It's Time to Legalize Drugs

[StevenOtero]

It's Time to Legalize Drugs

By Ethan Nadelmann, Foreign Policy
Posted on December 20, 2007, Printed on December 28, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/71033/

Prohibition has failed -- again. Instead of treating the demand for illegal drugs as a market, and addicts as patients, policymakers the world over have boosted the profits of drug lords and fostered narcostates that would frighten Al Capone. Finally, a smarter drug control regime that values reality over rhetoric is rising to replace the "war" on drugs.

"The Global War on Drugs can Be Won"

No, it can't. A "drug-free world," which the United Nations describes as a realistic goal, is no more attainable than an "alcohol-free world" -- and no one has talked about that with a straight face since the repeal of Prohibition in the United States in 1933. Yet futile rhetoric about winning a "war on drugs" persists, despite mountains of evidence documenting its moral and ideological bankruptcy. When the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on drugs convened in 1998, it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008" and to "achieving significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction." But today, global production and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same as they were a decade ago; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and cocaine and heroin have become purer and cheaper.

It's always dangerous when rhetoric drives policy -- and especially so when "war on drugs" rhetoric leads the public to accept collateral casualties that would never be permissible in civilian law enforcement, much less public health. Politicians still talk of eliminating drugs from the Earth as though their use is a plague on humanity. But drug control is not like disease control, for the simple reason that there's no popular demand for smallpox or polio. Cannabis and opium have been grown throughout much of the world for millennia. The same is true for coca in Latin America. Methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs can be produced anywhere. Demand for particular illicit drugs waxes and wanes, depending not just on availability but also fads, fashion, culture, and competition from alternative means of stimulation and distraction. The relative harshness of drug laws and the intensity of enforcement matter surprisingly little, except in totalitarian states. After all, rates of illegal drug use in the United States are the same as, or higher than, Europe, despite America's much more punitive policies.

"We Can Reduce the Demand for Drugs"

Good luck. Reducing the demand for illegal drugs seems to make sense. But the desire to alter one's state of consciousness, and to use psychoactive drugs to do so, is nearly universal -- and mostly not a problem. There's virtually never been a drug-free society, and more drugs are discovered and devised every year. Demand-reduction efforts that rely on honest education and positive alternatives to drug use are helpful, but not when they devolve into unrealistic, "zero tolerance" policies.

As with sex, abstinence from drugs is the best way to avoid trouble, but one always needs a fallback strategy for those who can't or won't refrain. "Zero tolerance" policies deter some people, but they also dramatically increase the harms and costs for those who don't resist. Drugs become more potent, drug use becomes more hazardous, and people who use drugs are marginalized in ways that serve no one.

The better approach is not demand reduction but "harm reduction." Reducing drug use is fine, but it's not nearly as important as reducing the death, disease, crime, and suffering associated with both drug misuse and failed prohibitionist policies. With respect to legal drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, harm reduction means promoting responsible drinking and designated drivers, or persuading people to switch to nicotine patches, chewing gums, and smokeless tobacco. With respect to illegal drugs, it means reducing the transmission of infectious disease through syringe-exchange programs, reducing overdose fatalities by making antidotes readily available, and allowing people addicted to heroin and other illegal opiates to obtain methadone from doctors and even pharmaceutical heroin from clinics.

Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have already embraced this last option. There's no longer any question that these strategies decrease drug-related harms without increasing drug use. What blocks expansion of such programs is not cost; they typically save taxpayers' money that would otherwise go to criminal justice and healthcare. No, the ro s are abstinence-only ideologues and a cruel indifference to the lives and well-being of people who use drugs.

"Reducing the Supply of Drugs Is the Answer"

Not if history is any guide. Reducing supply makes as much sense as reducing demand; after all, if no one were planting cannabis, coca, and opium, there wouldn't be any heroin, cocaine, or marijuana to sell or consume. But the carrot and stick of crop eradication and substitution have been tried and failed, with rare exceptions, for half a century. These methods may succeed in targeted locales, but they usually simply shift production from one region to another: Opium production moves from Pakistan to Afghanistan; coca from Peru to Colombia; and cannabis from Mexico to the United States, while overall global production remains relatively constant or even increases.

The carrot, in the form of economic development and assistance in switching to legal crops, is typically both late and inadequate. The stick, often in the form of forced eradication, including aerial spraying, wipes out illegal and legal crops alike and can be hazardous to both people and local environments. The best thing to be said for emphasizing supply reduction is that it provides a rationale for wealthier nations to spend a little money on economic development in poorer countries. But, for the most part, crop eradication and substitution wreak havoc among impoverished farmers without diminishing overall global supply.

The global markets in cannabis, coca, and opium products operate essentially the same way that other global commodity markets do: If one source is compromised due to bad weather, rising production costs, or political difficulties, another emerges. If international drug control circles wanted to think strategically, the key question would no longer be how to reduce global supply, but rather: Where does illicit production cause the fewest problems (and the greatest benefits)? Think of it as a global vice control challenge. No one expects to eradicate vice, but it must be effectively zoned and regulated -- even if it's illegal.

"U.S. Drug Policy Is the World's Drug Policy"

Sad, but true. Looking to the United States as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid-era South Africa for how to deal with race. The United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration -- with less than 5 percent of the world's population, but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners. The number of people locked up for U.S. drug-law violations has increased from roughly 50,000 in 1980 to almost 500,000 today; that's more than the number of people Western Europe locks up for everything. Even more deadly is U.S. resistance to syringe-exchange programs to reduce HIV/AIDS both at home and abroad. Who knows how many people might not have contracted HIV if the United States had implemented at home, and supported abroad, the sorts of syringe-exchange and other harm-reduction programs that have kept HIV/AIDS rates so low in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Perhaps millions.

And yet, despite this dismal record, the United States has succeeded in constructing an international drug prohibition regime modeled after its own highly punitive and moralistic approach. It has dominated the drug control agencies of the United Nations and other international organizations, and its federal drug enforcement agency was the first national police organization to go global. Rarely has one nation so successfully promoted its own failed policies to the rest of the world.

But now, for the first time, U.S. hegemony in drug control is being challenged. The European Union is demanding rigorous assessment of drug control strategies. Exhausted by decades of service to the U.S.-led war on drugs, Latin Americans are far less inclined to collaborate closely with U.S. drug enforcement efforts. Finally waking up to the deadly threat of hiv/aids, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and even Malaysia and Iran are increasingly accepting of syringe-exchange and other harm-reduction programs. In 2005, the ayatollah in charge of Iran's Ministry of Justice issued a fatwa declaring methadone maintenance and syringe-exchange programs compatible with sharia (Islamic) law. One only wishes his American counterpart were comparably enlightened.

"Afghan Opium Production Must Be Curbed"

Be careful what you wish for. It's easy to believe that eliminating record-high opium production in Afghanistan -- which today accounts for roughly 90 percent of global supply, up from 50 percent 10 years ago -- would solve everything from heroin abuse in Europe and Asia to the resurgence of the Taliban.

