Is the war on drugs really worth it?

[spartacus2002]

If you look at countries that have experimented with legalization or decriminalization, I think you'll find that in the areas drug use was concentrated, crime actually rose. Most street cops will probably tell you that they're not as concerned about dealing with the dealers as they are with their everyday dealings with those who are using ... which is where most of your criminal activity comes from -- shoplifting, burglaries, prostitution, armed robberies, muggings, mail theft, identity theft, vandalism, assault, even rape and welfare fraud. No matter how inexpensive drugs are, regular users and addicts will still need a way to pay for them.

Bottom line: legalization is not a panacea for eliminating drug-related crime.

I'd rather have that slightly increased level of street crime than have no-knock raids, asset forfeitures, and all the other 4th-amendment-wrecking government behavior we have now.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'd rather have that slightly increased level of street crime than have no-knock raids, asset forfeitures, and all the other 4th-amendment-wrecking government behavior we have now.

Yes, freedom has its price. And though the price of freedom is as high as ever, its value seems to be atan all time low.

 

[Michigander]

If you look at countries that have experimented with legalization or decriminalization, I think you'll find that in the areas drug use was concentrated, crime actually rose.

Hmm. I looked and found:

According to the available research, little or no increase in marijuana or other drug use has been shown under decriminalization, nor have adolescent attitudes changed as a result. It was noted that the Netherlands saw a significant increase in marijuana use among 18 to 20 year-olds between 1984 and 1992, a time in which the number of coffeeshops selling cannabis in Amsterdam increased tenfold. However, Dutch heroin and cocaine use have not increased, and crime rates have not increased because of the policy. In fact, it appears that fewer Dutch cannabis users go on to use cocaine, possibly because the quasi-legal cannabis market is separated from the illicit hard drug market.

(emphasis added)
source: http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/14/1412.html

Here's more interesting reading: http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.dutch.html

 

[Old Dog]

Well, Michigander ... I'll stand by that statement. If you like to use Google, you can find any number of articles, studies and reports of hearings with factoids to support almost any argument. At any rate, your basic pothead is certainly part of the more benign drug scene and typically isn't the cause of most drug crime. I think what most of us are concerned about are the drugs methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine and ecstasy, the mileau in which they're used and the problems associated with their abuse and addiction ... However, let's look at the concept of "harm reduction" and legalization or government management of the hard drug scene. No one should argue, for example, that Switzerland's "Needle Park" was a miserable failure. In fact, it pretty much convinced the Swiss that legalization of hard drugs was not the answer. Those who've been there remember well that Amsterdam and Zurich in the mid-90s had a lot of areas you didn't want to visit with your children ...

I find it interesting that all the countries that experiment with, or propose widespread decriminalization or outright legalization of drugs are countries that already provide addicts with a wide array of government benefits, in which their welfare programs not only enable addiction by shielding addicts from the consequences of their actions, but also pay for and provide their drugs, further encouraging dependency on public largesse.

I'd rather have that slightly increased level of street crime than have no-knock raids, asset forfeitures, and all the other 4th-amendment-wrecking government behavior we have now.

Well, everyone must do their own cost-benefit analysis ... For many of us, the increase in crime (though I personally doubt that it'd be only "slightly increased") would be worth it to see the full restoration of rights that should be unquestioned. For society overall, the cost might be steep. Frankly, I puzzle at those of you who rant daily about taxes, welfare, illegal immigration, the federal bureaucracy, increased government intervention in your lives, yet espouse things such as drug legalization which will lead only to more taxes, more folks on the welfare rolls (is it more expensive to house someone in the state penitentiary or pay them welfare benefits?), doubtless more illegal residents, more bureacracy and more nanny-statism ...

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Tensions between the two countries have risen after Venezuela stopped assisting the U.S. in their War against Drugs.

Go Venezuela! It's sad to see that we have to rely on foreigners to defend our freedom, but so be it. Maybe my next vacation will be there so I can support them with my tourist dollars.

I'm glad that they deported their resident DEA agents. All the rest of South America should follow their example. I wouldn't want Venezuelan cops coming to the US to enforce Venezuelan laws on me. They shouldn't put up with that kind of thing either.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Frankly, I puzzle at those of you who rant daily about taxes, welfare, illegal immigration, the federal bureaucracy, increased government intervention in your lives, yet espouse things such as drug legalization which will lead only to more taxes, more folks on the welfare rolls (is it more expensive to house someone in the state penitentiary or pay them welfare benefits?), doubtless more illegal residents, more bureacracy and more nanny-statism ...

