40 Billion Dollars a year fighting this Drug War..

[AnF1500]

This is an excellent article. It's often one of the first arguments I give when challenged as to why I believe drugs should be legalized - organised crime receives the vast majority if its income from the sale and distribution of illegal drugs. A violent gang sub-culture is built around this underground market. Purity/quality of distributed subtsances is sub-par, prices are sky high, due to the risk of negotiating around the law, which makews the economic and social costs of addiction much higher and the government loses out on billions of pounds/dollars worth of potential tax revenue, which could be re-invested in schools, healthcare and other social programmes. If the drugs trade was legitimate, the government would be in a much better position to monitor, moderate, control and regulate sale and distribution.

If an individual wants to accept the risks associated with drug use, that should be there business. Sure, ABUSE of drugs can damage others, but not necessarily, and this is important. A number of legal activities and products MAY harm other people if the person undertaking the action or consuming the product is irresponsible. Theft, robbery, assaul and murder NECESSARILY lead to harm to others, by their very nature. The same cannot be said of drug use. USE and ABUSE are two totally different things, and most if not all drugs can be used responsibly, if the user him/herself is responsible, knowledgeable, mature and posseses sufficient will power.

IMO an economic activity should not be prohibited (perhaps discouraged) unless, by its very nature, it necessarily involves other people being harmed or detrimentally affected in some way.














This is a little piece from The Daily Times (Pakistan) where apparently their parliament recently had a debate on prohibition:

CONTROVERSY: The economics of prohibition —Nadeem Ul Haque
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2007/02/14/20070214_Nadeem.jpg Prohibition did not control addiction, the causes of which do not lie in availability of addictive substances. In addition to patent medicines, consumers switched to narcotics, hashish, tobacco, and marijuana, substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of prohibition

A recent parliamentary debate on the subject of prohibition has created the space for some serious thinking on the issue. There is considerable international research available on prohibition and its consequences and Pakistan should understand it. Let’s consider some basic points.

The United States prohibited alcohol from 1920-33 in what was called “a Nobel Experiment”. The prohibition was expected to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America.

Economic theory argues that curtailing an economic activity for which there is demand will lead to ‘underground’ sources of supply for that demand. But driving economic activity underground has consequences; among other things, it allows criminals to collect large rents who engender corruption and criminalize the society. The government not only loses revenue because of prohibition, it also diverts resources from other more productive activities to deal with the crime that has resulted from the prohibition. The prohibition also means that government loses control of the prohibited market and cannot tax it or set standards for it. Most importantly, economic theory suggests that prohibition will fail in its intended objectives.

Research has vindicated the economic theory to show that prohibition in the US failed on all counts.

Consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of the prohibition, but then increased. Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout this period despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcing prohibition.

Alcohol became more dangerous to consume. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they become more potent. Suppliers augment their potency and adulteration with unknown or dangerous substances also increases. This basically means that market discipline vanishes with prohibition.

Before prohibition, Americans had spent a falling share of income on alcoholic beverages, purchasing higher quality brands and weaker types of alcoholic beverages. During prohibition, there was a switch to more potent forms of alcohol. The typical beer, wine, or whiskey contained a higher percentage of alcohol by volume during prohibition than it did before or after. Prohibition made it more difficult to supply weaker, bulkier products, such as beer, than stronger, compact products, such as whiskey, because the largest cost of selling an illegal product is avoiding detection.

Prohibition did not improve health: “the death rate from poisoned liquor was appallingly high throughout the country. In 1925 the national toll was 4,154 as compared to 1,064 in 1920.”

Prohibition also led many people to drink more ‘legitimate’ alcohol, such as patent medicines (which contained high concentrations of alcohol), medicinal alcohol, and sacramental alcohol. The amount of alcoholic liquors sold by physicians and hospitals doubled between 1923 and 1931. The amount of medicinal alcohol (95 percent pure alcohol) sold increased by 400 percent during the same time.

Prohibition glamorised alcohol and by doing so, attracted the young. The government lost control of the alcohol market allowing the young easier access. This is evidenced in the fact that the average age of people dying from alcoholism fell by six months between 1916 and 1923, a period of otherwise general improvement in the health of young people.

While crime had gradually declined by the 19th and early 20th centuries, during prohibition it increased. The homicide rate in large cities increased from 5.6 per 100,000 population during the first decade of the century to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920s, a 78 percent increase over the pre-prohibition period. More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods. The result was that all crime statistics were up, expenditures on police increased and prisons were overflowing with criminals. When prohibition was ended in 1933, there was a dramatic reversal in the rates for robbery, burglary, murder, and assault.

It was no wonder that corruption in the police customs service and coast guard increased significantly during prohibition and efforts to curtail corruption consumed valuable government resources.

Contrary to expectations, productivity did not improve, nor was absenteeism reduced.

Prohibition also removed a significant source of tax revenue. The alcohol industry was estimated to account for about USD 2 billion in 1902, was one of the more important taxpayers and employed about 600,000 people. After prohibition, the bootlegging industry and the mafia began to collect the tax that the government should have collected and the authorities had to spend money to try to stop their growing power.

Sadly, prohibition did not control addiction, the causes of which do not lie in availability of addictive substances. In addition to patent medicines, consumers switched to narcotics, hashish, tobacco, and marijuana, substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of prohibition. Those products were potentially more dangerous and addictive than alcohol, and procuring them often brought users into contact with a more dangerous, criminal element. Once again criminalization increased.

These results are from several serious economic studies of the prohibition era. Ironically, most economists and social scientists of the era supported prohibition. Subsequent serious research has informed us of the true costs and benefits of prohibition. Based on this research Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman even argued for the legalisation of all drugs.

Perhaps we in Pakistan too should be informed by serious research!

The writer is an economist

[CombatRaven]

Prohibition glamorised alcohol and by doing so, attracted the young. The government lost control of the alcohol market allowing the young easier access. This is evidenced in the fact that the average age of people dying from alcoholism fell by six months between 1916 and 1923, a period of otherwise general improvement in the health of young people.
The writer is an economist

This brings up a very interesting point. If the war on drugs were ended and it became more acceptable, would kids around my age (high school), be as drawn to them? I mean yeah, the affects of the drugs are part of the draw, but I think a lot of the point for some people I know is that it's illegal, so they get high. I think legalization of illegal drugs would solve a great deal of problems. You had it spot on, as did the article.

[mercutio7]

This brings up a very interesting point. If the war on drugs were ended and it became more acceptable, would kids around my age (high school), be as drawn to them? I mean yeah, the affects of the drugs are part of the draw, but I think a lot of the point for some people I know is that it's illegal, so they get high. I think legalization of illegal drugs would solve a great deal of problems. You had it spot on, as did the article.
I agree with that to an extent. Its not like pot being legalised would bring about the rapture as Regan so enthusiatically suggested, but being able to go to a store and buy cocaine or heroin? I realise it would be positive to take power out of organized crime, but what would the effect be with automobile accidents? On the other hand, I don't think people who don't do coke and heroin now would be flocking to the supermarket just because its legal...

[TheOtherAndrew]

"You wanna get rid of the deficit? Legalize pot."
-Bill Hicks

[selftitled85]

you also have to look at the other consequences. you would see a rise in addiction...probably a fall in overall output by a country.

not to mention addicted mothers would give birth to children that are all sorts of fucked up and a complete waste to society. there are many problems with legalizing drugs. the externalities of such an idea in my opinion completely override any positives that could come of it.

i could understand legalizing marijuana...but you are fucking nuts if you try to expand past that.

selling heroin or coke or anything like that in stores would be a recipe for disaster.

[mercutio7]

you also have to look at the other consequences. you would see a rise in addiction...probably a fall in overall output by a country.

not to mention addicted mothers would give birth to children that are all sorts of fucked up and a complete waste to society. there are many problems with legalizing drugs. the externalities of such an idea in my opinion completely override any positives that could come of it.

i could understand legalizing marijuana...but you are fucking nuts if you try to expand past that.

selling heroin or coke or anything like that in stores would be a recipe for disaster.
but just because it is legal doesn't mean ordinarily drug free people would suddenly be flocking to drug selling locations. Educated know it FUCKS up your brain in a non-regenrerative way.

[chronomic]

in my speach class in highschool this 28 year old dude (dont know how he got into hs at 28 but w/e) gave his final speach about legal and illegal drugs. and he basically said that if the gov. could find a way to control pot and make a profit off of it then they would legalize it. wich does make some sense, because if right now they just all the sudden legalize pot its not going to benefit them at all, they will need some (if not all) control over the traffic of it.

[AnF1500]

in my speach class in highschool this 28 year old dude (dont know how he got into hs at 28 but w/e) gave his final speach about legal and illegal drugs. and he basically said that if the gov. could find a way to control pot and make a profit off of it then they would legalize it. wich does make some sense, because if right now they just all the sudden legalize pot its not going to benefit them at all, they will need some (if not all) control over the traffic of it.