But assume for a moment that the United States, NATO, and Hamid Karzai's government were somehow able to cut opium production in Afghanistan. Who would benefit? Only the Taliban, warlords, and other black-market entrepreneurs whose stockpiles of opium would skyrocket in value. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan peasants would flock to cities, ill-prepared to find work. And many Afghans would return to their farms the following year to plant another illegal harvest, utilizing guerrilla farming methods to escape intensified eradication efforts. Except now, they'd soon be competing with poor farmers elsewhere in Central Asia, Latin America, or even Africa. This is, after all, a global commodities market. And outside Afghanistan? Higher heroin prices typically translate into higher crime rates by addicts. They also invite cheaper but more dangerous means of consumption, such as switching from smoking to injecting heroin, which results in higher HIV and hepatitis c rates. All things considered, wiping out opium in Afghanistan would yield far fewer benefits than is commonly assumed.

So what's the solution? Some recommend buying up all the opium in Afghanistan, which would cost a lot less than is now being spent trying to eradicate it. But, given that farmers somewhere will produce opium so long as the demand for heroin persists, maybe the world is better off, all things considered, with 90 percent of it coming from just one country. And if that heresy becomes the new gospel, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for pursuing a new policy in Afghanistan that reconciles the interests of the United States, NATO, and millions of Afghan citizens.

"Legalization Is the Best Approach"

It might be. Global drug prohibition is clearly a costly disaster. The United Nations has estimated the value of the global market in illicit drugs at $400 billion, or 6 percent of global trade. The extraordinary profits available to those willing to assume the risks enrich criminals, terrorists, violent political insurgents, and corrupt politicians and governments. Many cities, states, and even countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia are reminiscent of Chicago under Al Capone -- times 50. By bringing the market for drugs out into the open, legalization would radically change all that for the better.

More importantly, legalization would strip addiction down to what it really is: a health issue. Most people who use drugs are like the responsible alcohol consumer, causing no harm to themselves or anyone else. They would no longer be the state's business. But legalization would also benefit those who struggle with drugs by reducing the risks of overdose and disease associated with unregulated products, eliminating the need to obtain drugs from dangerous criminal markets, and allowing addiction problems to be treated as medical rather than criminal problems.

No one knows how much governments spend collectively on failing drug war policies, but it's probably at least $100 billion a year, with federal, state, and local governments in the United States accounting for almost half the total. Add to that the tens of billions of dollars to be gained annually in tax revenues from the sale of legalized drugs. Now imagine if just a third of that total were committed to reducing drug-related disease and addiction. Virtually everyone, except those who profit or gain politically from the current system, would benefit.

Some say legalization is immoral. That's nonsense, unless one believes there is some principled basis for discriminating against people based solely on what they put into their bodies, absent harm to others. Others say legalization would open the floodgates to huge increases in drug abuse. They forget that we already live in a world in which psychoactive drugs of all sorts are readily available -- and in which people too poor to buy drugs resort to sniffing gasoline, glue, and other industrial products, which can be more harmful than any drug. No, the greatest downside to legalization may well be the fact that the legal markets would fall into the hands of the powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies. Still, legalization is a far more pragmatic option than living with the corruption, violence, and organized crime of the current system.

"Legalization Will Never Happen"

Never say never. Wholesale legalization may be a long way off -- but partial legalization is not. If any drug stands a chance of being legalized, it's cannabis. Hundreds of millions of people have used it, the vast majority without suffering any harm or going on to use "harder" drugs. In Switzerland, for example, cannabis legalization was twice approved by one chamber of its parliament, but narrowly rejected by the other.

Elsewhere in Europe, support for the criminalization of cannabis is waning. In the United States, where roughly 40 percent of the country's 1.8 million annual drug arrests are for cannabis possession, typically of tiny amounts, 40 percent of Americans say that the drug should be taxed, controlled, and regulated like alcohol. Encouraged by Bolivian President Evo Morales, support is also growing in Latin America and Europe for removing coca from international antidrug conventions, given the absence of any credible health reason for keeping it there. Traditional growers would benefit economically, and there's some possibility that such products might compete favorably with more problematic substances, including alcohol.

The global war on drugs persists in part because so many people fail to distinguish between the harms of drug abuse and the harms of prohibition. Legalization forces that distinction to the forefront. The opium problem in Afghanistan is primarily a prohibition problem, not a drug problem. The same is true of the narcoviolence and corruption that has afflicted Latin America and the Caribbean for almost three decades -- and that now threatens Africa. Governments can arrest and kill drug lord after drug lord, but the ultimate solution is a structural one, not a prosecutorial one. Few people doubt any longer that the war on drugs is lost, but courage and vision are needed to transcend the ignorance, fear, and vested interests that sustain it.

Want To Know More?

Drugpolicy.org, the Web site of the Drug Policy Alliance, offers statistics, arguments, and information about drug policies worldwide. Ethan Nadelmann and Peter Andreas examine the politics of global crime control in Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Reproduced with permission from Foreign Policy #162 (September/October 2007) www.foreignpolicy.com. © 2007, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Ethan Nadelmann is founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

[burmafrd]

Sure. from those that want to LEGALIZE drugs you post their drivel and try and call it factual. Why don't you post an article about those that want to legalize pedophilia written by those that support it; its the same thing.

[iceberg]

Sure. from those that want to LEGALIZE drugs you post their drivel and try and call it factual. Why don't you post an article about those that want to legalize pedophilia written by those that support it; its the same thing.

burm, i'd have to surmiese that those who do drugs want to legalize them, so that could well be a factual statement. i've come to find we all want what we support.

odd concept huh?

i find it more ironic he posts about holes in the war on drugs and then one beneath it to legalize it. it's like he doesn't even have a stance just lobbing stuff on the wall to see who bites.

[ThaBigP]

My biggest issue with the War On Drugs is that it's arbitrary. Guys and gals will tell you with a straight face, while sipping a Bourbon and taking drags off a Camel Wide, that it's "wrong" to take chemicals for the sole purpose of altering ones mental and/or emotional state. If you dare to mention the alcohol and nicotine they're imbibing, they'll snap back with the usual intellectually lazy response of "Oh, well that's different. Everyone else is drinking and smoking tobacco, so *that* makes it OK.". That's essentially the argument used: That tobacco and alcohol are "socially acceptable" means of altering one's state of mind, so therefore it doesn't have the stink of being "wrong"....somehow. And I don't think the pedophelia comparison is valid. After all, in the case of recreational drug use (whether drinking a martini or smoking something you found growing in your backyard), you're typically talking about something that has one person making the decision to take a substance then going with it. In pedophellia (or rape, or incest, or any other number of violations you could try to equate with drug use) you're dealing with one (or more) decision makers who then foist their decision upon someone else (the child or rape victom, etc). The more accurate comparison would be if we were to criminalize forcing drugs into someone else's system....oh wait, that's already illegal.

[ThaBigP]

And by the way, I don't want to hear about the crime associated with drugs (typically on the dealing end) being compared to "forcing" others to submit to your leisure activity of choice. After all, that situation exists precisely because they are controlled substances, therefore any market for them will (by definition) be a black market. And black markets are most often run by nefarious elements who don't have society's best interests at heart. The same situation existed during alcohol prohibition in the US. That's how the Kennedys got their wealth, after all. Joe Kennedy was the 1920s-1930s equivalent of a drug kingpin by running illegal hooch around the NorthEast. After prohibitionn was lifted, the crime associated with illegal booze went away as well, since there was no market for illegal booze anymore. And the Kennedys had to find other jobs. Such as Senator, Attourney General, President, etc.