It seems logical that those who rant daily about taxes, welfare, etc. would also say that drug addicts should not be allowed on the welfare roles (if anyone should). In today's world, one cannot be addressed without the other. That is, part of the exit plan for the War on Drugs has to include defenses for our welfare system (or a concurrent exit strategy there, as well).

 

[NHBB]

I am not for all out drug legalization. I am however for the motion of making marijuana legal or at least a compromise... as a ticketable offense like a parking ticket if partaking in public and such. the ramifications for something as innocent as a little weed are just ridiculous. try getting federal loans for college with a simple posession charge, my brother ruined his college future like that, but was able to get the charge expunged and can now afford higher learning.

I smoked when I was a kid, and today I am a self employed white collar professional. On the flip side, I don't believe heroin, coke etc. should be legalized, I have seen it destroy many lives and be the influence for a large amount of violent crime. Rarely have I ever seen violence play into a marijuana transaction in my experiences growing up.

 

[GunGoBoom]

[didn't read all the intervening pages; just answering the initial question]

Is the war on drugs really worth it?

Thank you for asking. That's the no-brainer to end all no-brainers. Of course, clearly it's not worth it. (A) It hasn't worked. It's an absolute dismal failure - drug use is still rampant, (B) it increases crime because it makes selling drugs quite profitable, and the merchants of the contraband must use violence (crime) as their tool of enforcement, since they don't have access to the courts for enforcement of their contracts, (C) The monetary / taxation cost and burden on us as taxpayers to prosecute this war is ENORMOUS. (D) The cost to us as citizens of lost or eroded civil rights is ENORMOUS. So it's a lose-lose. Not a win-win. Not a win-lose or lose-win. It's a lose-lose.

I hate drugs (including alcohol and tobacco). I despise them. I don't use them, think anyone who does is young and ignorant of their longterm effects, or a moron, and I avoid even prescription narcotics like the plague. I have personally seen the devastating effects of drug use (including alcohol). It's a scourge on society, without a doubt. But it's an absolute non-sequitor to conclude that because drugs are bad (they really are), that the war on (some) drugs makes sense. Because it doesn't REDUCE drug use. It targets the wrong drugs (alcohol is by far the most dangerous and costs society the most money, lives, and misery).

The solution is something like this...this would actually reduce drug use. Take the entire federal budget of homeland security, FBI, Customs, DEA, younameit - any and all federal and state alphabet soup budget portions that are allocated in whole or part to fighting the war on some drugs. Cut that budget by THREE-FOURTHS. Slash and cut the vast majority of alphabet soup LEOs, their offices and toys. Let them run on the remaining 1/4ths of the budget, for enforcing other crimes. Take this 3/4ths of budgets, give half of that back to the people via a tax cut. Take the other half and spend it on EDUCATING our youth on how bad drugs can screw up their lives, and subsidizing/providing TREATMENT centers for the general public, for people who are hooked on drugs, and want desperately to get off of them and run a productive life. Then, we'd have much more money in our pockets, less crime on the streets, much more civil liberties, true to the Constitution, and much less drug use. We should also de-criminalize pot.

 

[javafiend]

For many of us, the increase in crime ...

Actually there is reason to believe that we would see a strong decrease in crime, just as we did after we ended alcohol prohibition. Do you notice how the Budweiser distributor and Coors distributor never fight it out over turf? Drug dealers cannot take their business disputes to court for adjudication, hence the violence associated with the black market distribution of drugs.

Almost all "drug-related crime" is a product of the black market. Eliminate the black market through decriminalization, and the concomitant crime with also disappear.

See Drug Library.

No one should argue, for example, that Switzerland's "Needle Park" was a miserable failure. In fact, it pretty much convinced the Swiss that legalization of hard drugs was not the answer.

I think you mean that no one would argue that it was NOT a failure. That's what you mean, right?

While the Swiss Government admits that "Needle Park" was not the best approach to the problem, they have since instituted heroin maintenance programs for addicts which are quite successful. See this article about Switzerland. Once again, the Swiss are quite sensible.

If you look at countries that have experimented with legalization or decriminalization, I think you'll find that in the areas drug use was concentrated, crime actually rose.

