You say that like it is a bad thing.
Who cares?
Why would you assume this? Part of the reason for the cost of illegal drugs is that they are illegal. Were most illegal drugs legal, they would cost FAR less. Heck, pot grows wild here for example.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

What if drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes were taxed and that money went to fun drug rehab clinics?

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Denmark legalized weed, and the police chief there said that - rather than a gateway drug, legal weed seems to close the gate. When people can get it legally, and are not exposed to other offers of other drugs, then they don't go on to other drugs. He said that addiction will be a problem of the past as soon as the current generation of older addicts dies off.

__________________
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

One can hope that democratic danish people who invested in the legal trade of weed will not sink in despair and drugs addiction when realizing they poorly invested their hard earned money.

(emphasis added)

This may be perfectly true, but the bolded part implies that there were still some restrictions on which drugs were legalized and which were not.
Can someone honestly think that addiction will ever be a "problem of the past" if cocaine and meth are for sale on the street corner?

The leaglization of marijuana is a very different question from the legalization of all substances.

Did I? No negative connotation was intended.

The government, I suppose.

Ok, then, scratch "impoverished" and that just leaves us with an increase of deperate addicts; more infact, if the price is lower. Still not a good thing.
And let's avoid thinking only of the relatively harmless drugs like pot. I might be able to get behind an attempt to legalize marijuana.
What about crack, heroine and meth? There aren't very many non-addicted crack users out there; the substance becomes addictive incredibly quickly.

So just think of it this way. We have a veritable war going on about cigerattes at the momenet. Some people want them banned (somethign I don't personally agree with) and but just about everyone is upset about them being advertised to highschoolers. EVERYONE knows cigerattes are dangerous, but that doesn't stop people from trying them and getting hooked. This is why we have an entire industry devoted to helping people kick the habit.
What happens if we promote all substances to the same level as nicotine (this assumes that we still impose severe legal restrictions). Here are some possible senarios:

We could be outraged that the big heroine makers were secretly gearing their campaigns to highschoolers. A bad smoking might be unhealthy for a kid, but it won't screw him up too bad: a bad crack problem will trash his education.

We can have "Meth" and "Non-meth" seating in resturants; only this time it'll really matter 'cause the "second hand crystal meth smoke" is addictive.

We can have a special industry devoted to desperately trying to help people end their serious addictions (many of these the unfortunate result of no more than a few hits of the drug...free samples?). Of course, while a determined person can almost always succeed in quitting cigerattes if they really try, the really bad drugs are incredibly difficult to completely quit, even with rehab.



In all honesty, my devotion to personal liberty stops just short of total legalization of all substances. I believe that the people, as a whole, have created and used these laws to protect themselves from themselves. If we know that we cannot be trusted to make the right choice when the decision comes, we can at least take steps to see that that decision doesn't come before us (or at least doesn't easily come before us).
Anti-drug laws (at least to some extent) were created by us to protect us from us; I'm not sure I'm ready to see that protection stripped away.

On the contrary, if one person injected morphine, they'd be comatose on the floor, or dead; if one person drank how many fights would they start in a pub? What's the chances of them getting into a car drunk and causing an accident and possibly maiming or killing another? Alcohol is a VERY dangerous drug, but we accept it in society for some reason, as being socially acceptable.

So should we then pass out life sentences to 'bad boys' that women can't seem to resist? And easy women, as well, especially those with a penchant for married men? And outlaw any number of other 'bad' things that people find hard to resist? (Hey, religion comes to mind!) Either people are considered responsible adults or they'll eventually be treated like children. We've apparently decided against the former, and we're well on our way towards the latter.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I think that either extreme (utterly unfettered personal liberty or complete state control) will, given time, destroy society.
Because of this I support something of a middle-ground view. The legalization of drugs that can be shown to be relatively harmless and the continued restriction of those deemed excessively harmful (either to individuals or to society in general).

Why do you even try? IMHO Steve's comment was as dumb as any one I have ever seen on this Forum.

We accwpt because the attempt tp outlaw it was as inept as the war on drugs, and led to a similarly pervasive disrespect for the law - as well as gang violence. This is one example of nanny govt we could do without. It makes no sense economically - and it ruins lives.

