

G. Other countries

Throughout recent history, numerous other countries have attempted legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, all meeting with the same harmful results. In Egypt in the 1920's, an unrestricted supply of cocaine and heroin created an epidemic that eventually resulted in the strict prosecution of all addicts.77 In Thailand and Iran, countries that traditionally have had cheap and unrestricted sources of narcotics, the addiction rates have been and continue to be high.78 Finally, the Republic of Singapore had to resort to strict law enforcement and mandatory rehabilitation in order to overcome a heroin epidemic.

Ah yes, facts...it would be so nice if we could actually identify anything you have posted AS a fact. You cite NO sources whatsoever...ok, I'll concede your brief mention of the "Brain Committee of 1964."

You just hand us a bunch of numbers and expect us to swallow. Where did you get all this information?

I'm not picking, but I know the members here, quite an incredulous bunch.

His post has footnotes, I assume he can provide a link or cite the source.

The footnotes only lead me to believe that he plagiarized the whole thing... which means there is a source out there somewhere.

Explain to me how Britain's experience (for example) of establishing heroin clinics (NOT DECRIMINALIZING IT) can be used as proof that decriminalizing drugs in general in America 20 years later will fail. Go ahead.

Geez, just got finished reading a long book,oops guess it wasnt a book but instead of a long winded opinion,. Have read through past debates on this subject here and can anyone out there honestly say that we are winning the war on drugs? We have spent billions of dollars on fighting drugs and drug usage, and it is as easy to get drugs now as it was 20 years ago.Dont get me wrong, I dont believe legalizing drugs is going to help our economy or improve our schools, But folks we are not winning the war on drugs. And in ten years from now when this subject is brought up for debate we will still not be winning the war on drugs.So why keep spending billions of dollars fighting something that we cannot win at?

you can't win the war on drugs as long as ppl are addicted, no one can make them stop, no matter how hard they try if they don't want to stop.

Is there something wrong with our spellchecker?

You can win the war on drugs by just confiscating illegal drugs. The less that gets on the streets, the better

Color me confused.

If tomarrow, every illicit drug has been legalized, and is for sale at the gas station for cost + 8% sales tax, you're going to start using all of them?!

"Ah, how are you this morning? Good? I haev $15 in gas, and I'll have a pack of Cammel lights, some papers with an oz. of Hindu Kush, two rocks of crack, 3 lines of coke, and, just for later, 2 syringes of H."

Nope. People who want to use drugs will. People who don't, won't.

No need in making criminals out of people who prefer a different intoxicant than you do. Alcohol has done more harm than any illicit drug has.

-Robert

That's been the strategy for the past 70+ years. It has yet to show the slightest possibilty of working.

I personally put Pot in the same catagory as alcohol. You should be atleast 21 to smoke it leagally. It'd be hard to tax, since it is a "weed", and can be grown virtually anywhere. Though, if it was taken away from shady drug dealers and marketed in a safe fashion and regulated, I see no problems with it. You never hear of a casual pot smoker, slapping his wife, being beligerant or overly obnoxious. Those characteristics are usually associated with alcoholism. The history of the illegalization of pot in the U.S. has nothing to do with it being a "gateway" drug, but rather a discriminatory tool at the turn of the century against minority workers in the west.

Here it is plain & simple:

If you can get kids to stop doing drugs & can arrest all the drug lords & confiscate their stash, you can win the war on drugs

goamerica, with all due respect, it's getting a little annoying hearing you say the same thing over & over again. Exactly how would you do anything different than what is already being done? The goal of the DEA is already more or less to "arrest all the drug lords and confiscate their stash."

They have been trying this for OVER TWENTY YEARS NOW and there has been NO IMPROVEMENT, absolutely none.

Do you have any new solutions?

Oh, btw, hi Billy Jean, welcome