A hundred years ago one could buy extract of cannabis and opium over the counter. There were no drug cartels, no shoot-outs over turf, no gangs of young homies with huge wads of cash holding entire neighborhoods in thrall.

And then the "progressives" gave us the war on drugs through passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. Nevermind that our country had gotten along just fine without a drug war for the previous 138 years of its history.

The same "progressive" spirit later gave us alcohol prohibition in 1919 and the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And it really is the same spirit that thinks "my neighbor cannot be trusted with a bong, he'll just go crazy and destroy the neighborhood" as "my neighbor cannot be trusted with a gun, he'll just go crazy and shoot up the neighborhood."

 

[Old Dog]

Actually there is reason to believe that we would see a strong decrease in crime, just as we did after we ended alcohol prohibition. Do you notice how the Budweiser distributor and Coors distributor never fight it out over turf? Drug dealers cannot take their business disputes to court for adjudication, hence the violence associated with the black market distribution of drugs.

Did you happen to read my previous post? You're reiterating an idea already brought up, to which I said:

But, get past the concept of drug-trade violence for a moment and understand that the real crime problem is caused by those people using drugs

I think you mean that no one would argue that it was NOT a failure. That's what you mean, right?

Thank you, yes.

While the Swiss Government admits that "Needle Park" was not the best approach to the problem, they have since instituted heroin maintenance programs for addicts which are quite successful. See this article about Switzerland. Once again, the Swiss are quite sensible.

Old news, and applies mainly to the marijuana issue -- the "harm reduction" measures for heroin maintenance is also old news; the real issue is that the Swiss rejected legalization of the hard drugs.

And it really is the same spirit that thinks "my neighbor cannot be trusted with a bong, he'll just go crazy and destroy the neighborhood" as "my neighbor cannot be trusted with a gun, he'll just go crazy and shoot up the neighborhood."

And that, my friend, is an entirely fallacious argument. Owning a gun is the same as owning a tool -- the gun, or the tool does not influence or control your behavior, nor does it diminish your capacity to think or kill brain cells. Drugs do.

 

[javafiend]

Old Dog wrote:

Old news, and applies mainly to the marijuana issue -- the "harm reduction" measures for heroin maintenance is also old news; the real issue is that the Swiss rejected legalization of the hard drugs.

Did you know that in Switzerland, addicts can get heroin by prescription?

"Legalization" doesn't necessarily mean that heroin is sold in vending machines, or given away by the government. It means disconnecting the link between addict and the criminal drug cartel. There are any number of ways to decriminalize drugs, and just about any way would be better than the current war on (some) drugs.

But, get past the concept of drug-trade violence for a moment and understand that the real crime problem is caused by those people using drugs

What are you basing this statement on?

"The drug war is responsible for at least half of our serious crime." Steven B. Duke, Law of Science and Technology Professor at Yale Law School. He is co-author, with Albert C. Gross, of America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade against Drugs (Tarcher/Putnam, 1993).

Owning a gun is the same as owning a tool -- the gun, or the tool does not influence or control your behavior, nor does it diminish your capacity to think or kill brain cells. Drugs do.

I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases, advocates of the war on drugs and the war on drugs demonize an entire class of people based on the misbehaviour of a small number of people within that class. Therefore, *all* members of the class - even the ones who responsibly and peacefully engage in their hobby - must be persecuted, indicted, dispossessed, etc.

As illustration, let's rewrite your sentence. "Understand that the real crime problem is caused by those people owning guns." Guns - especially scary-looking EBGs - make people do bad things. Drugs - especially exotic drugs associated with foreigners - make people do bad things. It's reefer madness all over again. Compare hemp, coca, opiates, PCP, LSD with alcohol. Only one of these drugs is criminogenic.

In Switzerland, cannabis can be purchased over the counter in pharmacies and health food stores throughout the country. No prescription is required, it's right there on the shelf with the shampoo and the vitamin C. Heroin is available by prescription. Compare that to the endless war on drugs in the US.

Guess which country is safer? Which country has a lower crime rate?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Old Dog,

You're banning something based on it's potential value regarding crime, and that is why the previous analogy is appropriate.

By your logic we should ban alcohol (that didnt work out so well either) and any prescription meds that have potential side effects (just about all of them).

 

[Old Dog]

What are you basing this statement on?