Ofcourse thats why marajuana is still illegal. All the anti drug campaigners have finally admitted that marajuana is almost harmless, and have been forced to change their campaign strategies.


Look at it this way, marajuana which has been found to be almost harmless (besides these recent controversial studies suggesting possible mental health issues) is illegal.

Cigarettes, which have been proven to cause cancer and other devastating diseases, is legal. Why?
Because the goverment makes insane profits off of the rediculously huge taxes they impose on the product.

If they thought they could make money of off marajuana it would be legal in a second. No one cares about the real health issues. Its money.

[AnF1500]

I agree with that to an extent. Its not like pot being legalised would bring about the rapture as Regan so enthusiatically suggested, but being able to go to a store and buy cocaine or heroin? I realise it would be positive to take power out of organized crime, but what would the effect be with automobile accidents? On the other hand, I don't think people who don't do coke and heroin now would be flocking to the supermarket just because its legal...

you also have to look at the other consequences. you would see a rise in addiction...probably a fall in overall output by a country.

not to mention addicted mothers would give birth to children that are all sorts of fucked up and a complete waste to society. there are many problems with legalizing drugs. the externalities of such an idea in my opinion completely override any positives that could come of it.

i could understand legalizing marijuana...but you are fucking nuts if you try to expand past that.

selling heroin or coke or anything like that in stores would be a recipe for disaster.



Marajuana is an easy one. Should it be legalized? Of course... Should LSD, Peyote, psilocybin, and other natural drugs be legalised..... Of course.
Obviously other drugs are a much harder question. What about particular amphetamines, narcotics, and opiates?
This is obviously much more difficult. At the moment, opiates are too devastating to legalize, at this point in time anyways.


And I also find it interesting that in alot of responses heroin and cocaine are put together to represent the two most harmful drugs...

[Praetor]

you also have to look at the other consequences. you would see a rise in addiction...probably a fall in overall output by a country.

not to mention addicted mothers would give birth to children that are all sorts of fucked up and a complete waste to society. there are many problems with legalizing drugs. the externalities of such an idea in my opinion completely override any positives that could come of it.

i could understand legalizing marijuana...but you are fucking nuts if you try to expand past that.

selling heroin or coke or anything like that in stores would be a recipe for disaster.
Normally, mothers know not to smoke or drink while pregnant. Why would marijuana be any different in that respect?

PS: I totally agree with the statement that I bolded.

[thejetstolehome]

"You wanna get rid of the deficit? Legalize pot."
-Bill Hicks

i don't even smoke pot and i have a plan for legalization that would get the country out of the defecit.

[AnF1500]

Normally, mothers know not to smoke or drink while pregnant. Why would marijuana be any different in that respect?

PS: I totally agree with the statement that I bolded.



You honestly believe that marijuana is the only single drug that should be legalised?

[thejetstolehome]

You honestly believe that marijuana is the only single drug that should be legalised?

to take a realistic view, it's the only drug that might even be considered for a legalization or de-criminalization process.

[cfear]

The War on Drugs is, and will always be, a joke. Much like the War on Terror it cannot be won. If you eradicate producers crops in one region the demand will still be met by new producers in other regions., and then the supply of drugs remains the same. I had a lecture on this last week in an Economic Geography class. I, also, have known this for years. The only way to curb the demand for drugs is to reduce the mentality that causes the demand. My professor, though somewhat radical, basically said that the United States, or the United Nations, should buy up all of the Opium crop in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The farmers would still make money, and we could control the crop and take measures to reduced the supply. But, that isn't the only thing that needs to be done. Legalisation? Maybe, but legalisation won't happen while so many governments are propped up by the illegal drug trade in producing countries/regions. Not to mention, the negative social stigma attached to the use of modern drugs has to go away for legalisation to make sense. Chocolate was considered a drug, as were coffee and tea, in the 19th Century. Within the next century we might see the legalisation of many natural drugs, but chemical drugs and other man made drugs will continue to change at very fast paces and phase themselves out. Meth will be gone in ten years, another drug will replace it, and the social stigma will attach itself to the newer drugs.

[sdbrown]

Ofcourse thats why marajuana is still illegal. All the anti drug campaigners have finally admitted that marajuana is almost harmless, and have been forced to change their campaign strategies.


Look at it this way, marajuana which has been found to be almost harmless (besides these recent controversial studies suggesting possible mental health issues) is illegal.

Cigarettes, which have been proven to cause cancer and other devastating diseases, is legal. Why?
Because the goverment makes insane profits off of the rediculously huge taxes they impose on the product.

If they thought they could make money of off marajuana it would be legal in a second. No one cares about the real health issues. Its money.
:thumbsup:

Shoot, i forgot what I wanted to add

[Jason Tate]

This argument is ridiculous. Some of the "pro-drug" crowd need to smoke a bowl and shut the fuck up. Go to Amsterdam or something, you people are nuts.

[AnF1500]

This argument is ridiculous. Some of the "pro-drug" crowd need to smoke a bowl and shut the fuck up. Go to Amsterdam or something, you people are nuts.



Mind explaining how it is rediculous?
This argument is based on fact.

[Jason Tate]

Mind explaining how it is rediculous?
This argument is based on fact.
No, it's based on the opinion that drugs will play out like alcohol and therefore trying to draw a correlation that doesn't exist. If the only thing keeping drugs from being legalized was the sin tax, they'd already be legal.

Furthermore, your argument is too broad. It implies all drugs should be legalized.

[CombatRaven]

I agree with that to an extent. Its not like pot being legalised would bring about the rapture as Regan so enthusiatically suggested, but being able to go to a store and buy cocaine or heroin? I realise it would be positive to take power out of organized crime, but what would the effect be with automobile accidents? On the other hand, I don't think people who don't do coke and heroin now would be flocking to the supermarket just because its legal...

I seriously doubt that people who don't do drugs now would suddenly say "Hey, I think I'll go get stoned now that it's legal." Also, the same principles applying to drinking and driving would apply. "Don't drive while impaired." Period. Basically it would limit government encroachment on our daily lives. As long as people are held responsible for their actions, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[AnF1500]

No, it's based on the opinion that drugs will play out like alcohol and therefore trying to draw a correlation that doesn't exist. If the only thing keeping drugs from being legalized was the sin tax, they'd already be legal.


Ah well, I have to highly disagree with that last statement. Hopefully I'll be able to argue about this with you in several years when this topic comes more out into the open with politicians.

[Jason Tate]

Ah well, I have to highly disagree with that last statement. Hopefully I'll be able to argue about this with you in several years when this topic comes more out into the open with politicians.
As opposed to arguing it now? It won't become a more prevalent issue for quite a while because there is no incentive to legalize the products.

[AnF1500]

As opposed to arguing it now? It won't become a more prevalent issue for quite a while because there is no incentive to legalize the products.


Alright well, lets talk about the legalization of marijuana (I dont wan't to get into the legalization of other more harmful drugs becuase I haven't come to a solid opinion yet). Why do you think it is so "ridiculous"?

[Jason Tate]

I seriously doubt that people who don't do drugs now would suddenly say "Hey, I think I'll go get stoned now that it's legal." Also, the same principles applying to drinking and driving would apply. "Don't drive while impaired." Period. Basically it would limit government encroachment on our daily lives. As long as people are held responsible for their actions, then there shouldn't be a problem.
The problem is that people aren't held responsible for their actions. And the government's position was never to not be involved in our daily lives. That's a misconception of the principles our country was founded on.

[sdbrown]

Does anyone know how much of that budget is allocated to just marijuana? If there is some sort of divide between marijuana and other drugs.

[Jason Tate]

Alright well, lets talk about the legalization of marijuana (I dont wan't to get into the legalization of other more harmful drugs becuase I haven't come to a solid opinion yet). Why do you think it is so "ridiculous"?
For starters, there's no viable reason for it to become legal. Second, we as a society already have too many addictive activities that consume the mind and times of our populace - there's no reason to add another harmful addiction that undermines what makes our society great: it's people.

[AnF1500]

For starters, there's no viable reason for it to become legal. Second, we as a society already have too many addictive activities that consume the mind and times of our populace - there's no reason to add another harmful addiction that undermines what makes our society great: it's people.


Harmful addiction? Are we talking about the same drug here? The reason that is needs to be legalized is becuase there is not a legit reason for it to be illegal.... Do you realize all the violence caused by illegal drug trade? Do you realzie how many jails are filled with nonviolent prisoners?

[Jason Tate]

Harmful addiction? Are we talking about the same drug here?

Of course we are.

The reason that is needs to be legalized is becuase there is not a legit reason for it to be illegal....