[Eric_Boyer]

My biggest issues (in order)

1) Rule of law violation. Abusing rule of law and the universally understood original intent of the constitution for political expediency is the worst kind of slippery slope. The bottom line is that the federal government should of required an amendment to set us down this path just as they needed one to ban alcohol at the federal level.

2) A crime with no victim. To claim a victim exists requires a subtle shift in the understanding of government. The only victim is the state for a possible loss of production, which means we actually serve government.

3) It causes more harm then good. No sense doing into detail as this is the area that gets the most attention in debates.

[StevenOtero]

OK, when will any of you get this through your head? Just because I post an article, doesn't mean I am backing it 100%. News anchors report stories.. but they don't always agree with them.

[burmafrd]

Untill you take responsibility for posting them HERE you are going to get worked over for their presence.

[burmafrd]

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Unless you want the government GIVING out drugs those on drugs are still going to committ crimes to get their fix.

[Eric_Boyer]

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Unless you want the government GIVING out drugs those on drugs are still going to committ crimes to get their fix.

how sophomoric. You need to separate motive from criminal activity.

History is riddled with victimless crimes. Hundreds of them exist on the books in the middle east at this moment.

I would also add seatbelt laws, and any other law designed to protect people from making stupid decisions that can only harm themselves.

[burmafrd]

sad to see you do not get it either. Not suprised, but sad.

Innocent people are victimized by those drugies wanting their next fix. Do you deny that?
Motive is a part of crime. Causeation is a prime area of concern. The need druggies have for their next fix generates crime. So even if drugs were legal this would still happen.

As regards seatbelt laws, I think they are fairly stupid but the public wants them so there they are. However- more people are injured and killed NOT wearing seatbelts then those that do. That costs the country and government and everyone else more money in various ways, and that keeps our taxes high. so I argue that that is NOT a victimless crime either.

[iceberg]

OK, when will any of you get this through your head? Just because I post an article, doesn't mean I am backing it 100%. News anchors report stories.. but they don't always agree with them.

oh we got it. but when you post 100 articles of all the same theme, we quit looking at the articles and just see someone shouting in anger a lot. like you said, the articles were 1-sided.

1-sided articles / arguments are agenda driven. by and large most people don't post things they don't agree with unless it's done to help them understand and learn. but since you post something, get some guffaws, and then go find more left-wing-one-sided-stories to prop up the other, that's all we see.

you got another side, show it.

all there is to it.

[Eric_Boyer]

sad to see you do not get it either. Not suprised, but sad.

Innocent people are victimized by those drugies wanting their next fix. Do you deny that?

Do you deny that alcoholics are more prone to abusing their wife or kids?

Do you deny that accidental gun play is more likely in a house that has guns?

Do you deny that professional football can cause serious injury including death or paralysis?

If the federal government wants to do something about it - amend the constitution. Otherwise it is up to the individual states - and the people in them to decide for themselves.

As regards seatbelt laws, I think they are fairly stupid but the public wants them so there they are. However- more people are injured and killed NOT wearing seatbelts then those that do. That costs the country and government and everyone else more money in various ways, and that keeps our taxes high. so I argue that that is NOT a victimless crime either.

Actually, the public wants the federal tax dollars returned to the people so they go along with the blackmail.

But you prove my point for me regardless. The state is the victim - it eats into their tax revenues.

If I rob a person and am charged, one of my rights is to face my accuser in a court of law.

In drug crimes, seat belt crimes, or other crimes without an actual victim, the accuser is the state. So just as I explained, it is a subtle shift in our thinking and eats away at the fabric of what our country once stood for.

[iceberg]

Do you deny that alcoholics are more prone to abusing their wife or kids?

in my many years of alcoholism, i never hit anyone. not married, no kids, but i never had the desire to hurt anyone outside of myself.

if someone is more prone to violence first, they're more prone to hitting their kids. maybe that category drinks more but if drinking only amplifies your traits, then it can't give them to you and if not alcohol, something else would make that person lash out in violence. alcohol is a crutch, not the reason.

Do you deny that accidental gun play is more likely in a house that has guns?

be kinda hard to have a gun accident in a house of knives, wouldn't it? having a gun gives you the chance to have a gun accident. this is like saying "do you deny that not breathing is going to kill you"?

a big DUH comes to mind but no real 'point'.

Do you deny that professional football can cause serious injury including death or paralysis?

...

In drug crimes, seat belt crimes, or other crimes without an actual victim, the accuser is the state. So just as I explained, it is a subtle shift in our thinking and eats away at the fabric of what our country once stood for.[/quote]

or it helps us evolve.

smoking cigs at one point was going to kill our culture.

*anything* that is a rebellion to the norm is called the thing that will demoralize our country.

our own lives change in our own lifetime. right? so why won't a country? right, wrong or whatever will sort itself out in time. but we didn't need 'seat belt crimes' before we had cars so maybe cars 'eats at the fabric of what our country once stood for'.

or we just learn to use how we grow better with time.

[ThaBigP]

sad to see you do not get it either. Not suprised, but sad.

Innocent people are victimized by those drugies wanting their next fix. Do you deny that?
Motive is a part of crime. Causeation is a prime area of concern. The need druggies have for their next fix generates crime. So even if drugs were legal this would still happen.

As regards seatbelt laws, I think they are fairly stupid but the public wants them so there they are. However- more people are injured and killed NOT wearing seatbelts then those that do. That costs the country and government and everyone else more money in various ways, and that keeps our taxes high. so I argue that that is NOT a victimless crime either.

First, the crime you refer to being committed by druggies wanting their fix is, again, due to the scarcity of the substance they want, which in turn is caused by its illigality in the first place. How many shoot-em-ups have you read about committed by alcoholics wanting their fix? Are smokers going through a nic-fit holding up convenience stores for their smokes? No! At least not in any significant numbers. There are folks out there who kill for a $20 pair of used sneakers, but you can't legislate away that kind of sociopathic behavour before-the-fact. Lifting prohibition also lifts the enormous profit motive that drives the criminal-run black market we currently have. Just like alcohol, if you legalize the production/sale/ownership of certain quantities and apply reasonable restrictions on its use (no driving under the influence, going to school/work under the influence, no giving to kids or using in the presence of, etc etc) you'll see the same thing happen that happened with alcohol. People stop going to speak-easys and getting caught in cop/mob shootouts, and start going to bars and liquor stores.

[burmafrd]

love how those that want drugs legalized always try and use booze to argue their point. Cigs as well. Its a separate arguement but its interesting that they are unable to make an arguement without bringing in those other items.

[burmafrd]

Drugs will still cost money despite being legal. And since you KNOW they will be taxed they will cost more. Druggies will committ OTHER CRIMES to get the MONEY to buy those drugs. Do you DENY that?

[Eric_Boyer]

in my many years of alcoholism, i never hit anyone. not married, no kids, but i never had the desire to hurt anyone outside of myself.

