Carlos Santana to Obama...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

To me, making it legal for tax revenue does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning alcohol and drugs.

And to me, making it illegal does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning massive public debt, prison overcrowding, recidivism, violence, and having a nanny state.


I totally share you and Arclights' convictions about the harms of drugs, but the proof that such things cause more harm by being prohibited is all around us.

[Platapus]

I have to admit, this is an issue I am undecided on. Both sides make very good and valid arguments.

I am very happy that this has been a respectful and intelligent discussion with no ad hominem attacks.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

And to me, making it illegal does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning massive public debt, prison overcrowding, recidivism, violence, and having a nanny state.


I totally share you and Arclights' convictions about the harms of drugs, but the proof that such things cause more harm by being prohibited is all around us.

A few posts back I stated that most who are caught with it get street level justice meaning the cops takes or has the perp throw it in the sewer never to be seen again. Perp goes on his way but name is kept for records and use down the road if needed. The cops usually take the person with pounds of it in the trunk or home with associated large amounts of cash (which is now the states to use and said vehicles in the driveway which is also now the states to use or sell), weapons and other drugs of choice. You get to the big guy and you get a lot of drugs off the street.

All of this does not matter, as I also stated before, pot is just one of the many drugs sold illegally. I do not think legalizing it would even put a dent in what is spent to combat cocaine, crack, heroin and anything else people mix up from the chemicals under the sink.

I am of agreement that the nanny state on pot is perhaps a bit much. If anyone wants to fry their brain or blow their liver apart with excessive alcohol use then who are they to stop it? I guess they think they are the who! Transfats.....gone. Pot, nope. There will be many more the nanny state will impose on society. It is just a matter of time. I do not see pot being legalized or even discussed in Washington.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

A few posts back I stated that most who are caught with it get street level justice meaning the cops takes or has the perp throw it in the sewer never to be seen again. Perp goes on his way but name is kept for records and use down the road if needed.

It seems that there is some credence to your argument. This nifty "drug-war clock" http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm shows a vast discrepancy in the number of arrests and incarcerations in this year. However, it also states that 25% of all current inmates were incarcerated on drug charges.

All of this does not matter, as I also stated before, pot is just one of the many drugs sold illegally. I do not think legalizing it would even put a dent in what is spent to combat cocaine, crack, heroin and anything else people mix up from the chemicals under the sink.

That is why I advocate the legalization of all drugs. However, even the legalization of marijuana alone would eliminate about half of all drug violations, so says the drug clock and U.S. statistics on criminal justice by offense. I think it is a step in the right direction, and is worth bringing to the attention of legislators and the public.


@Agiel 17-

Man, don't even get me started on some of the drug prevention programs I went through in school. Some of the same stuff. Four white guys doing a pitiful rap about how drugs are "uncool" is not the way to go. I hope they've developed better methods recently.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

It seems that there is some credence to your argument. This nifty "drug-war clock" http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm shows a vast discrepancy in the number of arrests and incarcerations in this year. However, it also states that 25% of all current inmates were incarcerated on drug charges.


That is why I advocate the legalization of all drugs. However, even the legalization of marijuana alone would eliminate about half of all drug violations, so says the drug clock and U.S. statistics on criminal justice by offense. I think it is a step in the right direction, and is worth bringing to the attention of legislators and the public.


@Agiel 17-

Man, don't even get me started on some of the drug prevention programs I went through in school. Some of the same stuff. Four white guys doing a pitiful rap about how drugs are "uncool" is not the way to go. I hope they've developed better methods recently.

I'm willing to bet the 25% are those that were caught with X amount and concidered as dealers. A small baggy is just a users. Recreational users as it were. Cops do not have the time to fart around with him/her. Bag taken or dumped in the sewer. Street level justice complete. Perp never sees the jail cell. Cops look for the dealers. It would be interesting if all illegal drugs were legalized. The market to sell is gone along with the associated nonsense. Speaking for myself, if all were legal I certainly would not be at 7-11 looking to make a purchase. No interest at all. Hell, I might have a scotch and water every three months. We have to admit though, some take the path of drug use and never get off the path nor become anything remotely close to productive. Of all the drugs, crack cocaine is probably the worst. I suspect drug usage would not go up by much because people like myself have no interest. Continued non-interest would stay the same in most cases. It would be strange though, arrive to a party, a keg, hard liquor and a big bowl of weed with bong included. Lines in the back room if interested.