If we can't keep drugs out of prison, how can we expect to keep them out of a free society? If addiction is a medical problem, why do we currently jail addicts? And why is weed considered more dangerous than meth or heroine in the current drug classification system?

__________________
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

You said it - and quite well!!

__________________
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

Namaste,

If drugs were made legal would those on this forum who support it be willing to accept the inclusion of total voluntary muscle paralytic in all substances. I read this in a book and thought it an elegant solution to the many problems with legalization of drugs.

My primary concern with legalization is the effect on children and others. My personal experience with drugs is that they ruin lives and to pretend otherwise is to live in a dream world. Children living in a drug family are destroyed by the usage thereof. If you wanted to use drugs would you be willing to give up your reproductive rights to do so? You might have the right to ruin your own life but you don't have that right with regards to other people. I don't use drugs at all and never have. I don't even use alcohol even though I have done so minimally in the past. I watched my entire family, except for me, be destroyed by drugs and alcohol. I can walk around the low income housing project where my friend lives and see even more evidence. To imagine that drug legalization will make things better is to live in a completely fantasy life despite the short-term successes in other countries.

For Example:
In Peace,
David

__________________

The new democratic concept of happy addiction would certainly address the points.

The primary reason to decriminalize the manufacture, sale and possession of most of the currently illicit substances is to bring bring the current legal attitude back in line with constitutional principles.

As it is now, highly questionable practices and laws such as knock and announce, no-knock forced entry (which knock and announce is very similar to), RICO laws, exemption of police officers from criminal charges, the dramatic increase in SWAT and heavily armed task forces to conduct routine drug searches, asset forfeiture and all the corruption, growth in the prison industry (especially the private prison industry), connections of black market drug sales to international terrorism, and the glaring discrepancy in the minority representation of prisoners in the drug war are all far more valid reasons to eliminate the drug war than...

eh...it's not as bad as alcohol.

The mere recategorization of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II would alleviate many of the problems over the medical marijuana issue. Of course, a return to federalism would solve that issue as well and remove the power to write and enforce legislation from a non-elected government office, the DEA.

On the issue of taxpayer money for rehab. Removing the threat of jail or prison from drug users, releasing all current inmates in jails or prison for the sole charges of drug possession, manufacture or distribution, and allowing addicts to get help in rehab programs while fully employed ... the cost of taxpayer funded rehab for those who needed would be too small to care about. A more important question is whether such rehab is better. State funded rehab carries with it a lower reputation than such places as Hazelden, Betty Ford or Ridgeview. As a former patient at Ridgeview, you better be making a lot of money or have a great insurance from your employer. I was the latter.

Taxing drugs. Moot. What's the point? There is no gold mine in taxing illicit drugs. Marijuana could be easily grown and distributed in massive amounts. There might be a small bit to gain there but not even close to tobacco. Not to mention, what good would it do to tax the hell out of the drug and recreating a black market? Dumb idea. Taxing other drugs used by a fraction of the population. Once again pointless.

And my last point about taxpayer funded rehab or any thought of health care provided to individuals who have drug related health issues. Doesn't fly. Might as well remove all risk taking behavior, including poor diet, no exercise, riding a skateboard, any leisure activity an individual does not need but chooses to engage in. I wonder how much extra my premiums would be to pay for actuaries figuring all that crap out. Whole question truly detracts from the issue at hand.

The true issue is that in the name of protecting "children" from their own conscious decisions it has become the governments business to stretch the limits of the Constitution to degrade all of our rights. How many people here know that actual U.S. soldiers, not National Gaurd, have killed a U.S. citizen in this war on drugs? The aftermath, a settlement from one government entity in a civil lawsuit. I seem to recall from my civics classes that idea of using government military personnel to police society as a huge no-no with the concept of our representative republic.

Dangerous precedents have been set in this idiotic war on drugs. All arguments about relative danger between cocaine and alcohol, while still relevant in a basic discussion, have become moot in the more immediate need to address an institution going out of control. Basic liberty is the issue now.

edit: And with this long diatribe I'm here and gone again. Be back in another two months to rant about this same issue. Huzzah.