The same can be said for tens of thousands of criminal drug users.

But thanks for the anecdotal evidence I guess?

if someone is more prone to violence first, they're more prone to hitting their kids. maybe that category drinks more but if drinking only amplifies your traits, then it can't give them to you and if not alcohol, something else would make that person lash out in violence. alcohol is a crutch, not the reason.

The same can be said with abuse of property rights. Some people are more prone to theft. I do wonder if the governments disregard for property rights has had an effect over the years.

But anecdotal evidence aside, some people do things drunk or on drugs that they have never otherwise done.

be kinda hard to have a gun accident in a house of knives, wouldn't it? having a gun gives you the chance to have a gun accident. this is like saying "do you deny that not breathing is going to kill you"?

a big DUH comes to mind but no real 'point'.

No real point? The point is the federal government has just as much right to ban guns outright as they do drugs. They also have as much right to ban the NFL.

or it helps us evolve.

smoking cigs at one point was going to kill our culture.

LOL. You must explain that one for me.

our own lives change in our own lifetime. right? so why won't a country? right, wrong or whatever will sort itself out in time. but we didn't need 'seat belt crimes' before we had cars so maybe cars 'eats at the fabric of what our country once stood for'.

or we just learn to use how we grow better with time.

ummm. what?

[ThaBigP]

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Unless you want the government GIVING out drugs those on drugs are still going to committ crimes to get their fix.

Sorry, but I can't resist beating people over the head with their own logic, so bear with me ...

Who is the victom when someone drinks a martini at happy-hour after work? I only ask, because it used to be illegal to do so. By your own statement above, there MUST have been a victom at that time. AND, I don't think you would dare suggest that by merely repealing Prohibition we eliminated the victom? We merely said that the activity is no longer illegal. Where, may I ask, did that victom go?

[burmafrd]

As the law currently stands on alcohol its ok. I think that the legal age of drinking should be 21= BUT if that is the case then it should also be the age of voting as well. To say that you can vote for president or join the military and die fighting for your country at that age but not drink is beyond STUPID.

Once again I see the drug apologists refusing to answer MY question:

DRUGS cost money- EVEN IF THEY ARE LEGAL. Druggies will committ crimes to get the money to get their fix. Do you deny that?

Its a lot cheaper to get booze then it is to get drugs, and still will be even if it was legal. Not to mention that those on drugs are by and large much worse off then alcoholics- their need for more fixes is much higher then the boozers need for more booze.

[Eric_Boyer]

As the law currently stands on alcohol its ok. I think that the legal age of drinking should be 21= BUT if that is the case then it should also be the age of voting as well. To say that you can vote for president or join the military and die fighting for your country at that age but not drink is beyond STUPID.

Once again I see the drug apologists refusing to answer MY question:

DRUGS cost money- EVEN IF THEY ARE LEGAL. Druggies will committ crimes to get the money to get their fix. Do you deny that?

Its a lot cheaper to get booze then it is to get drugs, and still will be even if it was legal. Not to mention that those on drugs are by and large much worse off then alcoholics- their need for more fixes is much higher then the boozers need for more booze.

seat belt laws are state issues

drinking age laws are state issues.

You haven't addressed my #1 complaint. Why is the drug war allowed to be a federal issue without a constitutional amendment?

Would you support an outright ban on guns in every state of the union without an amendment?

Address my questions please.

[ConcordCowboy]

The Government should take MJ...grow it...pack it...tax it and sell it.

It really is no worse than alcohol...I mean come on let's be real.

The War on Drugs will NEVER be won...NEVER.

Now come on and get my MJ into my local convenient store so I can be a law abiding citizen again.:D

[iceberg]

The same can be said for tens of thousands of criminal drug users.

But thanks for the anecdotal evidence I guess?

and saying people who drink abuse their kids is hard evidence

not gonna get into it man. you just site a lot of "so what" stuff out there that has the depth of a miss america content political section. i lob some "so what" stuff back and you get all ??? on me.

prove to me alcoholics are all child abusers or what is your point?

[burmafrd]

Untill you answer mine you get no answer from me since I asked first.

As regards federal law, the interstate commerce clause is what is used.
And for crime as long as it crosses state boundaries its a federal matter; most drugs come from outside the country so that makes it federal as well/

[ThaBigP]

"as the law currently stands" - you just made my point for me. The concept of there being a "victom" hinges solely on the arbitrary mood of whether we'll say something is legal or illegal, not anything regarding the merits of the actual act itself. Therefore, apparenly in your way of thinking, there were victoms when people illegally drank booze, but they vanished like true believers in the Rapture the moment Congress repealled Prohibition.

And I did answer your question, though your question is (mis)leading by presuming a few things not in evidence:

-"Druggies will commit crimes". Do alcoholics commit crimes to get their fix? I'm sure some do, but in large enough numbers to revisit prohibition? Most alcoholics that desperate usually beg on street corners rather than go on shooting sprees or committing serial robbery. Actually, an examination of history indicates the crime regarding alcohol was committed during prohibition, which caused the price to skyrocket and limited consumers to purchasing from gang-controlled speak-easys and other historical equivalents of our modern-day crack houses.

-Your question also presumes that anything that costs money is a fuel for crime (therefore are we to conclude that anything costing money should be prohibited?? what exactly are you arguing here anyway?). Well, congratulations anyway, you just discovered for yourself the "profit motive" that drives all economies, legal or otherwise.

-The final presumption in your question is the notion that drugs cost more than alcohol, and would still be so if drug prohibition were lifted. First, even under prohibition, weed (as one example that is usually the center of this debate) is cheaper than booze (usually - depends on whether you demand $160/ounce hydro or $160 bottle of Glenn Levitt 21yrs). The vast majority of smokers I know go through about $20-$30 worth in a week with pretty heavy smoking. $20-$30 would be lucky to get you one bottle of booze that with heavy drinking can be finished in a night or two. Other drugs have higher prices, again usually due to scarcity. Cocain, for example, doesn't have much domestic production. Almost all has to be brought in, increasing the risk of interdiction (and again causing scarcity). Not to mention the cost of producing the seized product is rolled into the cost of that sold on the street.

It's all simple Economics 101. Legal or illegal doesn't matter. Economics is a study in human psycology. And human psycology dictates that if something in relative high demand is made scarce, profit seekers and entrepreneurs will try to fill the void. If the product is also illegal, then crime syndicates take charge, since by definition there is no place in the market for legitimate buisiness models. And by legitimate, you could also read "safe". Or "crime-free". Or "at market prices". If you cannot (or more likely "will not") make the simple connection that, in the 30's, the crime ridden speak-easy was replaced by the local bar'n'grill and Centennial Fine Wine and Spirits simply by repealling prohibition then I suppose I'm talking to a brick wall (or more likely my LCD monitor)

[Eric_Boyer]

Untill you answer mine you get no answer from me since I asked first.

As regards federal law, the interstate commerce clause is what is used.
And for crime as long as it crosses state boundaries its a federal matter; most drugs come from outside the country so that makes it federal as well/

I already answered it. drugs will cost money in potential lost revenue. So will alcohol, guns, and the lack of seat belts.