Let's go back to my previous post, again ...

Most street cops will probably tell you that they're not as concerned about dealing with the dealers as they are with their everyday dealings with those who are using ... which is where most of your criminal activity comes from -- shoplifting, burglaries, prostitution, armed robberies, muggings, mail theft, identity theft, vandalism, assault, even rape and welfare fraud. No matter how inexpensive drugs are, regular users and addicts will still need a way to pay for them.

to which you responded:

"The drug war is responsible for at least half of our serious crime." Steven B. Duke, Law of Science and Technology Professor at Yale Law School. He is co-author, with Albert C. Gross, of America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade against Drugs (Tarcher/Putnam, 1993).

Of course it is. But let's not continue confusing:
Economic-Related Drug Crime:
Those crime committed by drug users in order to support additional drug use. According to Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997, nineteen percent (19%) of State prisoners and sixteen percent (16%) of Federal inmates reported that they committed their most current offense to obtain money for drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). The percent of jail inmates who committed their offense to get money for drugs totaled about thirteen (13%). Among those inmates who committed their offense to obtain money for drugs, almost twelve percent (12%) committed violent offenses and nearly twenty-five percent (25%) committed property offenses (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997)
and Victim/Offender Use-Related: These crimes include those that are consequential to the ingestion of a drug by the victim or offender, causing irrational or violent behavior. This includes perpetration of a crime against a victim by the offender, as well as self-victimization due to mood changes initiated by substance abuse. Such crimes also include crimes committed by individuals experiencing withdrawal symptoms--such as high levels of anxiety and irritability--and intentional ingestion of a drug to "relieve anxieties and stimulate courage" in preparation for acts of violence (Goldstein, Brownstein, & Ryan, 1992).
with
System-Related Drug Crimes: These crimes include those that directly or indirectly related to the system of drug trafficking and distribution, which frequently tend to be associated with the commission of violent crimes. Therefore, these include not only violations such as drug possession and/or manufacturing, but also crimes of violence resulting from dealings between drug dealers, competition for drug markets and customers, disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market, drug deals gone bad, identification of informers or undercover law enforcement officials, etc. Murder as a means of enforcing systemic codes, killing of informants, injury or death resulting from disputes over drug possession, territory, etc., are all included in this definition (Goldstein, Brownstein, & Ryan, 1992).

Perhaps legalization will work to reduce the drug-trade crime, but drug-related crime that we see now, we shall still see should drugs be legalized ...
Some random facts:
- The percentage of state prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense was almost thirty-three percent (33%) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
- In Albuquerque, New Mexico and Chicago, Illinois, close to thirty percent (30%) of males arrested and forty percent (40%) of females arrested in 1999 tested positive for more than one drug at the time of arrest (National Institute of Justice, 2000).
- An estimated 61,000 (16%) of convicted jail inmates committed their offense to get money for drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
- 24.5 percent (24.5%) of Federal and 29 percent (29%) of State prison inmates reported being under the influence of drugs when committing violent offenses.
- 10.8 percent (10.8%) of Federal and 36.6 percent (36.6%) of State inmates reported being under the influence of drugs while committing property offenses.
- 25 percent (25%) of Federal and 41.9 percent (41.9%) of inmates reported being under the influence of drugs when committing drug offenses.
- 24.4 percent (24.4%) of Federal and 22.4 percent (22.4%) of State prison inmates reported being under the influence of drugs when committing weapon offenses.
- The 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees reported that the median rate of any drug use among adult male arrestees for both 1998 and 1999 was sixty-four percent (64%). For adult female arrestees, the median rate of any drug use in 1999 was sixty-seven percent (67%)
(National Institute of Justice, 2000).

Now --

As illustration, let's rewrite your sentence. "Understand that the real crime problem is caused by those people owning guns." Guns - especially scary-looking EBGs - make people do bad things. Drugs - especially exotic drugs associated with foreigners - make people do bad things. It's reefer madness all over again. Compare hemp, coca, opiates, PCP, LSD with alcohol. Only one of these drugs is criminogenic.

