I guess it depends on what your definition of uncommon is. Is it looked at in the frequency of it or is it looked at in a percentage. I have a feeling if you looked at the percentages it would compose a very small percent. I realize there are mistakes that happen and there is corruption among the police. You do realize there are other crimes where all that happens that has nothing to do with drugs, right? So what is your solution?.....

Have no laws no prisons at all, whatsoever, because some people are killed or imprisoned wrongfully. We should just do away with trying to have a structured society.

That's what it's starting to sound like to me. We are a land of laws. While enforcing those laws there are some who get wrongfully accused/convicted/whatev. This is simply a statistical guarantee.

I have, in just a few minutes of consideration, given some suggestions on how we can help limit some of the problems with wrongfully accused (benefit of the doubt) and problems with our prisons (forced intensive labor). I don't know the efficacy of these suggestions but I think they would help. If I can come up with it, off-the-cuff, I think smarter people that put real time into it could come up with even better.

The next step is basically prevention. AKA what we can do to keep that from happening in the first place. One big step in the right direction has already been suggested with the securing of our boarders. Trust me, we can do it w/o much effort. There are many things we could do in addition to that.

So basically the reason why the War on Drugs is a bucket of fail (see? I agree with you there) is because we might be doing it in about the most ineffective and backasswards way possible.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

I am not upset, I am just annoyed at people who support a government policy which was allegedly created to help people, but has instead destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I think your argument is based on the fallacy of false cause concerning drugs, as a form of Commerce.

All of the social ills you enumerated can be attributed to a simple poverty of money. Would those individuals have engaged in that same behavior if they were not in official poverty?

I am of the opinion that they could be pursuing Happiness if they are not in official poverty even if they don't have a work ethic.

So because I don't address it I, therefore, support it?

How stupid...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

While you maybe correct to a certain degree, you cannot deny the fact that there are people with plenty of opportunity in their lives that get brought low by drugs. I've seen it happen to people I know. It wasn't poverty that put them there, it was the drugs. So a do refute the statement that all social ills can be blamed on poverty.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

How much of that is due to friction in that market?

If recreational drugs were legal, we could have better drug products and lower drug product prices. Drugs that impair the most could be taxed the most. Market based morality could be engendered that promotes the general welfare of the republic.

Currently, friction exists due to an extra-constitutional drug war, and its deleterious effect on morals. Therefore, it could still be due to a poverty of morals in pubic policy that engenders the social ills you mention regarding individuals addicted to some drugs.

Better morals in that market could render recreational drugs legal. Better drug products at lower drug prices could include drugs that are less addictive and more convenient to purchase.

With less addictive drugs available, addiction problems could be lessened by consumer preference, not the coercive use of force of the state and its tax burden.

Steve and fishjoel,
The only point I really wanted to make with you guys is that this "war on drugs" has become a quest for money and power. From Our government... State local and federal, down to the lowliest drug dealer, the war on drugs has been and still is a cash cow beyond your wildest dreams...And, all these participants are leaving a wake of suffering, death and loss. It may sound melodramatic to you, but it is the truth. You gentlemen appear to think that I'm blowing it out of proportion or it isnt as bad as I say....but it is much worse then I've let on. You continue to laugh it off or ignore it and you can count on the backlash eventually affecting you and yours....Believe it or not.

When asked to substantiate your position, you said that I am who I am (Slon), instead of actually pointing out where something I said led you to believe I didn't comprehend something. You don't believe that to be ad hominem?

Oh, it very well may be.

But it's also very accurate...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Generally, drugs don't do that if taken in moderation.I learned plenty. Specifically, that you are willing to ban drugs just as long as you aren't a fan of them. As soon as the conversation reaches drugs that you use (or ones that you think you may in the future), it's perfectly fine to keep them legal.I support your right to do so.I don't see a problem with it.

However, your complaint against drugs appears to stem from your fear of what people may do to themselves with the drugs, not of what they might do to others (which is the case with gun laws).

Accurate or not, it is still a logical fallacy, which demonstrates your inability to grasp logic (or perhaps refusal to use it).

But it's still accurate; you fail to comprehend things...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

So you admit that you don't have a grasp of logic? Okay.

oh sheesh you two...could you try and get past "nuh uh"..."yes huh" or "you are"..."no you are" please?

First, I would hope that you would notice that I don't "laugh off" the problem. It is very serious.

Second, it looks like I can read this in two different ways.

1. What I think you intended it to mean in that there should be no drug prohibition and it should be legal and regulated.

2. A different slant to reading what you wrote that would lean in my direction. The "war on drugs" is being carried out in an extremely faulty manner and there needs to be a huge reform on how we do it.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.