The interstate commerce clause would also of applied to alcohol - so why the amendment?

[arglebargle]

I already answered it. drugs will cost money in potential lost revenue. So will alcohol, guns, and the lack of seat belts.

The interstate commerce clause would also of applied to alcohol - so why the amendment?


Commerce Clause got approved in 1943, by a wartime legislature and justiciary, sorta like the Patriot Bill. It was a wartime excess that became the law of the land, and allows the federal government to do almost anything they want. Much invasive federal law is based on the Commerce Clause.

I agree though: Alcohol required a constitutional amendement, but it could be outlawed now by fiat. Like so many other things.

[arglebargle]

Burma is full of it here. That old 'illegal crime' saw doesn't measure up. Take all the addicts in, say, NYC, and multiply them by their supposed habit cost. There's not enough money in the City! Most addicts sell to support their habit, and quite a few DO work. Yes, some addicts do commit crimes to support their habit. The difference is that when something is not super expensive to obtain, it's doesn't require huge amounts of crime.

The social cost of the 'War' is worse than the social cost of legalization. But there's too much money in it staying illegal. And like a dry county in Texas trying to go wet, you get a funny alliance of the moralist preachers, and the booze merchants from the stores at the county line, all working to defeat the vote.

I do love it when 'so called' conservatives call for more personal and local control.....until it's something they don't like, and then you find that 'You can't do that!' It smacks of an authoritarian bent.

[Eric_Boyer]

Commerce Clause got approved in 1943, by a wartime legislature and justiciary, sorta like the Patriot Bill. It was a wartime excess that became the law of the land, and allows the federal government to do almost anything they want. Much invasive federal law is based on the Commerce Clause.

I agree though: Alcohol required a constitutional amendement, but it could be outlawed now by fiat. Like so many other things.

the commerce clause was in the original constitution. In 1943 it was greatly expanded by men in robes.

[arglebargle]

It was held in '43 to apply to pretty much everything, since anything could possibly affect interstate trade. It is concentrated evil nowadays.....

[the fake norm hitzges]

drug leagalization would be very harmful for this country.
drug use is not a victimless crime.just ask the family members of junkies.family members are victims of drug addict.from the beaten wife to the kids who are denied a better life because their parent wants to spend money on another fix.
people will kill and steal for the money to get dope wether its a pharmacy or a drug dealer selling them.

do you want your pilot of the plane your on just do a line of meth or hit the bong?
do you want the surgon opening up your chest high on crack?

just use yor common sense.

[iceberg]

drug leagalization would be very harmful for this country.
drug use is not a victimless crime.just ask the family members of junkies.family members are victims of drug addict.from the beaten wife to the kids who are denied a better life because their parent wants to spend money on another fix.
people will kill and steal for the money to get dope wether its a pharmacy or a drug dealer selling them.

do you want your pilot of the plane your on just do a line of meth or hit the bong?
do you want the surgon opening up your chest high on crack?

just use yor common sense.

do i want them slamming 2-3 tall double bourbon on the rocks first?
do i want them taking some prescription meds first?

no one said to treat it differently than alcohol, only that it's not much different.

common sense back at ya.

[arglebargle]

drug leagalization would be very harmful for this country.
drug use is not a victimless crime.just ask the family members of junkies.family members are victims of drug addict.from the beaten wife to the kids who are denied a better life because their parent wants to spend money on another fix.
people will kill and steal for the money to get dope wether its a pharmacy or a drug dealer selling them.

do you want your pilot of the plane your on just do a line of meth or hit the bong?
do you want the surgon opening up your chest high on crack?

just use yor common sense.


That's just ignorant. You are regurgitating somebody's party line. Tobacco is far more addictive than most of these drugs. How many murders for tobacco can you cite? (though there may be a few; smokers can get cranky)

US Air Force had planes set up with speed drips in them for long flights (most likely amphetimines), like the ones they used on the mission to try to assassainate Kadafi. It ceased useage, not due to ineffectiveness, but instead embarassament over it not matching up to the 'Just Say No' stance.

On D Day, all the troops hitting the beaches were supplied with amphetimines.

Air France allows its pilots to drink wine while flying and they have one of the best safety records of any airlines. And really, would you want a French pilot to fly stone cold sober?

[the fake norm hitzges]

do i want them slamming 2-3 tall double bourbon on the rocks first?
do i want them taking some prescription meds first?

no one said to treat it differently than alcohol, only that it's not much different.

common sense back at ya.


everytng i stated in my post is absolutly true and unquestionable.
your grasping at straws

[the fake norm hitzges]

That's just ignorant. You are regurgitating somebody's party line. Tobacco is far more addictive than most of these drugs. How many murders for tobacco can you cite? (though there may be a few; smokers can get cranky)

US Air Force had planes set up with speed drips in them for long flights (most likely amphetimines), like the ones they used on the mission to try to assassainate Kadafi. It ceased useage, not due to ineffectiveness, but instead embarassament over it not matching up to the 'Just Say No' stance.

On D Day, all the troops hitting the beaches were supplied with amphetimines.

Air France allows its pilots to drink wine while flying and they have one of the best safety records of any airlines. And really, would you want a French pilot to fly stone cold sober?


theres no ignorance in my post.its common knowledge.
do i need to explain leagal drugs as opposed to illeagal drugs to you?

thanks for the military history lesson.i didnt know that

[theogt]

And prostitution too. Don't forget prostitution.

[silverbear]

OK, when will any of you get this through your head? Just because I post an article, doesn't mean I am backing it 100%. News anchors report stories.. but they don't always agree with them.


So, you're starting dozens of threads, but you don't always support the opinions being posited in those posts??

At best, that's spamming; at worst, it's trolling... I'd suggest you stick to posting on political subjects that you really care about... this is coming from somebody whose political leanings aren't too dissimilar to yours, and I have to tell you, I'm not bothering to open 8 out of every 10 threads you've started these past few days...

Just something for you to think about... as we get closer to the 08 elections, I'll get a lot more active in here too, but I'll try to stick to threads that reflect my personal opinions, and subjects that I'm actually interested in...

[iceberg]

That's just ignorant. You are regurgitating somebody's party line. Tobacco is far more addictive than most of these drugs. How many murders for tobacco can you cite? (though there may be a few; smokers can get cranky)

US Air Force had planes set up with speed drips in them for long flights (most likely amphetimines), like the ones they used on the mission to try to assassainate Kadafi. It ceased useage, not due to ineffectiveness, but instead embarassament over it not matching up to the 'Just Say No' stance.

On D Day, all the troops hitting the beaches were supplied with amphetimines.

Air France allows its pilots to drink wine while flying and they have one of the best safety records of any airlines. And really, would you want a French pilot to fly stone cold sober?

feel how you want, i still won't call you "ignorant". you feel i'm that way because i don't see it like you, fine.

been down that road before and it gets pretty old.

[iceberg]

everytng i stated in my post is absolutly true and unquestionable.
your grasping at straws

whatever dude. i've long since grown tired of arguing with the obtuse.

you're right. please, go fix the world according to your views. they are after all, so true and unquestionable. you should have it done by lunch.