That's not a valid reason at all. The burden of proof lays with you to show why it should be legal, claiming you don't agree with the reasons for it's illegality is not suffice.

Do you realize all the violence caused by illegal drug trade?

Irrelevant. There is no proof you can offer that shows if the drug is legal violence will drop - this is an appeal to the emotion that I want violence to cease, without being able to actively show correlation or causation.

Do you realzie how many jails are filled with nonviolent prisoners?

This is a nice paradox. You claim violence in your previous sentence and now claim nonviolence in this one. Which one is it? Furthermore, jail is not just for violent crimes. It never has been and was never intended to be.

[sdbrown]

Of course we are.



That's not a valid reason at all. The burden of proof lays with you to show why it should be legal, claiming you don't agree with the reasons for it's illegality is not suffice.



Irrelevant. There is no proof you can offer that shows if the drug is legal violence will drop - this is an appeal to the emotion that I want violence to cease, without being able to actively show correlation or causation.



This is a nice paradox. You claim violence in your previous sentence and now claim nonviolence in this one. Which one is it? Furthermore, jail is not just for violent crimes. It never has been and was never intended to be.
I'm guessing the violence she mentioned lies in the dealers, gangs protecting their 'turf', and the nonviolent people are a lot of the addicts/buyers

[Jason Tate]

I'm guessing the violence she mentioned lies in the dealers, gangs protecting their 'turf', and the nonviolent people are a lot of the addicts/buyers
Then violence would continue regardless of legality. However, you don't get to pick and choose which groups represent what just to make your argument stronger.

[AnF1500]

Of course we are.



That's not a valid reason at all. The burden of proof lays with you to show why it should be legal, claiming you don't agree with the reasons for it's illegality is not suffice.



Irrelevant. There is no proof you can offer that shows if the drug is legal violence will drop - this is an appeal to the emotion that I want violence to cease, without being able to actively show correlation or causation.



This is a nice paradox. You claim violence in your previous sentence and now claim nonviolence in this one. Which one is it? Furthermore, jail is not just for violent crimes. It never has been and was never intended to be.


Of course that is a valid reason. There is no REAL reason for it to be illegal. It has been proven to be virtually harmless. And it has been published numerous times that over half of organized crime is due to drug deals and drug trades. Thats also pure common sense. And yes violence in the sense of those attempting to push the drug, not those who use and are placed in jail. Jail is for crimes that hurt society. The smoking of marijuana does not hurt society. Ah, I like this article.



You support robberies and assaults on innocent people. The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalization would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legalized.
You support clogging our prisons and jails with nonviolent people. Nearly 50% of all people in prison and jail are serving time for nonviolent drug charges. There are thousands of people in prisons for 5, 10, 50 years--even life--for possessing marijuana or cocaine! The average rapist is set free after serving only 3 years in prison, the average murderer is set free after serving only 9 years in prison! To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer $40,000! The result of these harsh penalties? Drug use has increased! (Tough laws have not stopped me from using marijuana--nor will they ever!)
You support organized crime and drug cartels. Huge drug cartels and criminal organizations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organizations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of people killed or hurt are innocent people who get in the way! These violent organizations will never be put out of business--unless drugs are legalized.
You support environmental destruction. Underground cocaine and methamphetamine labs use toxic chemicals to produce those drugs--the wastes are recklessly dumped in forests and streams. These highly toxic chemicals are causing major environmental damage in South American rainforests and now in the U.S. This environmental destruction will stop only if drugs are legalized.
You support drug dealers and street gangs. Drug dealers and street gangs fight over drug territories. Thousands of people are murdered and assaulted because of this fighting--many are innocent people who get in the way. This violence is another result of the huge profits caused by drug prohibition.
You lure thousands of young people into quitting school. It is a fact that thousands of inner-city youths drop out of school to make enormous profits by selling drugs. The incentive to drop out of school would end if drugs were legalized.
You do nothing to keep drugs away from kids or out of schools. In spite of what you may believe, keeping drugs illegal does not keep drugs away from children! Drugs are easily obtainable in almost every high school in America. Legalizing drugs would put schoolyard drug dealers out of business! There would be less drugs in our schools if drugs were legalized. Drugs would still be illegal for minors!
You subsidize criminals by letting them reap huge drug profits without paying taxes. Since drugs are sold anyway, wouldn’t you rather have them heavily taxed so it would reduce your tax burden? You are giving criminals a free ride and it’s coming out of your own pocket. Working people pay 100% of all taxes for the drug dealers! Why do you want to pay taxes for drug dealers?
You advocate punishing millions of harmless drug users (like me) at an enormous cost to society. If you believe drugs should be illegal, then you advocate spending your tax dollars to arrest/jail/punish millions of productive, honest, and harmless working people (like myself). Why? We hurt nobody! Who benefits from this policy? Nobody! Who loses from this policy? Everybody! Drug users can only hurt themselves. But the drug war harms/kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and burdens you--the taxpayer. The drug war costs you hundreds of dollars every year! The drug war has not reduced drug use!

Prohibitionists claim drugs must be illegal because they harm people. Why are prohibitionists so concerned about what other people do to themselves? Why do they feel it is their responsibility and right to control the lifestyles of other adults? The prohibitionists tell stories of people who hurt themselves with illegal drugs. So what? For every one person who has been harmed with illegal drugs, there are dozens of people who have used illegal drugs and were not harmed. For every one person who has been harmed by illegal drugs, there are 1,000 people who harm/kill themselves by deliberately choosing these harmful lifestyles...

Being overweight
Smoking cigarettes
Watching too much TV
Eating high-fat/high-cholesterol diets
Eating too much meat
Participating in dangerous sports/activities
Drinking alcohol
Eating too much sugar
Eating too few fruits/vegetables
Drinking too much coffee
Getting little/no exerciseWhy don’t the prohibitionists advocate banning all of the above harmful lifestyles? The prohibitionists tolerate people who hurt/kill themselves with tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, or no exercise, but they refuse to tolerate people who harm themselves with cocaine. Why? Inconsistent! Illogical! Irrational! We now come to the real reason why marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and other drugs are illegal: Lifestyle control! Prohibitionists fear that if drugs are legalized, the “drug culture” will spread to the rest of society. Nobody can force others to use drugs! Adults must take responsibility for their own health! Because the prohibitionists have decided that drugs are wrong for them does not give them the right to force their lifestyle on others. Prohibitionists want government to play the role of parent. Prohibitionists believe they must babysit adults. Prohibitionists are the lifestyle police!
In the last 25 years, per capita alcohol and tobacco consumption has decreased significantly. This was accomplished by education and treatment, not by threat of punishment! Drug use/abuse would drop significantly if we spent our resources on education and treatment instead of law enforcement. No rational person would call for imprisonment of smokers and drinkers in order to reduce tobacco and alcohol use. But that method is exactly how we try to reduce drug use. The savings to be had in ending the drug war could easily pay for all the drug treatment and education programs we need. The drug war is a failure! Education and treatment work!
If you don’t like a culture or a lifestyle, don’t live it! If you don’t like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs, don’t use them! But don’t ban my personal lifestyle for fear it will poison your lifestyle. Adults must take responsibility for their own actions! It is a flagrant violation of individual freedom to threaten others with punishment just because they choose a lifestyle that is not right for you.
I will continue to smoke marijuana and enjoy it! I hurt nobody! If others do not approve of what I do to myself in my own home, too bad! I may not care for the music you listen to, the food you eat, or the culture you have adopted, but I would never advocate punishing you because I don’t like your lifestyle. If someone violates the rights of others, the violater should be punished; otherwise, people should mind their own business. Adults who use drugs responsibly--whether they be tobacco, alcohol, LSD, or marijuana--cause no harm to others! Leave us alone!
If you still believe drugs should be illegal, answer this question... Why do you believe it is good policy to punish me--and 20 million adult Americans like me--because I choose to use marijuana in the privacy of my own home? Who benefits from this policy and how do they benefit?

Total cost of drug prohibition


Over 300,000 nonviolent people lose their freedom to prison/jail.
Thousands of murders, assaults, and robberies caused by drug crimes.
$20 billion/year in law enforcement costs.
$10 billion/year in lost tax revenue (similar to alcohol tax).
$5 billion/year in property losses due to drug-related crimes.
$50 billion/year and 500,000 jobs lost because of no hemp industry.Total cost = $85 billion/year = $500 per taxpayer every year!

[rikfrommf]

[quote=Jason Tate;5726645]Of course we are.

There is no "physical" dependency. But Marijuana like other substances and even activities causes a psychological dependence. Its like Mall rats, they get bored, and go to the mall. Stoner's get bored and get stoned.

Plus when little Tommy brings a gun to school after smoking some Marijuana its the gov's fault for sending the message that it is okay to smoke pot.