No -- your comparison does not pass a simple logic test. While you may compare peoples' attitudes toward drugs with peoples' attitudes toward guns, and there may be similar feelings toward each, they are not the same. Again, ownership of a weapon does not presume criminal intent to use the weapon, nor does it presuppose that the owner will criminally use the weapon. Whereas, drug abuse is statistically shown to be an underlying factor in commission of crimes (not even including the fact that in most cases, the possession and use of the drug itself is a crime, whereas gun ownership is, for the most part, perfectly legal). I'm not sure why so many gun-owners are so willing to compare gun ownership with drug abuse ... simply because there exist movements against both ...

 

[Glock Glockler]

I'm not sure why so many gun-owners are so willing to compare gun ownership with drug abuse ... simply because there exist movements against both

They don't, no one here advocates drug misuse or abuse in the slightest, we have a problem when people want to ban things based on potential. If I commit a crime using a gun or using drugs I should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent, but don't send the men in black balaclavas after me because I might misuse my gun or stash of X drug.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Criminals who are committing crimes of violence in conjunction with the drug trade, will not suddenly become the neighborhood hesher … if drugs are legalized. … [T]hey will find other crimes to commit. Why? Because they have no desire to make money legitimately, but rather want a quick buck.

What would criminals do in a society where the citizens were armed and the police were free to investigate actual crimes against people and property? I mean the ones that weren’t dead or incarcerated, that is.…

~G. Fink

 

[Firethorn]

For those who were talking about the failure of 'deregulated zones', 'needleparks', etc.

It's a ghettoization. The illegal cartels still get their money as providers. Drug users(abusers) are associated with higher crime rates. If you stuff all of them in one place, it'd be just like sticking all the low income one parent families in one spot. Crime is going to increase in that area.

As for welfare, petty crime, none of us calling for legalization believe that using should be possible for those on welfare, in prison, etc. Our best scenario is the same as cigarettes and alchohol. After work, on the weekend, whatever, the adult partakes of his chosen substance in a responsable manner. Those who don't, well, we'll nail for their illegal behavior, not the mere possesion.

Remember, most of us calling for legalization are libertarians, and if you check out our political beliefs, you'll see that ending the welfare state is right up there in the issues.

 

[zahc]

Whereas, drug abuse is statistically shown to be an underlying factor in commission of crimes

I'm going to assume you mean crimes other than doing drugs. Think about it...

I'm not afraid to say that I have many aquaintances that partake in illegal drugs, and the only crimes they commit are--doing the drugs. Your statement strikes me as bigoted and ignorant.

Just because YOU don't want to do drugs, or perhaps can't handle them in moderation or responsibly, doesn't mean there aren't others that can do both.

I'm an advocate of drug legalization because I believe in freedom. Not just for me.

 

[mnrivrat]

Wow ! Too many posts to read so I'll just chime in .


NO


In the first place , we are loosing it on every level I can think of. There is more drugs available now than ever before ,from what I see.

We are wasting billions of dollars on a problem that would likely have not gotten nearly as out of control if we had done nothing. We learned absolutely nothing from dealing with the war on alcohol that took place earlier.

 

[publius]

While you may compare peoples' attitudes toward drugs with peoples' attitudes toward guns, and there may be similar feelings toward each, they are not the same.

It's not just attitudes and feelings. It's laws. Drug precedents are applied to guns again and again. First it was the power to tax, later it was the commerce clause, and that one just happened again in the drug war, and was again applied in the gun war.

I'll quit my bitching when drug warriors quit stretching the Constitution in ways that wind up being applied to my guns, so take it up with them.

Again, ownership of a weapon does not presume criminal intent to use the weapon, nor does it presuppose that the owner will criminally use the weapon. Whereas, drug abuse is statistically shown to be an underlying factor in commission of crimes

For which illegal drug do we arrest the most people? Let's ask the FBI:

In 2003, 45 percent of the 1,678,192 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 755,186. Of those, 662,886 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is an increase from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.

Source.

So we would be overrun with crime if we decriminalized and regulated cannabis? That would cause more crime than keeping a thriving black market around has caused? I don't share your assessment.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Forgot to mention....the only harebrained scheme our gov't has cooked up which will fail even more spectacularly than the war on some drugs is this farce known as the war on terror - how does one win a war on a concept, for starters? But it does accomplish the politicians' objective of restricting the people's rights. So it certainly makes sense from their point of view.

 

[Old Dog]

It's not just attitudes and feelings. It's laws. Drug precedents are applied to guns again and again. First it was the power to tax, later it was the commerce clause, and that one just happened again in the drug war, and was again applied in the gun war.