[Eric_Boyer]

drug leagalization would be very harmful for this country.
drug use is not a victimless crime.just ask the family members of junkies.family members are victims of drug addict.from the beaten wife to the kids who are denied a better life because their parent wants to spend money on another fix.
people will kill and steal for the money to get dope wether its a pharmacy or a drug dealer selling them.

do you want your pilot of the plane your on just do a line of meth or hit the bong?
do you want the surgon opening up your chest high on crack?

just use yor common sense.

Drugs are all around us. It is just as likely for a pilot to use drugs now then if they were legalized.

It is more likely that a person would use crime to obtain drugs now then if they were legal.

[burmafrd]

Crack goes on the street for around $20 per hit, sometimes less. The high only lasts 5-7 minutes then you have a depressive reaction, which makes the junkies want more right now. That price is not going to change much even if it was legal. Does not take away from the junkies need to have more. Where are they going to gethe money? From Crime- anything to get that next hit.
Try and deny that.

[ThaBigP]

I'm sick and tired of hearing that legalizing drug use MUST MUST MUST!!!!!! mean that we:

A) Legalize all forms of drugs for personal use/production/consuption (i.e. everything from weed, to making/selling your own perscription meds).

and...

B) That because they will be "legal" we cannot and must not regulate them or their use in any way (that's why you usually get the high pilot or bus driver nightmare scenario given to you).

These idiotic arguments fall on their face with examination from a barely opened single eye. Liquor, classroom, is CURRENTLY LEGAL. However, it does not therefore follow that it is LEGAL to get tanked up and drive your car, drive your city bus, operate on your patient, fly your plane, prepare food for other's consuption for a fee, or any huge number of safety and health related issues. If I show up drunk to work, I get fired. "But but but" you say, "alcohol is *legal*! How can this be?" I *can* make my own beer or wine at home, but the minute I distill my own liquor, I run afloul of the law. Again, how can this be? I thought booze was *legal*? According to your logic, if any drugs that become legal are to become infested in our culture and daily lives such as the above examples, how on earth can we regulate alcohol? Or smokes? If I hand a pack of cigs to a 10 year old, I can go to jail. The fact is the childish, intellectual lazy arguments are being made because you cannot logically support an arbitrary system by which some substances are deemed "bad" and some deemed "OK" based solely on whether or not everybody else around you that you know is doing it. Which is an inherently childish attitude from the get-go: The notion that "everybody else is doing it, so it's OK".

[ThaBigP]

If I may give my full 2 cents on the issue:

First, history and contemporary events show that simple prohibition of a product that is in relatively high demand (pardon the pun...) does not "work". By "work" I mean reduce the public-at-large's recreational consuption of the controlled drug products to tollerable levels (we're going to assume that no law completely eliminates infractions...some people still speed, spit on the sidewalk, walk on the grass, enter a restauruant without shoes, etc in spite of laws/regulations). In fact, most of the time it only adds the criminal element to the equation, since as I pointed out before you cannot have a legal business dealing in an illegal product. You'd last two seconds before DEA and others would shut you down and incarcerate you if you tried. This is all given, and simple common sense, so I hope I don't have to expain this point any further.

Second, today we have (for the most part) simple prohibition regarding recreational drugs. And...drumroll please....we have a huge problem with crime revolving around the production and distribution of these substances. Gangs by and large controll local distribution with larger criminal rings controlling the larger picture. And I'll answer my own earlier question here....the victoms *do* exist, but they exist as a result of innocents (individuals as well as communities) being caught in the crossfire of "turf wars" as criminal rings jockey for position in various markets. You also have to add the shoot-em-ups with authorities that are often involved in interdiction.

Third problem is the public-at-large's attitude toward these drugs. Many believe erroneously that "these" drugs I and my friends use are "good" since they're legal, but "those" drugs are bad bacause they're illegal. And ONLY because they're illegal. They falsely believe that taking "these" drugs is OK, but taking "those" drugs turns you into a monster. After all, everybody they see getting busted on COPS is a monster. And they are controlled substances by the way. If they were "ok" they wound't be illegal (or so goes the logic). But I have news for you... Any of you who have ever been given morphine or hydrocodone (Vicodin is one brand name) by a doctor, congratulations...you've taken heroin. On doctor's orders. How much of a monster did it make you feel like? You go home and beat your wife and kids and go on a crime spree for your next fix? Probably not. But you DID run the very same risk that recreational users face - addiction. And opiates (such as morhpine/heroin/vocodin, etc) are among the most addictive of all substances we know of. Just because a doc gave it to you does not make you immune to that potential disaster - just ask Rush Limbaugh or any number of chronic-arthritis-suffering senior citizens who get hooked every year on their pain killers.

My point here is that there is so much overlap between what are considered "good" drugs and "bad" drugs. And in many cases, the "bad" is nothing more than a street name for the "good" that is sold in the black market without perscriptions, and outside the direct control of the FDA and DEA. LSD was created by drug companies for treatment of certain mental disorders. It's creater happened to discover the halucinogenic properties of the drug and actually kept a diary during a "trip" to ascertain it's implications. His conclusion was that it was pretty fun. But he cautioned more studies needed to be conducted to ensure it was safe for medicinal use, and others decided to use it recreationally. His was a very pragmatic, realistic approach to the drug. And we need more of that. Many are fun. But all drugs (ALL drugs, class, including caffein, nicotine, alcohol, weed, heroin, you name it) come with a price. You are, after all, putting a chemical into your body to affect some change in perception or mood (even if it's as simple as "I'm tired, so I'll get an energy drink or cup of coffee and a pack of somkes to get through the morning"). Those perceptions or moods you want to change in the first place are, for all intents and purposes, the "natural" or "unaltered" feelings that *just may* mean your body or mind is trying to tell you something (such as "get more sleep, you workaholic"). That's where you get the "escapist" user - somebody attempting to escape their feelings of "whatever" by taking drugs. The same reason most alcoholics can't put down the bottle - most feel miserable about themsleves without the fix. And the drug only perpetuates the condition that led to the misery. After all, why change my life when I can drink this or smoke that and make it all go away for a while? But because some folks use alcohol for the wrong reasons is nowhere near enough for us to declare that we must make it illegal again. For that matter, nobody is willing to have a blanket suspension of their driving privelages just because some others refuse to obey speed limits or drive sober. You cannot logically apply that standard to *ONLY ONE* aspect of public life but no other. Especially when the "no other" is simply based on what *YOU* like to do recreationally (drive, have a glass of wine with a cigarette, etc).

The solution? First, the logical/moral argument: Each substance should be judged on a case-by-case basis. You cannot logically sustain the argument that alcohol should remain legal whereas marijuana, for example, remains illegal. Unless, of course, you are going to simply fall back on the childish argument that "everybody is drinking, that makes it OK". Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, has just as little use medicinally (save for the fact that it is an effective antidote to methanol poisoning), and in fact users are quite more prone to violence while under the influence of booze than marijuana. Alcohol's bodily harms are also quite well documented (liver disease and cancer for starters), whereas marijuana's negative health effects are less clear (although they are being looked for). Even the fact that most users smoke it does not seem to increase their risk of mouth/throat/lung cancer (as compared to smoking tobacco products, where the link is frighteningly clear).