[AnF1500]

Ah also, I've argued this point so many times, I'll leave it to this.


http://www.drugs-forum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=25607&highlight=legalization

[AnF1500]

[quote=Jason Tate;5726645]Of course we are.

There is no "physical" dependency. But Marijuana like other substances and even activities causes a psychological dependence. Its like Mall rats, they get bored, and go to the mall. Stoner's get bored and get stoned.

Plus when little Tommy brings a gun to school after smoking some Marijuana its the gov's fault for sending the message that it is okay to smoke pot.


That is such a rediculous argument.

[rikfrommf]

[quote=rikfrommf;5726719]


That is such a rediculous argument.

You really don't think it would be exploited?

People made money suing McDonalds for the coffee being hot without a warning. You really don't think people would try this and get away?

[thejetstolehome]

she's not saying that's the ridiculous part. she's saying the ridiculous part is that you instantly assume someone who smokes is going to instantly pick up a gun and shoot up his/her school.

[rikfrommf]

she's not saying that's the ridiculous part. she's saying the ridiculous part is that you instantly assume someone who smokes is going to instantly pick up a gun and shoot up his/her school.

its a feasible scenario. I wasnt implying that Tommy wouldnt have done the same reguardless of legalization, but if the substance is legal there is some responsibility that will fall to the gov. Parents will cry out and believe that it was the drug that caused it.

[AnF1500]

she's not saying that's the ridiculous part. she's saying the ridiculous part is that you instantly assume someone who smokes is going to instantly pick up a gun and shoot up his/her school.


Thank you.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/for0528l.jpg

[mercutio7]

its a feasible scenario. I wasnt implying that Tommy wouldnt have done the same reguardless of legalization, but if the substance is legal there is some responsibility that will fall to the gov. Parents will cry out and believe that it was the drug that caused it.
Have similar lawsuits blamed alcahol? Being drunk, or in your scenerio high, really isn't a legal excuse.

[AnF1500]

its a feasible scenario. I wasnt implying that Tommy wouldnt have done the same reguardless of legalization, but if the substance is legal there is some responsibility that will fall to the gov. Parents will cry out and believe that it was the drug that caused it.


Ah right so, becuase of that far fetched scenario, we should DEFINATLEY not consider legalization.



Ok.

[CombatRaven]

Plus when little Tommy brings a gun to school after smoking some Marijuana its the gov's fault for sending the message that it is okay to smoke pot.


First off, marijuana use under 21 (or 18 or whatever) wouldn't be legal. So it would be just as illegal for "Tommy" to have marijuana as alcohol, and I don't really see people saying "My boy was drinking! The government says getting drunk is ok, so it's their fault!"

Second, none of the stoners I know have brought guns to school thank you. I can't imagine their drug use would increase because it suddenly became available in the store. But hey, what do I know?

[CombatRaven]

The problem is that people aren't held responsible for their actions. And the government's position was never to not be involved in our daily lives. That's a misconception of the principles our country was founded on.

What Constitution are you reading? Look at the Bill of Rights. Every single one of them is a negative right limiting the government's control. But hey, that's rather off-topic.

[Jason Tate]

What Constitution are you reading? Look at the Bill of Rights. Every single one of them is a negative right limiting the government's control. But hey, that's rather off-topic.
And that furthers my point as there is a difference between expressly written "rights" and those which we infer to further our own false ideals.

[Jason Tate]

Of course that is a valid reason. There is no REAL reason for it to be illegal.

No, there is no reason you accept. There's a difference.

It has been proven to be virtually harmless.

There's no way to prove this either way.

And it has been published numerous times that over half of organized crime is due to drug deals and drug trades.

But I thought it was "virtually harmless"? Which is it? Helping promote crime or harmless; these two items are mutually exclusive.

Thats also pure common sense.

Common sense is neither common nor sensical. You're not addressing the issues I've raised, simply telling me something is common sense does not make it so, nor is it a logical argument.

And yes violence in the sense of those attempting to push the drug, not those who use and are placed in jail.

Use, in itself, is a form of pushing. There are violent people that use pot. There are violent people that use NyQuil. There are violent people that wear red. There is no causation tied to any of these things and therefore it cannot be logically argued that one group is not violent or is violent based on one arbitrary trait.

And for the last time: Violence is not a prerequisite for jail time.

Jail is for crimes that hurt society. The smoking of marijuana does not hurt society.

That's a matter of opinion; I'd argue the smoking of marijuana does hurt society.

Ah, I like this article.

Ahh, I like un-sourced plagiarism. This "article" contains no sources and cannot be held as credible - or worth reading. You actually buy into this shit? It's based on a false premise and therefore draws false conclusions from its original false assumptions.

[Jason Tate]

First off, marijuana use under 21 (or 18 or whatever) wouldn't be legal. So it would be just as illegal for "Tommy" to have marijuana as alcohol, and I don't really see people saying "My boy was drinking! The government says getting drunk is ok, so it's their fault!"

Second, none of the stoners I know have brought guns to school thank you. I can't imagine their drug use would increase because it suddenly became available in the store. But hey, what do I know?
Well, you answered your own question; you, really, know nothing.

Your personal examples are not indicative of the entire population or relevant to this discussion.

We have enough problems with addiction in our society, why are people so inclined to add to this statistic?

[Jason Tate]

its a feasible scenario. I wasnt implying that Tommy wouldnt have done the same reguardless of legalization, but if the substance is legal there is some responsibility that will fall to the gov. Parents will cry out and believe that it was the drug that caused it.
Seriously, stop talking. You take an argument worth having and throw it out the window with your illogical ridiculous bullshit. It's not a valid scenario.

[Jason Tate]

Ah also, I've argued this point so many times, I'll leave it to this.


http://www.drugs-forum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=25607&highlight=legalization
You just sourced a "drug-forum." There's a good reason there will probably never be legalization: Those supporting the cause are too stupid from using the drug to be able to argue for their case.

You're caught in a giant catch 22.

[mercutio7]

You just sourced a "drug-forum." There's a good reason there will probably never be legalization: Those supporting the cause are too stupid from using the drug to be able to argue for their case.

You're caught in a giant catch 22.
Wouldn't they just need some young politician as a figure head though? Or do you mean they're too fucked up to know when and where and how to vote? Either way, you bring up a good point.

[justinevans]

I love how the problem is always the people in authority and not the people who actually use and do illegal acts.

[AnF1500]

You just sourced a "drug-forum." There's a good reason there will probably never be legalization: Those supporting the cause are too stupid from using the drug to be able to argue for their case.

You're caught in a giant catch 22.



Too stupid from using the drug....thats a mildy rediculous statement.
I'm assuming it was a joke.

[justinevans]

Too stupid from using the drug....thats a mildy rediculous statement.
I'm assuming it was a joke.

Drugs should never be legalized and the majority of drug users should not want them to be...especially with regards to marijuana.

[jmu28]

That's a matter of opinion; I'd argue the smoking of marijuana does hurt society.
In what ways does it hurt society?

[AnF1500]

Drugs should never be legalized and the majority of drug users should not want them to be...especially with regards to marijuana.


But why? Our current system is clearly not working and needs a change.

[mercutio7]

Drugs should never be legalized and the majority of drug users should not want them to be...especially with regards to marijuana.
You spelled "reguards" incorrectly. Just thought I'd return the helping hand that you so quickly lent me:) Why especially marijuana? The effects are far less debilitating than alcahol- provided the pot isn't laced with pcp or some other crazy substance (something that would not be happening provided you could buy pot at a supermarket).

[Jason Tate]

Too stupid from using the drug....thats a mildy rediculous statement.
I'm assuming it was a joke.

Well, it's "mildly" and "ridiculous" (you've done that 6 or 7 times) - so maybe I'm on to something.

/Joke.

[Jason Tate]

In what ways does it hurt society?
In a variety of ways - depending on how you want to look at it; for example from either the youth or adult perspective.

[Jason Tate]

You spelled "reguards" incorrectly. Just thought I'd return the helping hand that you so quickly lent me:) Why especially marijuana? The effects are far less debilitating than alcahol- provided the pot isn't laced with pcp or some other crazy substance (something that would not be happening provided you could buy pot at a supermarket).
"Far less debilitating" is relative terminology. The fact that it is debilitating is what should be addressed.

[AnF1500]

In a variety of ways - depending on how you want to look at it; for example from either the youth or adult perspective.



Enlighten us.

[AnF1500]

Well, it's "mildly" and "ridiculous" (you've done that 6 or 7 times) - so maybe I'm on to something.

/Joke.


Ha ha ha.

Yes I am a HORRIBLE speller and typer. Bad combination.

[Jason Tate]

Enlighten us.
From which perspective?

[Jason Tate]

Ha ha ha.