Simply because the courts have applied the Commerce Clause to both drug and firearms cases does not make make the cause of drug legalization and the RKBA movement analogous. Drugs and guns are not similar in function. Has Congress passed laws that are unlawful extensions of its commerce power? Most definitely. The fact that the same precedents are often used is due to the widespread misapplication of the Commerce Clause, but drug cases are not being ruled on by the courts simply to set up subsequent government action to take away your guns.

So we would be overrun with crime if we decriminalized and regulated cannabis? That would cause more crime than keeping a thriving black market around has caused? I don't share your assessment.

Please review my previous posts. I addressed cannabis.

I'm not afraid to say that I have many aquaintances that partake in illegal drugs, and the only crimes they commit are--doing the drugs.

Sorry to hear that.

Your statement strikes me as bigoted and ignorant.

If I'm bigoted because I have no respect for those who use drugs, so be it. Ignorant? No -- but you may be. I strongly suspect you've no experience taking neglected children out of the homes of addicts or the ruins of clandestine meth labs, getting them medical treatment and arranging foster care. I strongly suspect you've never had to repeatedly arrest a 16-year-old crackhead prostitute who resembles your own teenage daughter, nor ever found an 18-year-old heroin addict lying dead (found after three days) in his own vomit. I strongly suspect you've never had to visit your brother in prison after his last conviction for burglaries committed to support his meth habit. I strongly suspect you've never been the victim of any crime committed by someone trying to get something to sell for money to support an addiction ... No -- I'm not ignorant, simply more experienced than you may be.

Just because YOU don't want to do drugs, or perhaps can't handle them in moderation or responsibly, doesn't mean there aren't others that can do both.

I was going to leave this silly statement alone ... but upon further review ... No, I don't want to do drugs, don't need to do drugs, and I simply don't care who out there is doing drugs ... As long as they're not teaching my children, driving a schoolbus, driving on the same public road with me or my family, working in a public safety position or building my house. Frankly, if you believe there are those who can "handle" drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine responsibly, get back to me in 20 years and tell me if you're still thinking that way ...

 

[Glock Glockler]

Old Dog,

I have addressed several points you made, feel free to respond.

I'm bigoted because I have no respect for those who use drugs, so be it. Ignorant? No -- but you may be. I strongly suspect you've no experience taking neglected children out of the homes of addicts or the ruins of clandestine meth labs, getting them medical treatment and arranging foster care. I strongly suspect you've never had to repeatedly arrest a 16-year-old crackhead prostitute who resembles your own teenage daughter, nor ever found an 18-year-old heroin addict lying dead (found after three days) in his own vomit

Oh, I get it, it's for the children. Well, I could simply point out that this is pure emotional spew and show the bodies of children killed as a result of "gun violence" and try to ban guns but I'd rather point out that 1) all of the above happen as a result of alcohol addiction, which I don't hear you railing against, and 2) that that prostitute could support her habit on a Burger King job were the price not artificially inflated due to the black market.

No, I don't want to do drugs, don't need to do drugs, and I simply don't care who out there is doing drugs ... As long as they're not teaching my children, driving a schoolbus, driving on the same public road with me or my family, working in a public safety position or building my house

Sounds good, but perhaps we can realize that putting drug users in jail is not productive. if you knew someone ho abused/misused alcohol would it be right to throw them in jail against their will, will they be better off for it?

 

[danhei]

Anyone who supports alcohol being legal while having other drugs illegal is, at best, inconsistent. Alcohol is a drug like any other and it is by far the most destructive to society.

 

[longrifleman]

I'm not ignorant, simply more experienced than you may be.

You have my sympathy for all the heartache and problems that drugs may have caused you, and this does help explain your perspective. I understand how these experiences can make it difficult to look objectively at the issue.

Unfortunately, facts aren't much affected by anyone's emotions. Drugs are a part of our society. No matter how much any of us would like to eliminate them, we are going to have to deal with them. The approach taken to this point hasn't worked very well, as the stories you told illustrate. The question is; are we going to continue doing the same, only harder, or are we going to try something else.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I’m an advocate of drug legalization because I believe in freedom.…

Well, that’s really the bottom line. I am for freedom, even if more freedom leads to an increase in crime. However, with the advent of modern firearms, I think this is much less likely than ever before in human history.

Think about why governments were instituted in the first place.

~G. Fink