Other drugs pose different risks vs the "reward" of recreational use. Cocaine is much more expensive (for reasons outlined in earlier posts) and therefore the distribution market is more violent. Furthermore, the "high" is short, probably 20-30 min for somebody with little tollerance. That causes users to use a much larger quanitiy while "partying" or whatever. Problem is cocain is a potent stimulant, and taking large doses is hard on the heart. Crack is like cocain, only it lasts about a minute tops (or so I've heard...never done it and don't care to. Had a friend hooked on it for a while in his past.) Heroin is a problem child because opiates do have legitimate medical use as outlined above. They're currently controlled, but that has led many fine doctors to face losing their practice, license, and in some cases their freedom for administering opiates in good faith (remember Limbaugh's doctors' offices being ransacked by Florida and Federal agents, as one example??) That actually happens more than you think. And often times it's regarding the elderly who are on pain-management therapy. So many doctors are having to make medical decisions based on the fear of incarceration or being thrown out of practice. THAT, classroom, is one of the legacies of the War on Drugs. I'll rant some more when I have time, but this is a big topic with lots of loopholes and "gotchas". It's not as simple as "they say this is legal so it's OK, those are illegal so they're evil". After all, it's legal for doctors to perscribe opiates, but they *still* can and do go to jail for it if some grand jury decides after-the-fact that the doctor shouldn't have. A grand jury, I might add, that is NOT a group of medical professionals.

Actually, in retrospect I don't have time to give my "full" two cents. That would be pages and pages. I'll not make you suffer that, so just call me a liar instead :0)

[arglebargle]

You go, ThaBigP! Pretty well put.

One quibble: Marijuana has a number of modern and historical medical uses. It was taken out of the official pharmacopea in 1933 or so, not because doctors decided it was useless, but because Harry J. Ainslinger, FBI goon recently out of a job because of the repeal of prohibition, needed a new whipping boy, and latched on to the 'Demon Weed'.

The drug hysteria leads to many irrational decisions. But then, they are mostly made by politicians trying to look all bad ***.

[ThaBigP]

The reason I tossed marijuana into the "relatively useless" medical bin is mainly due to the fact that, in the intervening years, better pain management drugs have been produced. Marijuana does have a few cards up its sleeve, though, in that it helps to spur appetite in those who need it (chemo patients, for one, who have to endure nausea and loss of appetite with their treatment, and it's paramount such patients keep up their health and nutrition).

And might I add that simply because something is relatively medically useless does not logically follow that it "MUST" be illegal (*maybe* it should, *maybe* it should not, on a case-by-case basis). Again, look to alcohol, caffein, nicotine, etc for your examples of where we allow recreational drug use with little to no medical benefit.

[arglebargle]

I watched a show once that had a Texas A&M chemistry professor on talking about the actual physical effects on the body of major drugs like tobacco, alcohol, coffee, etc.

He identified 3-4 drinks as where alcohol starts to cause some trouble physically (barring addictive personality issues and the like). Tobacco, he said there was no amount that was not physically harmful. Coffee was more indistinct, with studies not completely clear. He did say that the physical effect on the bodies' chemical pathways were exactly the same for a certain amount of coffee as it was for a certain amount of amphetimine. He smiled when he watched the consternation of the show's hosts.....

[ThaBigP]

OK, here's a 3rd cent for you War on Drugs guys....if you really want a drug to crack down on in the interest of public health, please, for the love of God, petition your politicians to curb the inappropriate use of antibiotics. We are currently facing an epidemic of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, largely due to the inappropriate perscribing of antibiotics. If a doctor doesn't voluntarily write an antibiotic perscription for little Johnny or Janey (who happens to be suffering from a cold or the flu, both viruses and unaffected by antibiotics anyway), the parents howl and cry malpractice until he/she does. As a result, more and more previously treatable strains of bacteria are becoming untreatable. If this continues, we will be thrown back into a new dark age of history, where medical science has been knocked all the way down to square one after centuries of progress...our drugs and knowledge will no longer defend us against infection. We will again be at the mercy of genetics and natural selection. There are now studies indicating that the widespread use of "antibacterial" soaps and hand washes for general use are contributing to the problem (this, by the way, does not apply to alcohol-based hand sanitizers, only chemical anti-bacterial soap since they're pretty much using a mild antibiotic for the active ingredient).

In case you're wondering how this works, read the package of an anti-bacterial soap some day. You'll usually see something to the effect of "kills 99.9% of bacteria". Wonder what happens to the .1% that doesn't get killed? They have kids. Millions of them. And their genetic resistance to the active ingredient in your "antibacterial" soap is passed onto their millions of kids. Same happens with antibiotic perscriptions. This is why they scream on the bottle to finish the entire run of medicine. If you stop early (such as when your symptoms begin to clear), you run the risk of leaving "survivor" bacteria who then have drug-resistant kids and your illness relapses. Only this time the drug they gave you before seems to have no effect, so they bump you to a stronger one. If the cycle repeats, eventually you'll reach the strongest antibiotic we have. If you f*ck that up and create generations of bacteria resistant to that, then good luck. Nice knowing you. Thanks for taking the rest of us with you though, *** hole. Now when we get sick with YOUR mutated bacteria we can't get help either.

[burmafrd]

Agree totally about the over prescription of antibiotics. Actually- the over prescription of a LOT of drugs. You can't tell me that the huge expansion in prescribing drugs for kids for supposed ADTD is warranted; this is just an excuse for parents and teachers and such to not have to deal with their kids. Drug them up and they are docile and less of a hastle.

[ThaBigP]

Agree totally about the over prescription of antibiotics. Actually- the over prescription of a LOT of drugs. You can't tell me that the huge expansion in prescribing drugs for kids for supposed ADTD is warranted; this is just an excuse for parents and teachers and such to not have to deal with their kids. Drug them up and they are docile and less of a hastle.

Thank you! If you look at the incredible number of kids being perscribed what ammounts to phsychiatric drugs to fix the "disorder" of ADD/ADHD (formerly known as "childhood" in most cases), scratch your head, and wonder (even in the quiet recesses of your own mind) "I can't buy a quarter ounce of plant matter, set it on fire and inhale the fumes in the quiet of my own home, but THIS is legal?" then you're beginning to see my point. I'm not advocating that any/everything under the sun should be freely handed out in vending machines in preschools, and that LSD should be added to the water supply to go along with Floride. I'm merely asking for common sense on the issue. And a little bit of consistency.

[jterrell]

I am for legalizing select drugs.
It think it a great potential source of tax revenue and a growth commodity.

I am not a drug user per se, I do drink alcohol but do not smoke anything or take any non-over the counter drugs.

I do think Eric's comments about alcohol and tobacco are compelling. If we outlawed those items, people would be up in arms over their rights being stripped away but those items are certainly dangerous and will result in loss of life.

Marijuana could legally be treated exactly the same way alcohol is imho.

I am not well versed enough to know some of these new designer drugs but it is possible there are a few other drugs that could be legalized, then controlled and monitored.

I do think some drugs are too dangerous to be made legal but right now we are deciding what is and isn't legal based on pure habit.