[NeonSamurai]

A lot of people though get convicted of being dealers who really were not due to low requirements, like 5 or 10 grams. A lot of my pot head friends use to buy in bulk to save money and time (so they wouldn't have to be buying it all the time). Now occasionally they might sell a bit of it to a friend but they typically wouldn't make anything from the sale (just a favor so to speak).

One simple fact is people are going to do drugs, legal or not. Kids are going to be tempted to it as they are to everything that is prohibited to them (like sex, alcohol, and smoking) and also perceived as cool (but being cool is often tied to doing prohibited things).

Personally my suggestion would be just higher tolerance towards weed from law enforcement (which compared to smoking and alcohol is about the same). Allow people to grow a bit in their back yard, ignore small quantities, and encourage people not to smoke it publicly. That is more or less Canada's attitude (it depends on each city though). Law enforcement here mainly seems to be concerned with harder drugs, large dealers, and grow ops. In my youth in Montreal, the Police usually wouldn't even bother dumping what they found, often they would just give it back (unless it was a big quantity like half a pound or something).

[Arclight]

Another "problem" I'd like to bring to light is the increased potency. "nederwiet" (marijuana grown in Holland) contains 2 to 3, even 4 times as much THC. Average for import has been 5%, for localy grown it's currently 17,5% (although it peeked in 2004 at 20%). There has been some discusion whether or not this stuff should be clasified as a hard-drug.

I don't know if this is the same everywhere, but the Dutch government makes a distinction between hard- and softdrugs, based on the risk (how likely it is to screw someone up, basically); you can use weed for years and then quit without to much side-effects. Try heroïne a couple of times and you're hooked for life, unless you're of a particular strong mind.



Legalizing heroïne and crack?

I can understand the benefit in that it frees up money that would go in battling it, but seriously...

It's just an entirely different ballpark; it gets you addicted in a heartbeat and is almost impossible to kick. On top of that, it's so destructive it's impossible to function. I don't see how you can possibly legalize something that is by definition evil (the act of legalizing it would in itself be evil as well).

Some definitions:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Arclight and AVGWarhawk-

You are both very correct in assuming that allowing the use of hard drugs would cause the self-destruction of many people. Arclight is correct in saying that it could be considered morally wrong.

However, where you might say, "Why should we let them?" I say "Who are we to say they cannot?".
I can't speak for the Dutch in my argument, or any nation other than the U.S. but this nation was founded upon the principle of liberty more than any other. Having the freedom to succeed includes having the freedom to fail. No one is at fault for someone else's decisions. The ultimate responsibility must lie with oneself.
I've already stated my argument that drug users continue their behaviors in spite of the state's efforts, and that those efforts drag the rest of us down further, but I will say again that in our efforts do what is morally right, we are doing more harm than good.

Drug education is a good thing, and I do support it, but only at the lower levels of the political spectrum. Educating people to make informed choices is a good idea, but the state has repeatedly demonstrated its' inability to effectively employ such a program. I would support voter-approved state subsidies for successful non-profit anti-drug programs, but that's about it.

When it comes down to it, the fact of the matter is that one cannot, and should not, force their own views down the throats of others, whether for good or ill. At some point, we must all assume responsibility for our own lives. As long as drug users are being informed of the consequences of their decisions, and are deterred from violating the rights of others, there is no reason to be overly concerned about the effects of drug use.

One final argument I will elaborate on is that private industry, in its' many forms, is a more effective form of regulation against drug use than anything the state can conjure.
Whereas the state says, you must abstain from substance abuse or we will jail you(or rehabilitate you, or whatever), at the expense of others, private industry says, you must abstain from substance abuse if you want to work here. Therein lies the key, and the key is incentive.
People who choose to abstain from drug use in order to be gainfully employed are the ones we should be saving. People who refuse to do so are the ones who will cause problems no matter what.
And best of all, it doesn't cost us a single penny of money that consumers do not choose to spend, unlike taxes. Private industry foots the bill and does it efficiently in order to remain competitive, and everyone wins.
As such, I think there ultimately more moral correctness in the legalization of drugs, because everybody wins except those who choose to lose.