Yes I am a HORRIBLE speller and typer. Bad combination.
Seems like a simple solution: Lay off the weed. ;-)

[mercutio7]

"Far less debilitating" is relative terminology. The fact that it is debilitating is what should be addressed.
True, but my point is that its not fair to assume that pot will cause widespread havok when alcahol is legal and far worse for the human condition (not that pot is eating exactly eating your wheaties).

[Jason Tate]

True, but my point is that its not fair to assume that pot will cause widespread havok when alcahol is legal and far worse for the human condition (not that pot is eating exactly eating your wheaties).
I never said anything about widespread havoc. I don't even think alcohol would fit under that exaggeration.

[mercutio7]

I never said anything about widespread havoc. I don't even think alcohol would fit under that exaggeration.
Damn, I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm saying what would actually change if pot was legalized, considering the effects of alcahol are worse? "Widespread havoc" was just hyperbole that in hindsight really didn't do shit to prove my point. hah.

[oldwirehands]

you also have to look at the other consequences. you would see a rise in addiction...probably a fall in overall output by a country.

not to mention addicted mothers would give birth to children that are all sorts of fucked up and a complete waste to society. there are many problems with legalizing drugs. the externalities of such an idea in my opinion completely override any positives that could come of it.

i could understand legalizing marijuana...but you are fucking nuts if you try to expand past that.

selling heroin or coke or anything like that in stores would be a recipe for disaster.

People should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies as long as they don't break any other laws. There are already crack addicted mothers popping out babies. Prohibition isn't going to stop that at all.

[Jason Tate]

People should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies as long as they don't break any other laws. There are already crack addicted mothers popping out babies. Prohibition isn't going to stop that at all.
I believe suicide is considered a crime.

[oldwirehands]

I'm so tired of this debate. What is there to really say about it anymore. How many facts must be laid out in front of people to make them come to their senses? The marijuana prohibition is here because of racism, greed, and selfishness. That is enough right there for me to be against the prohibition. Its not even about getting high legally, its about abolishing a ridiculous law and taking control of OUR country.

[oldwirehands]

I believe suicide is considered a crime.

Then what price does a suicide victim pay, by law? Does the family get hit with a fine or something?

[mercutio7]

Then what price does a suicide victim pay, by law? Does the family get hit with a fine or something?
if they don't succeed they are fined or jailed I believe.

[oldwirehands]

if they don't succeed they are fined or jailed I believe.

Ok... this does what to the arguement? People should be allowed to do what they want to themselves. If they are consciously aware of what they're doing to themselves, then its their choice and their business. If a person is doing something that causes no mental or physical harm to any other person, then let them do what they want.

[mercutio7]

Ok... this does what to the arguement? People should be allowed to do what they want to themselves. If they are consciously aware of what they're doing to themselves, then its their choice and their business. If a person is doing something that causes no mental or physical harm to any other person, then let them do what they want.
dude, chill. I was just answering your question. I'm for the legalization of pot, and I don't even smoke it.

[Jason Tate]

Ok... this does what to the arguement? People should be allowed to do what they want to themselves. If they are consciously aware of what they're doing to themselves, then its their choice and their business. If a person is doing something that causes no mental or physical harm to any other person, then let them do what they want.
That's opening a huge loophole. Someone's usage of alcohol or drugs causing "mental harm" on another? That could be just about anything.

[oldwirehands]

That's opening a huge loophole. Someone's usage of alcohol or drugs causing "mental harm" on another? That could be just about anything.

A person with alcholism can contribute stress on a family member. That would be mental harm. Responsibility comes with restraint and not everyone has that. I say if they're going to outlaw most of the drugs they do, then alcohol should be lumped in with all of that.

But I am not for the legalization of all drugs. Some can be controled responsibly and some can not be controled at all. You have a choice to use them responsibly just like you have the choice of driving a car responsibly.

The drug I will defend the most is marijuana. Its wasting America's money to put away all of these people who were just growing marijuana or selling only marijuana. Its a complete waste of time and money to have this silly stamp act around.

[Jason Tate]

A person with alcholism can contribute stress on a family member. That would be mental harm. Responsibility comes with restraint and not everyone has that. I say if they're going to outlaw most of the drugs they do, then alcohol should be lumped in with all of that.

However, alcohol and other drugs are two separate entities and should be discussed as such.

But I am not for the legalization of all drugs. Some can be controled responsibly and some can not be controled at all. You have a choice to use them responsibly just like you have the choice of driving a car responsibly.

False analogy.

The drug I will defend the most is marijuana. Its wasting America's money to put away all of these people who were just growing marijuana or selling only marijuana. Its a complete waste of time and money to have this silly stamp act around.

This ignores marijuana's gateway capabilities and offers no evidence to support your claims. By your reasoning anything that you do not agree with that costs money is a "waste of America's money." The population as a whole is what matters - and as long as they vote to keep marijuana illegal, it should stay as such. The people have chosen to use their money in this respect and your feelings to the contrary do not dissemble their voice.

It's not to a society's benefit to have such substances abundant - the problems we currently face in education/employment/and so forth are important to our nation continuing to prosper.

[mercutio7]

However, alcohol and other drugs are two separate entities and should be discussed as such.



False analogy.



This ignores marijuana's gateway capabilities and offers no evidence to support your claims. By your reasoning anything that you do not agree with that costs money is a "waste of America's money." The population as a whole is what matters - and as long as they vote to keep marijuana illegal, it should stay as such. The people have chosen to use their money in this respect and your feelings to the contrary do not dissemble their voice.

It's not to a society's benefit to have such substances abundant - the problems we currently face in education/employment/and so forth are important to our nation continuing to prosper.
Yeah, I would most certainly like for my teachers to have contracts and get paid more than have pot legalized.

[Jason Tate]

Yeah, I would most certainly like for my teachers to have contracts and get paid more than have pot legalized.
That's my main issue at the moment -- we have far more important battles to be fighting than legalizing a drug. While maybe worthy of a debate in the next 15 years, it's currently just about dead last on my priorities for America.

[mercutio7]

That's my main issue at the moment -- we have far more important battles to be fighting than legalizing a drug. While maybe worthy of a debate in the next 15 years, it's currently just about dead last on my priorities for America.
True. I was arguing the actual ethics of it, but as far as pouring effort into making such a major change- we have much more pressing matters to deal with.

[justinevans]

You spelled "reguards" incorrectly. Just thought I'd return the helping hand that you so quickly lent me:) Why especially marijuana? The effects are far less debilitating than alcahol- provided the pot isn't laced with pcp or some other crazy substance (something that would not be happening provided you could buy pot at a supermarket).

Where did I put "reguards"? It is regard, you also spelled alcohol incorrectly. Anyway, especially marijuana because it would make the costs go up because of taxes on the product.

But why? Our current system is clearly not working and needs a change.

Our system is not the problem, it is the citizens who break the law. Come on now.

[AnF1500]

That's my main issue at the moment -- we have far more important battles to be fighting than legalizing a drug. While maybe worthy of a debate in the next 15 years, it's currently just about dead last on my priorities for America.

I understand that completley, its definatley a good point. The only thing though is that we are pouring insane amounts of money each year into a drug war that is failing miserably. We need this money so badly in other places.

Where did I put "reguards"? It is regard, you also spelled alcohol incorrectly. Anyway, especially marijuana because it would make the costs go up because of taxes on the product.



Our system is not the problem, it is the citizens who break the law. Come on now.



The so called point of the system is to keep citizens from breaking the law.

[Jason Tate]

I understand that completley, its definatley a good point. The only thing though is that we are pouring insane amounts of money each year into a drug war that is failing miserably. We need this money so badly in other places.





The so called point of the system is to keep citizens from breaking the law.
The cost effectiveness of a program does not dictate it's relative necessity.

[AnF1500]

The cost effectiveness of a program does not dictate it's relative necessity.


So pouring billions of dollars into programs that have been proven not work is neccesary?
Hmph.

[Jason Tate]

So pouring billions of dollars into programs that have been proven not work is neccesary?
Hmph.
They do work (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KuziemkoLevitt2004.pdf), they're just not particularly cost effective.

We estimate that cocaine prices are 5–15% higher today as a consequence of increases in drug punishment since 1985, presumably leading to reduced drug consumption. Incarcerating drug offenders is found to be almost as effective in reducing violent and property crime as locking up other types of offenders. Back-of-the envelope estimates suggest that it is unlikely that the dramatic increase in drug imprisonment was cost-effective.

[AnF1500]

They do work (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KuziemkoLevitt2004.pdf), they're just not particularly cost effective.

We estimate that cocaine prices are 5–15% higher today as a consequence of increases in drug punishment since 1985, presumably leading to reduced drug consumption. Incarcerating drug offenders is found to be almost as effective in reducing violent and property crime as locking up other types of offenders. Back-of-the envelope estimates suggest that it is unlikely that the dramatic increase in drug imprisonment was cost-effective.