Because smoking is dangerous to others and not just the smoker to me that is the first drug that should be made illegal.

[vta]

I am for legalizing select drugs.
It think it a great potential source of tax revenue and a growth commodity.

I am not a drug user per se, I do drink alcohol but do not smoke anything or take any non-over the counter drugs.

I do think Eric's comments about alcohol and tobacco are compelling. If we outlawed those items, people would be up in arms over their rights being stripped away but those items are certainly dangerous and will result in loss of life.

Marijuana could legally be treated exactly the same way alcohol is imho.

I am not well versed enough to know some of these new designer drugs but it is possible there are a few other drugs that could be legalized, then controlled and monitored.

I do think some drugs are too dangerous to be made legal but right now we are deciding what is and isn't legal based on pure habit.

Because smoking is dangerous to others and not just the smoker to me that is the first drug that should be made illegal.

That's basically where I am.
I see no reason for marijuana to be illegal. I don't smoke it, but it's not much worse than alcohol and it's basically just natural. The crackdown should be on heroine and hardcore crap like that.

Cigarettes don't bother me as I'm sure what I breathe on the Turnpike everyday is worse. I'd rather smell tobacco than the crap I breathe from the filthy semi's on the road and I doubt it's as harmful.

[burmafrd]

The anti smoking bunch have cigs down as worse then any hard core drugs. Which of course is BS. The anti smoking nazis are worse then the Taliban.

[vta]

The anti smoking bunch have cigs down as worse then any hard core drugs. Which of course is BS. The anti smoking nazis are worse then the Taliban.

Something has to be demonized. In an industrial country, the money maker isn't going to be it, in this case that which powers all of our commerce: Gas/Oil. So go after the luxury.

Ask a toll booth worker if he'd rather spend his time in a smoky bar or collecting change on the freeway. Exhuast is disgusting.

[Crown Royal]

love how those that want drugs legalized always try and use booze to argue their point. Cigs as well. Its a separate arguement but its interesting that they are unable to make an arguement without bringing in those other items.


How are those drugs different from illegal drugs? Other than they are still legal?

[Crown Royal]

As the law currently stands on alcohol its ok. I think that the legal age of drinking should be 21= BUT if that is the case then it should also be the age of voting as well. To say that you can vote for president or join the military and die fighting for your country at that age but not drink is beyond STUPID.

Once again I see the drug apologists refusing to answer MY question:

DRUGS cost money- EVEN IF THEY ARE LEGAL. Druggies will committ crimes to get the money to get their fix. Do you deny that?

Its a lot cheaper to get booze then it is to get drugs, and still will be even if it was legal. Not to mention that those on drugs are by and large much worse off then alcoholics- their need for more fixes is much higher then the boozers need for more booze.



Marijuana is as cheap if not cheaper than alcohol.

[iceberg]

Marijuana is as cheap if not cheaper than alcohol.

it has it's range too. get the compressed columbian package it's around $500+ a pound depending on the season and circumstances. get hydro and you're looking at closer to $100 and up for a quarter ounce.

from what i've read anyway...

[Crown Royal]

it has it's range too. get the compressed columbian package it's around $500+ a pound depending on the season and circumstances. get hydro and you're looking at closer to $100 and up for a quarter ounce.

from what i've read anyway...


The both do. MadDog is less than $5, the best scotch can be hundreds.

[iceberg]

The both do. MadDog is less than $5, the best scotch can be hundreds.

no, i agree completely. i don't think one is much cheaper than the other. the effect of alcohol is stronger but more addictive. most people who wanted to come home and relax would probably take a hit if legal and be done w/it. those who don't drink wouldn't do either and probably can't understand (understandably) the infatuation.

[burmafrd]

Its not the grass that is the problem; its crack.

[Crown Royal]

Its not the grass that is the problem; its crack.


I agree. I'm not for complete legalization, more so for the less hardcore such as marijuana and natural (ie - not processed) stuff.

[StevenOtero]

I agree. I'm not for complete legalization, more so for the less hardcore such as marijuana and natural (ie - not processed) stuff.:hammer:

[burmafrd]

I really have no problem at all with legalizing grass= its all but happened anyway. BUT no way on crack. If you think denmark and other parts of Europe are NOT having big problems despite their permissive attitudes you have another thing coming.

[ThaBigP]

And let's all be honest with ourselves here - sure legalizing some drugs will go a long way to eliminating the crime regarding the distribution of those drugs, but we will have to deal head-on with the issue of substance abuse. We have that discussion all the time in the public sqare about alcohol and nicotine. As I said before, ALL drugs come with a price. ALL of them. It's a matter of responsible use, coupled with the understanding that not all among us *will* be responsible. That's why even if a drug is legalized or at least some restrictions lifted, we give law enforcement the tools needed to help enforce what we would deem to be reasonable restrictions (i.e. you drive high, you get a DUI just like a drunk). I've grown more and more convinced over the years that most of the effort should be put toward eliminating the demand rather than eliminating the supply. All attempts to eliminate supply merely increase the price (and potential profit margin), making the crime problem worse. You eliminate demand (or seriously curtail it), the market dries up on its own.

[vta]

And let's all be honest with ourselves here - sure legalizing some drugs will go a long way to eliminating the crime regarding the distribution of those drugs, but we will have to deal head-on with the issue of substance abuse. We have that discussion all the time in the public sqare about alcohol and nicotine.

Just think of all of the support programs that'll sprout up to help families 'afflicted' with the 'disease', once the negative affects become apparent.

:rolleyes:

[TheSkaven]

Anyone been to the Netherlands? I've been there four times in the past 18 months (on business in Amsterdam and Eindhoven). In the Netherlands, local coffee shops throughout the country sell marijuana. You can get it as a cigarette, you can get it in a pipe, you can get it in cookies and brownies.

The first thing that you expect is to walk in and see a bunch of hippies spaced out (or, at least that's what I expected). Not at all. What you find is a 5P, a bunch of working-class blue color workers just off the clock going to have a joint before heading home. It's no different at all then having a few beers at the bar before going home.

Anyone have an issue with that? Can someone tell me who that's harming?

[ConcordCowboy]

Anyone been to the Netherlands? I've been there four times in the past 18 months (on business in Amsterdam and Eindhoven). In the Netherlands, local coffee shops throughout the country sell marijuana. You can get it as a cigarette, you can get it in a pipe, you can get it in cookies and brownies.

The first thing that you expect is to walk in and see a bunch of hippies spaced out (or, at least that's what I expected). Not at all. What you find is a 5P, a bunch of working-class blue color workers just off the clock going to have a joint before heading home. It's no different at all then having a few beers at the bar before going home.

Anyone have an issue with that? Can someone tell me who that's harming?

No difference at all.

I fact I like the idea of having a joint after work before going home...and AFTER I get home.:D

Grow it...tax it and sell it.

The time has come. Bottom line is if people want it, they are going get it.

You are NEVER going to stop the war on drugs in general or MJ in particular.

Supply and demand...as long as there is a demand there WILL be a supply.

[Jarv]

You should just be able to grow your own, like grapes. The Bulldogs prices can be a little higghhhh.