Agreed! 150% Aramike. Crack is a killer and the most addictive.

Well, nicotine is more addictive than crack. Variable evidence on the subject but most studies tend to put nicotine at the top.

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it.

But perhaps legalizing everything but crack cocaine could be an alternative. Maybe potential crack users would settle for the more readily available and cheaper legal drugs?

It is not a narcotic but Tchocky is correct. Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine from what I have read and heard.

Crack is like $2.00 for a few rocks and as I understand it the high lasts a long time. Can't get much cheaper than that for the high they receive from it.

I am a smoker and even I think your statement is wrong. Nicotine is an alkaloid which is highly addictive and acts as a stimulant in mammals.

I don't dispute that.

However, it is not a drug that induces a near complete loss of mental faculty such as crack. Furthermore, the physical withdrawal symptoms of nicotine are extremely short-lived, unlike most drugs medically/legally considered narcotics.Exactly. Erm, narcotics, medically speaking, are drugs that numb the senses. Nicotine is NOT a narcotic.

Besides, whats your point? That nicotine is as bad as crack? :doh:

I have no problem with people sustaining medical problems due to drug use. What I *DO* have a problem with is people getting health care on the public dime for these inevitable medical problems because their crack habit leaves them broke. I *DO* have a problem with endangering all of our safety by making crack available to people who'd literally do ANYTHING for it.

Furthermore, it is a FACT that legalizing an activity causes more of that activity to occur.

Certain types of drugs are so inherently dangerous that legalizing them in the name of "liberty" puts all of us at risk.

Also, I don't have a problem with the so-called War on Drugs ... just with how its being fought.

No, was a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were trying to say that nicotine is not a drug at all. My bad.

Gotcha! :ping:

Neither is crack cocaine.

Sure it is. It's a local anesthethic, although you are right - it isn't medically considered a narcotic.

But, it IS legally considered one.

Nicotine isn't considered a narcotic at all.

Seeing as you do not want to play, I will still answer yours. This becomes the lesser of two evils. You baited it by giving the pot head an occaisional toke and the other is a drunkard. Obviously I would go with the occaisional pothead.

Well, this does explain things Steve.....:D Do you get the munchies still?

I have the same objections, which is why I advocate the phased abolishment of Federal Healthcare and support the encouragement of private gun ownership. As with most things, I favor a de-centralized, libertarian approach.
However, if we were to look at potential healthcare costs for drug users in a legalized drug system, with the same healthcare system we have now, I suspect that the funding that could be taken from the Drug War would more than make up the difference. Using a very rough estimate from the DEA annual Budget (approx. 2.5 billion, I used wikipedia, I was in a hurry and that was one of the lowest figures) and statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics citing 9.4 million illicit drug users in the workforce
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm (and 14 billion in additional costs, rounded to 11.5 billion as a conservative estimate of shared costs)
and the average amount of dollars spent on U.S. Healthcare per person (about $7,000. I used wiki again, short on time:damn:) I have concluded that about 7 billion would need to be spent annually if every single one of them required government healthcare for drug related problems. While imprecise, this is the estimate I came up with that was most in favor of your argument about healthcare costs.
I have thus far been unable to find statistics about the average cost drug users incur upon the healthcare system, but then again, I'm assuming that all drug users need the national average in healthcare cost. We can agree that this is a conservative estimate in your favor, yes? The cost to the workforce alone would be around 9 billion, not including other groups, but then we also aren't factoring in private insurance, which covers more than half of the nation.
Is it? I have graphs concerning Prohibition period if you want to see them. I also have a wealth of data on gun-control and murder rates that might be applied. I'm sure you have some supporting your case as well. Present them and I'll present my counter-arguments. My prohibition graphs concern average alcohol consumption per person, arrests for public intoxication per capita, and some of the later drug surveys. Admittedly, none of these are perfect because of typical statistical innacuracies, but neither are yours.
That is true, but risk is part of what makes a free society free, is it not? Honestly I'm a little astonished that you would put forth such an argument. For all the harms that drug abuse has caused, surely you must see that the harms of the state are, will be, and have been, much greater. I have already posited the point that private industry is a much more effective, efficient, and beneficial regulator.
What would you have us do?

Pursuant to my last question, how would it be fought more effectively? It is easy to postulate as to how it might be done, but it is nigh impossible to deny that the state is not the answer, or to formulate an effective state remedy.
I am curious to see how you would like to see such a war persecuted.

Take a look at amsterdam are they all gone insane with lustful desires & on the brink of killing each other cause of cannibis? Nope didn't think so either.

http://home.deds.nl/~quip/amstercrime.html

Perhaps not insane, but it isn't exactly the most pleasant place at night...

Does not sound at all diferent to anywhere else I have been.

By Dutch standards it's pretty bad. :haha:

Nice article "tackling drug related crime", even if it's in favor of legalization. :D

*edit; some interesting observations.