As NIDA reports, "Treatment not only lowers recidivism rates, it is also cost-effective. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on addiction treatment programs, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost of drug-related crimes. With some outpatient programs, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12:1."

[Jason Tate]

As NIDA reports, "Treatment not only lowers recidivism rates, it is also cost-effective. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on addiction treatment programs, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost of drug-related crimes. With some outpatient programs, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12:1."
So the argument is to treat drug users instead of incarcerating them?

I thought you wanted to legalize these products too? Treating and legalizing seems to be counterintuitive.

... however, as to your post, you did not provide a link or source, so I can't view the data.

[AnF1500]

So the argument is to treat drug users instead of incarcerating them?

I thought you wanted to legalize these products too? Treating and legalizing seems to be counterintuitive.

... however, as to your post, you did not provide a link or source, so I can't view the data.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/13/Dobbs.Feb14/index.html

[AnF1500]

So the argument is to treat drug users instead of incarcerating them?

I thought you wanted to legalize these products too? Treating and legalizing seems to be counterintuitive.

... however, as to your post, you did not provide a link or source, so I can't view the data.

It was simply an example of how the drug war mishandles their insanely harsh so-called punishments.

[Jason Tate]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/13/Dobbs.Feb14/index.html
Still no data or source. I'm was hoping for a scholarly article here.

Furthermore, the information provided in no way contradicts the information I gave. It simply seems to be offering a different tactic: "treatment instead of incarceration"? Is this what you are purposing?

[Jason Tate]

It was simply an example of how the drug war mishandles their insanely harsh so-called punishments.
Well, that goes without saying. That's the status quo for the entire war on crime right on up and down the board. I wouldn't expect the war on drugs to be any different. However, as I already said - that's not a viable reason to stop engaging in the process.

[Nevuk]

you also have to look at the other consequences. you would see a rise in addiction...probably a fall in overall output by a country.

not to mention addicted mothers would give birth to children that are all sorts of fucked up and a complete waste to society. there are many problems with legalizing drugs. the externalities of such an idea in my opinion completely override any positives that could come of it.

i could understand legalizing marijuana...but you are fucking nuts if you try to expand past that.

selling heroin or coke or anything like that in stores would be a recipe for disaster.
People really do need to think a bit, if pot were legalized, it'd likely have the same requirements as alcohol does today. That is, an age limit and a requirement against driving stoned. And FAS is worse than anything pot could do if regulated. This is strictly speaking about pot, of course. The gateway argument has been disproved countless times, and only been proven in government funded research (I'll find these articles later, I'm going to bed now).

The increase in productivity argument was used to create prohibition, which either had no effect or lowered productivity rather than increase it. (Bill Hicks also said that its use shuld be mandatory).

The reasoning behind making the hardcore drugs legal is sound, but they are just so incredibly destructive...

[open mind]

as bad as legalizing every drug out there would be it wouldn't cause nearly as much damage as the system currently does...........and it'd be a hell of alot cheaper to boot.

[followtheformat]

The war on Drugs has done nothing but expand the ever growing police state known as the United States, incarcerate millions of non-violent offenders(typically minorities), and waste billions upon billions of taxpayer's dollars which could have gone to health care, education, and true drug education for youth. Prohibition certainly creates violence; you're a fucking idiot if you say otherwise. I don't see many alcoholics robbing people for booze, yet plenty of heroin and cocaine addicts doing it due to the huge mark up caused by the black market on which drugs are sold. The government's stand on drugs is complete bullshit; drugs such as LSD, MDMA, and others which have shown great medical promise for people have been denied the possibility of study while alcohol and tobacco remain perfectly legal. The fucking DEA are the biggest lying cocksuckers on the face of the earth; mushrooms, marijuana, LSD, MDMA, and peyote are are schedule I drugs, meaning that they are unsafe, have abuse potential, and no accepted medical value; sounds a whole fucking lot like alcohol and tobacco to me. Yeah Tate, drugs would be a huge setback to our great society, a society in which people are prejudice, hateful, and aren't happy unless they can go to Wal-Mart and get tons of unhealthy food and material posessions! YEAAAH AMERICA!

and thanks for totally showing how far your head is up your ass with the pot is a "gateway drug" statement, it's cute how you were paying attention when Stacy Coon was teaching your D.A.R.E. class back in the 5th grade.

[Love As Arson]

This is one of the more blatantly racist policies that is currently in action.

[Jason Tate]

The war on Drugs has done nothing but expand the ever growing police state known as the United States, incarcerate millions of non-violent offenders(typically minorities), and waste billions upon billions of taxpayer's dollars which could have gone to health care, education, and true drug education for youth. Prohibition certainly creates violence; you're a fucking idiot if you say otherwise. I don't see many alcoholics robbing people for booze, yet plenty of heroin and cocaine addicts doing it due to the huge mark up caused by the black market on which drugs are sold. The government's stand on drugs is complete bullshit; drugs such as LSD, MDMA, and others which have shown great medical promise for people have been denied the possibility of study while alcohol and tobacco remain perfectly legal. The fucking DEA are the biggest lying cocksuckers on the face of the earth; mushrooms, marijuana, LSD, MDMA, and peyote are are schedule I drugs, meaning that they are unsafe, have abuse potential, and no accepted medical value; sounds a whole fucking lot like alcohol and tobacco to me. Yeah Tate, drugs would be a huge setback to our great society, a society in which people are prejudice, hateful, and aren't happy unless they can go to Wal-Mart and get tons of unhealthy food and material posessions! YEAAAH AMERICA!

and thanks for totally showing how far your head is up your ass with the pot is a "gateway drug" statement, it's cute how you were paying attention when Stacy Coon was teaching your D.A.R.E. class back in the 5th grade.
Unsure why I'm the one called out on this - especially when this is something I've recently discussed in other threads as saying I changed my mind about early comments made in the thread.

However, my main point is the same: yes, we are a messed up nation ... that is why legalizing drugs is at the bottom of the "to-do list."

[ghostyouare]

This argument is ridiculous. Some of the "pro-drug" crowd need to smoke a bowl and shut the fuck up. Go to Amsterdam or something, you people are nuts.
hahahahaha i love you

[ghostyouare]

This is one of the more blatantly racist policies that is currently in action.
Are you going to vote for that guy from Alaska?

[ghostyouare]

The war on Drugs has done nothing but expand the ever growing police state known as the United States, incarcerate millions of non-violent offenders(typically minorities), and waste billions upon billions of taxpayer's dollars which could have gone to health care, education, and true drug education for youth. Prohibition certainly creates violence; you're a fucking idiot if you say otherwise. I don't see many alcoholics robbing people for booze, yet plenty of heroin and cocaine addicts doing it due to the huge mark up caused by the black market on which drugs are sold. The government's stand on drugs is complete bullshit; drugs such as LSD, MDMA, and others which have shown great medical promise for people have been denied the possibility of study while alcohol and tobacco remain perfectly legal. The fucking DEA are the biggest lying cocksuckers on the face of the earth; mushrooms, marijuana, LSD, MDMA, and peyote are are schedule I drugs, meaning that they are unsafe, have abuse potential, and no accepted medical value; sounds a whole fucking lot like alcohol and tobacco to me. Yeah Tate, drugs would be a huge setback to our great society, a society in which people are prejudice, hateful, and aren't happy unless they can go to Wal-Mart and get tons of unhealthy food and material posessions! YEAAAH AMERICA!

and thanks for totally showing how far your head is up your ass with the pot is a "gateway drug" statement, it's cute how you were paying attention when Stacy Coon was teaching your D.A.R.E. class back in the 5th grade.
1. Not everything the govt does needs to be profitable and just because you disagree with it doesnt mean its pointless.

2. Just because incarcerated individuals are nonviolent offenders they still broke the law. I do think sentencing them to jail sends a better message than slapping their wrist and sending them to a rehabilitation center, which in an ideal world sounds great but odds say they will end up right back where they were.

3. You dont see many alcoholics robbing people for money but just watch an episode and you will see an alcoholic hick beating his wife.

4. Drug addicts dont rob people because its illegal but rather a different type of high which will incite such behavior. Legalizing this stuff sounds like a great idea.

5. Cigarettes have hardly any immediate effect whereas drugs cause lapses in judgement and hinder motion functions.

6. Alcoholics arent chasing that first high that every addict is. Drug addicts begin to use more once their body becomes more resistant from the body becoming more tolerant.

7. Legalizing drugs wont make people less prejuidice, less hateful, or less materialistic so i dont even know what you were going on about.

[Love As Arson]

1. Not everything the govt does needs to be profitable and just because you disagree with it doesnt mean its pointless.
I think the government does have profitability in mind when it comes to legislation like this. The cultural connection also plays a role, but the fact that profit would mostly be collected in third world countries is something of a concern to the US.


