A lot of it, I would think, would have to do with the sources of the drugs.

These cartels have been operating for years, getting as much as possible for their product. They're not going to be too open to the U.S. Government stepping in and taxing the product, and making it more expensive for the end user.

They'll be under no obligation to sell to U.S. distirbutors (for lack of a better word), and their networks will continue to conduct business as usual.

Add to that the fact that whatever administration in office when it happens will almost certainly be known as the party advocating that Americans use drugs, and you've got a no-win situation...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Is that true on a percentage basis? I mean alcohol is used far, FAR more than any other drug.

The real question is, on an individual basis, someone who uses alcohol more or less likely to assault somone, get killed, or whatever than someone from the same background who uses cocaine or heroine or meth or whatever drug is being looked at.

The irony, of course, is that we keep the drugs illegal in order to 'keep them from the kids.'

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

Weed is illegal because they can't preven people from growin it - which would greatly lessen demand for many legal drugs.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

All one has to do is look at how many bar room brawls, household assaults, etc occur each and every day all over the world. Alcohol is by FAR the more detrimental drug.

Ah, the free will argumentation.

Funnily enough, democratic people somehow introduce themselves as the protection champions of free will whereas they are -in acts and decisions- active promoters of substances depriving from free will or destroying free will.

The second part is that in their act of dissimulating, democratic people sell an information as an act of prohibition.
Most democratic governments if not all inform about the risks involved in drugs usage. Their actions towards reducing the actual consumption of drugs is rather low.
On the contrary, on many scenes exposed to large audiences like sports, it is well known that democratic governments only do the minimal to prevent usage of drugs by democratic sportsmen, only what is needed to save a face actually.

Democratic governments inform about risks of doing drugs. Yes.
Democratic governments doing stuff to prevent consumption. No.
On the contrary, one could easily go the other way: democratic government allowing drugs consumption.

Is this that really hard to do drugs in democratic countries nowadays?

Only 9 uses of the word "democratic" in that post! You're getting better.

It's really a cultrual issue. Alcohol was the drug of choice for most europeans. Marijuana was associated with mexicans, opium with orientals, and cocaine with (mostly southern) blacks. The laws against those drugs were originally (at least in part) aimed at suppression of those minority groups.

It is no more difficult to tax marijuana, cocaine, opium, or any other drug than it is to tax alcohol.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

But you see, that misses the point. Alcohol is also the FAR more prevelent drug (quite possibly because of its legal and cultural acceptence).

Consider this:
Cars are responsible for far, FAR more deaths than cocaine.
But that tells us nothing about whether we should legalize cocaine of ban cars.
The sheer prevelence of cars (and scarcity of cocaine) skews the data.
If we could prove that, on an individual basis, putting a person in a car was more likely to cause death than having a person use cocaine, then we might have something go on. But the numbers by themselves, without taking any account of the context, are meaningless.

A meaningful comparison would have to ask "On an individual basis, which is more likely to cause harm: a person drinking alcohol or a perosn using cocaine".
That still wouldn't tell you whether either one should be banned, but at least it would mean something.

Drink 6 fluid ounces of whiskey in one hour, and then inject 6 fluid ounces of morphine in one hour.

Alcohol is not the more detrimental...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Namaste,


This conclusion depends on how you specify a detrimental effect. In terms of short-term overdose then heroin would be more detrimental. However, the quantity of people using alcohol versus the quantity of people using morphine makes alcohol more significant in terms of detrimental effects. In other words, more people use and abuse alcohol than opiates and therefore alcohol has a more detrimental effect on society.

What would be the effect of injecting 6 ounces of whiskey directly into the bloodstream? I would hazard that both would make you just as dead.

In Peace,
David

__________________

Taken in that context, you are correct, but it is still a DUMB DUMB DUMB approach and virtually irrelevant.

It is getting more difficult.
Laws are created everyday, it seems. A bill awaits (probably) to lessen a freedom somewhere in America.
Alot of people are reactionaries: they cry and uncle sam gives them a tissue and a new mandate.

Less law = more freedom.

__________________

I fully support legalizing drugs and am fully against all taxpayer funded rehab.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

That is undoubtably the position most founded on personal liberty.
But is the best decision for the government? Wouldn't that naturally lead a massive increase in the number of impoverished, desperate addicts?