2. Just because incarcerated individuals are nonviolent offenders they still broke the law. I do think sentencing them to jail sends a better message than slapping their wrist and sending them to a rehabilitation center, which in an ideal world sounds great but odds say they will end up right back where they were.
Rehabilitation must be made the priority, and there is evidence that it works when it is given primacy. The problem, however, is those without wealth are sentenced to prison, a place in which drugs are readily available and not looked down upon as a norm. If we truly desire to help addicted individuals, then it seems logical that we would not put them in such a place.

Are you going to vote for that guy from Alaska?
I'll probably vote for Nader.

[thejetstolehome]

6. Alcoholics arent chasing that first high that every addict is. Drug addicts begin to use more once their body becomes more resistant from the body becoming more tolerant.



oh come on, every drinker does the same exact thing with booze.

[statonscarlet]

Honestly if someone is going to want to do cocaine or not i dont think they are really going to care if its legal or not. People who decide to do coke it most cases arent really always in the right state of mind if they want to do it in the first place. So with that said would having it be legal make that much of a difference. You already think that people dont do pot and drive. Thats like saying people dont drink and drive.

[open mind]

1. Not everything the govt does needs to be profitable and just because you disagree with it doesnt mean its pointless.

2. Just because incarcerated individuals are nonviolent offenders they still broke the law. I do think sentencing them to jail sends a better message than slapping their wrist and sending them to a rehabilitation center, which in an ideal world sounds great but odds say they will end up right back where they were.

3. You dont see many alcoholics robbing people for money but just watch an episode and you will see an alcoholic hick beating his wife.

4. Drug addicts dont rob people because its illegal but rather a different type of high which will incite such behavior. Legalizing this stuff sounds like a great idea.

5. Cigarettes have hardly any immediate effect whereas drugs cause lapses in judgement and hinder motion functions.

6. Alcoholics arent chasing that first high that every addict is. Drug addicts begin to use more once their body becomes more resistant from the body becoming more tolerant.

7. Legalizing drugs wont make people less prejuidice, less hateful, or less materialistic so i dont even know what you were going on about.

1.it's very profitable for alot of companies to have the government warehouse people.
2.jail makes those odds even more stacked in favor of people ending up right where they started. there's a reason why they call it a revolving door.
3.you do see alcoholics robbing people for money
4.if drugs were legal they wouldn't cost nearly as much and there would be way less need to rob people for cash to get high as a result. the fact that they are illegal is what makes them so expensive.
5.cigarettes have very immediate effects when the nicotine that's in them hits the bloodstream. people do get violent when they get cut off from cigarettes against thier will from time to time.
6.the human body adapts to alcohol just like it does to every other drug.
7.if they are legalized and society takes the approach of education and rehabilitation rather then condemnation concerning drugs there will be less prejuidice and hate, simply because people in general will have a better understanding of addiction.

[ghostyouare]

oh come on, every drinker does the same exact thing with booze.
On a very moderate level. Either way, Alcohol doesnt have the same damaging effects as illegal drugs. Alcohol may make you hung over but it doesnt make you lose your appetite for 2 or 3 days.

[thejetstolehome]

On a very moderate level. Either way, Alcohol doesnt have the same damaging effects as illegal drugs. Alcohol may make you hung over but it doesnt make you lose your appetite for 2 or 3 days.

please don't downplay the effects of alcoholism to proove your point.

[ghostyouare]

1.it's very profitable for alot of companies to have the government warehouse people.
2.jail makes those odds even more stacked in favor of people ending up right where they started. there's a reason why they call it a revolving door.
3.you do see alcoholics robbing people for money
4.if drugs were legal they wouldn't cost nearly as much and there would be way less need to rob people for cash to get high as a result. the fact that they are illegal is what makes them so expensive.
5.cigarettes have very immediate effects when the nicotine that's in them hits the bloodstream. people do get violent when they get cut off from cigarettes against thier will from time to time.
6.the human body adapts to alcohol just like it does to every other drug.
7.if they are legalized and society takes the approach of education and rehabilitation rather then condemnation concerning drugs there will be less prejuidice and hate, simply because people in general will have a better understanding of addiction.
2. Over half of all addicts will relapse. I dont see a financial benefit, only a social benefit of having a culture feel good about themselves for continually giving second chances.

3. Im not defending alcohol but trying to compare an illegal substance to a legal one to try to prove its value isnt the strongest route to take. Hell, youre really just making a claim for prohibition rather than legalization of drugs.

4. If drugs were legal than quality would increase and prices would stay the same if not raised. <3 sin tax.

5. Excuse me, I meant to say cigs have an immediate effect but not a powerful one like weed or coke. You are a fully functional being after a cig compared to some one after a joint.

6. On a very moderate level. Either way, Alcohol doesnt have the same damaging effects as illegal drugs. Alcohol may make you hung over but it doesnt make you lose your appetite for 2 or 3 days.

7. I think it is very dangerous grounds for a society to endorse drug use. Giving it the green light is absolutely the wrong message that I want my government to be sending.

[ghostyouare]

please don't downplay the effects of alcoholism to proove your point.
Are you saying a night of drinking is just as damaging as injecting crystal meth? Ya, Im sure alcohol fries the shit out of your brain in a matter of months like dropping E on a weekly basis.

[thejetstolehome]

Are you saying a night of drinking is just as damaging as injecting crystal meth? Ya, Im sure alcohol fries the shit out of your brain in a matter of months like dropping E on a weekly basis.

no, i'm not saying that.

[ghostyouare]

no, i'm not saying that.
I was just commenting on just the short-term immediate results of usage so I dont really think I downplayed alcohol at all.

[followtheformat]

1. Not everything the govt does needs to be profitable and just because you disagree with it doesnt mean its pointless.

2. Just because incarcerated individuals are nonviolent offenders they still broke the law. I do think sentencing them to jail sends a better message than slapping their wrist and sending them to a rehabilitation center, which in an ideal world sounds great but odds say they will end up right back where they were.

3. You dont see many alcoholics robbing people for money but just watch an episode and you will see an alcoholic hick beating his wife.

4. Drug addicts dont rob people because its illegal but rather a different type of high which will incite such behavior. Legalizing this stuff sounds like a great idea.

5. Cigarettes have hardly any immediate effect whereas drugs cause lapses in judgement and hinder motion functions.

6. Alcoholics arent chasing that first high that every addict is. Drug addicts begin to use more once their body becomes more resistant from the body becoming more tolerant.

7. Legalizing drugs wont make people less prejuidice, less hateful, or less materialistic so i dont even know what you were going on about.


1. No shit not everything the government does needs to be profitable. But the laws that are put in place by our government should benefit the people and protect society. In no way do the drug laws do this. Drugs are still easily accessible to almost anyone, and society is not safer by throwing drug users in jail. Someone else will step up to take their place, IMO mainly due to a lack of proper education about drugs and drug use, as well as straight up propaganda fed to us by good old Uncle Sam.

2.Oh so people should get sent to jail if they broke the law, regardless of the circumstances regarding the creation of the law or the fairness of the law in question? Sounds like the Fourth Reich to me.

3. Because many people become angry and violent when drunk you dumb fuck, that has nothing to do with laws, it has to do with the effects of the drug.

4. What are saying? Drug addicts rob people because using drugs makes you want to rob people? WTF? Are you retarded?

5. So does fucking alcohol, probably the worst of any drug, legal or illegal. Besides, I was making my point based on the DEA's standards for making a drug Schedule I; tobacco fits the criteria perfectly, yet it makes the government the only thing they truly care about: $$$

6. You're a complete idiot, and a tool as well. Tolerance doesn't develop in alcohol? Is that what you're saying? Alcohol is no different, it's a fucking dangerous drug, and just because Uncle Sam and society say that drinking is fine and safe doesn't mean shit.

7. Look around the internet, specifically erowid, and look at the mystical experiences people have had while on psychedelic mushrooms, LSD, or MDMA. Millions of people have had life changing experiences while on these drugs, many which state that it helped them gain an understanding of the important things in life, not taking things for granted, being open-minded and more understanding towards people, and being more peaceful.

Game,set,match. bitch.

[ghostyouare]

1. No shit not everything the government does needs to be profitable. But the laws that are put in place by our government should benefit the people and protect society. In no way do the drug laws do this. Drugs are still easily accessible to almost anyone, and society is not safer by throwing drug users in jail. Someone else will step up to take their place, IMO mainly due to a lack of proper education about drugs and drug use, as well as straight up propaganda fed to us by good old Uncle Sam.

2.Oh so people should get sent to jail if they broke the law, regardless of the circumstances regarding the creation of the law or the fairness of the law in question? Sounds like the Fourth Reich to me.

3. Because many people become angry and violent when drunk you dumb fuck, that has nothing to do with laws, it has to do with the effects of the drug.

4. What are saying? Drug addicts rob people because using drugs makes you want to rob people? WTF? Are you retarded?

5. So does fucking alcohol, probably the worst of any drug, legal or illegal. Besides, I was making my point based on the DEA's standards for making a drug Schedule I; tobacco fits the criteria perfectly, yet it makes the government the only thing they truly care about: $$$

6. You're a complete idiot, and a tool as well. Tolerance doesn't develop in alcohol? Is that what you're saying? Alcohol is no different, it's a fucking dangerous drug, and just because Uncle Sam and society say that drinking is fine and safe doesn't mean shit.

7. Look around the internet, specifically erowid, and look at the mystical experiences people have had while on psychedelic mushrooms, LSD, or MDMA. Millions of people have had life changing experiences while on these drugs, many which state that it helped them gain an understanding of the important things in life, not taking things for granted, being open-minded and more understanding towards people, and being more peaceful.

Game,set,match. bitch.
I love how youre the one supporting drugs and yet Im the tool. You are a classy individual.

I dont get the train of thought of: The government is greedy, theyd make so much money legalizing drugs...

Ive done damn near every drug i could get my hands on. Those experiences arent important to me in the least because they are just a disillusioned moments when what was fake seemed real. If you are to saying that we need drugs for valuable experiences than i think we should reevaluate our society and see why we need to crutch ourselves at the mercy of a $20 high.

Oh and fourth Reich, are you fucking my ass? I dont see whats not fair about banning drugs?

And for the love of God, stop comparing Cigs to drugs. I swear it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out the difference how its so easy to put them in seperate categories.

[Love As Arson]

Trevor, do you not think there is more value in treating this as a sickness, rather than a crime?

[Nevuk]

Are you saying a night of drinking is just as damaging as injecting crystal meth? Ya, Im sure alcohol fries the shit out of your brain in a matter of months like dropping E on a weekly basis.
I think the point was more that weed is less damaging than alcohol. I've seen a list somewhere of the lethality of all the drugs, from studies, and alcohol and cigarrettes were at around 8 and 10 out of 20 substances. Weed was like 15. So no, they aren't the most dangerous drugs, but they are more dangerous than illegal drugs, their legality makes no sense.

[open mind]

2. Over half of all addicts will relapse. I dont see a financial benefit, only a social benefit of having a culture feel good about themselves for continually giving second chances.

3. Im not defending alcohol but trying to compare an illegal substance to a legal one to try to prove its value isnt the strongest route to take. Hell, youre really just making a claim for prohibition rather than legalization of drugs.

4. If drugs were legal than quality would increase and prices would stay the same if not raised. <3 sin tax.

5. Excuse me, I meant to say cigs have an immediate effect but not a powerful one like weed or coke. You are a fully functional being after a cig compared to some one after a joint.

6. On a very moderate level. Either way, Alcohol doesnt have the same damaging effects as illegal drugs. Alcohol may make you hung over but it doesnt make you lose your appetite for 2 or 3 days.

7. I think it is very dangerous grounds for a society to endorse drug use. Giving it the green light is absolutely the wrong message that I want my government to be sending.

the rates of people who are re-incarcerated after thier initial realease from prison is also extremely high. at least when people get out of rehab they don't come out as better criminals.

if we can deal with alcohol and it's effect on society we should be able to deal with other drugs.

after prohibition the price of alcohol dropped quite a bit, and the organized crime element left the buisness.

a fairer comparison would be to compare marijuana to alcohol, and alcohol is alot more dangerous then marijuana.

alcohol fucks up the entire body..........and black outs from alcohol can result in long term, life changing troubles.

legalizing drugs isn't endorsing them anymore then legalizing alcohol was a government endorsement of alcohol.

[ghostyouare]

Trevor, do you not think there is more value in treating this as a sickness, rather than a crime?
If drugs were legalized do you think that rehabs would be packed?

[Love As Arson]

If drugs were legalized do you think that rehabs would be packed?
For some drugs, perhaps, for others, I am not so sure. In any case, I am not sure why addiction should be treated as a crime.

[ghostyouare]

For some drugs, perhaps, for others, I am not so sure. In any case, I am not sure why addiction should be treated as a crime.
My stance on marijuana isnt as strong as any other drug.

I suppose we wont see eye to eye on this seeing as im all for big government and youre not. I will agree that there would be responsible users but I dont think the benefits outweigh the risks or message that would be sent to the public. I believe there would be more irresponsible than not. I know not of any strong country with hard drugs legalized.

[open mind]

what risks outweigh the wasted time, money, and lives we already have with our current drug policy?

[open mind]

how could it even be considered 'responsible' for anyone to consume drugs in the first place?

"please drink responsibly"

"take medication only as prescribed"

[open mind]

taking medication for illness could hardly be likened to recreational drug use

it's consuming a drug

[Love As Arson]

My stance on marijuana isnt as strong as any other drug.

I suppose we wont see eye to eye on this seeing as im all for big government and youre not. I will agree that there would be responsible users but I dont think the benefits outweigh the risks or message that would be sent to the public. I believe there would be more irresponsible than not. I know not of any strong country with hard drugs legalized.
I am a social libertarian, but I believe government should have a large role in economic issues. My point is, we shouldn't put them in prison for drug-use, but rather we should treat them as health issue.

[thejetstolehome]

taking medication for illness could hardly be likened to recreational drug use

right 'cause people never get hooked onto painkillers or dependent on sleep aids or anti-depressants?

[open mind]

at that point, when people begin using the medications when they are not needed, it clearly becomes recreational drug use. anyway, you're picking isolated instances - there are failures and pitfulls in everything and one could pick out these negative aspects covering nearly any topic/issue.

do you have any idea how many people die each year from prescription medication and how many are addicted?

[Love As Arson]

The findings follow a 2005 federal report that found prescription-drug abuse increased 42.5 percent nationwide between 2001 and 2005.

That report, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said that in 2005, 11.4 million people had abused prescription drugs in the past 12 months, up from 8 million in 2001.

Dart said contracts with private buyers of the data prohibit the release of specific age and regional information.

He did say people between 20 and 30 years old account for the greatest share of prescription-drug abuse.

Typically, teenagers start out by snatching the pills from their parents' medicine cabinets, Dart said.

If they become addicted, they often then turn to some of the extensive networks that exist to get the drugs from doctors, pharmacists and wholesale suppliers.

While addiction to the drug OxyContin has gotten a lot of attention, Dart said the data show all prescription painkillers are abused and that no one drug is more a problem than any other.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5962801?source=poll

[open mind]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5962801?source=poll

here are some numbers from 2000 to show you what those numbers have risen from
http://stopaddiction.com/narconon_drugs_prescription_abuseup .html

[open mind]

so because people are able to (and at times, do) become addicted to the medications they are issued in order to combat illness, we can now liken medically issued medication to recreational drugs. i'm not buying that.

medication kills more people then all illegal drugs combined.

[Jason Tate]

An Empirical Analysis of Imprisoning Drug Offenders (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KuziemkoLevitt2004.pdf).

Interesting economic paper on a related topic.

[ghostyouare]

hahah this is ridiculous.

Just because some one is issued a prescription doesnt mean they really need one. There are addicts out there abusing the system. If it isnt legal meds then they would find something else. If some one has a legitiment reason to be taking the medicines then why does it matter if he is addicted? He NEEDS it. Addiction doesnt negate the validity.

[open mind]

hahah this is ridiculous.

Just because some one is issued a prescription doesnt mean they really need one. There are addicts out there abusing the system.







If some one has a legitiment reason to be taking the medicines then why does it matter if he is addicted? He NEEDS it. Addiction doesnt negate the validity.




huh?


.......anyways.....my point was there are responsible ways to take drugs and that legal drugs cause more harm then illegal ones.............and it's not because people can't get illegal drugs.

[fromoc2dc]

One of the problems with completely legalizing marijuana is that a majority of society wouldn't want to see marijuana pushed and marketed the same way as beer and cigarettes. If pot was legalized, then billboards would spring up saying "buy pot next exit" and there would be commercials and all that. My favorite solution that I've heard is: make it legal to grow it for personal use and smoke it, but make it illegal to sell it. People will still end up selling it, but at least they won't be able to advertise openly.

Of course another solution is setting strict limits on where marijuana can be sold and how it can be advertised, but I have a feeling that would severely challenge freedom of speech since it would have to be even more restrictive than with alcohol and tobacco.

[zombiebrains]

but if you legalize drugs and sell them in stores what will happen to the sail of flu medications and cleaning supplies? i dont know about you but there is nothing quite like meth cooked up at home :shrug:

[open mind]

If you can drink responsible you can definately smoke weed responsibly.

that's what i was gonna say if no one else had yet.