Damn weedheads...

[Sava]

The primary problem with prohibition and criminalization is that it turns addicts and substance abusers into criminals. By doing that, you put them in a justice system that doesn't reform, that doesn't improve, that doesn't help people. Their lives go from bad to worse. Drugs should be legal, not because of any inherent right to use substances (although nobody has the authority over what I can and can't put in my body), but because it criminalizes addiction, which is a very treatable problem that innocent, moral people have. By legalizing and taxing, you can fund programs that help addiction. The argument that legalization will open the flood gates of usage is stupid... and false in every real-world situation where drugs are decriminalized. If anything, criminalization promotes more crime because it inflates the prices of drugs. And a crack addict is going to smoke crack no matter what. If the prices are higher, that only means the addict is going to get money from illegal means in order to support the habit.

Secondly, drugs fund organized crime! By legalizing, you take away a huge source of income. How do you think Colombian drug lords would get money from cocaine if you could buy it at Jewel? Suddenly, government has a source of revenue. Drug use, drug abuse, and addiction are going to be around. There is no eliminating it. By legalizing, you separate the criminal elements from the problem so that society can better deal with it.

And quite frankly, people opposed to legalization are either blinding by their misguided sense of "morality", aren't aware of the money trail, or don't know enough about drug use, abuse, and addiction to know how to fight it.... or all of the above. Take your pick.

[Berzerker]

Apocalypse - Your comments preceding what I've quoted make no sense, so I'll address the rest (not that it makes alot of sense, but at least I can figure out what most of it means ).

Prohibition in its entirety simply does not work, because it didn't for alcohol in the US at the first half of last century - F*CKING BRILLIANT.

Economic principles don't change just because the date changes. The reason alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition not only don't work, but make matters worse, is because too many people want to consume these products and too many will supply them. And once you ban their trade, you'll create crime in all sorts of areas, including homicide as the graph I linked shows. If you need more proof, look at Colombia? Not exactly an endorsement of drug prohibition...

Now maybe you can rationalize why substances such as heroin, methamphetamines and (soon) 2c-t-7 should be turned over as legal and promoted just as fairly and openly as alcohol and tobacco?

That was a question? Yes, they should be made legal and they once were. And when they were, we didn't see massive black markets and the crime they generate. That's the point, prohibition doesn't prevent drug consumption, nor does it reduce consumption enough (or at all) to outweigh all the negatives prohibition creates.

Why shouldn't we turn pharmacies and crackhouses into corner stores awaiting "responsible" customers? BECUZ THE DRUG WAR MAKES THEIR PRICES 2 HIGH AND IF THEY ARE CHEAP THRYE INTRINSICLY HARMLESSES

Tell us, if you're an addict willing to steal to buy drugs, would you need to steal more if the drugs cost $100 a day or $2 a day? That is the reality we face when the options are a drug war or freedom. If you want a drug war, then it is dis-ingenuous to complain about property crimes induced by prohibition.

Do you KNOW what exactly these substances do to people?

I used meth...didn't ruin my life. I've known plenty of people who've used drugs (including myself) without ruining their lives, so if you want to point to a small minority, I'll point to the vast majority who've yet to be put in cages with violent criminals by those "concerned" for their well-being.

Do you know that if made as accessible and acceptable as smoking, hundreds of thousands of new cokeheads would initially die of heart attacks across the nation, while hundreds of thousands more would roll in blue and stiff after shooting their 64th fix of morphine for the week?

Where were all these cardiac arrests when coke was legal? Yes, a tiny minority of people do have heart attacks allegedly from cocaine use, and a tiny minority of people die from internal bleeding because of aspirin. Would you like to compare the number of people who've died from cocaine with the people who've died from prescription or over the counter drugs?
Would you use coke if it was legal? I wouldn't, and I used it when it was illegal.

Tell us why history doesn't support your chicken little predictions? Drug consumption was not higher when all drugs were legal, if anything, we see more per capita addicts now. So, what have we achieved with prohibition? A massive black market, doubled homicide rates, God only knows how much more property crime, a ballooning government and prison system, and a police state down the road if we continue to adopt the idea that government exists to protect us from ourselves... Btw, smoking has declined enormously without banning tobacco, it's rather amazing what education and social pressure can do. Historically, the biggest declines in drug consumption occured without prohibition - the last 3 decades with tobacco and the 1820's with alcohol.

It is difficult enough to stop the use of these substances when priced in the hundreds, and even if the initial happiness attained wears to non-existent. What you don't seem to understand about mass legalization is that a mass consumer culture is thrown a basket of forbidden fruit and told that "it's now ok!"

Umm...you're confused about "forbidden fruits", these are activities that have been banned, not legalised - note the word "forbidden"? France has a very open culture regarding wine, and even children are allowed to drink wine without a fuss. If you were right, we'd expect to see a nation of winos with many children succumbing to alcoholism. But we don't! Why? Because wine is not a "forbidden fruit"...

When Tens of millions across north America alone start up with use (it would happen, even an idiot can see that much) - watch for the "relatively" nasty backlash that is reality of near inevitable addiction. I'm not talking deaths alone.

Your entire argument is based on "what if", not on "what is" or "what was". If addiction rates were much higher when all drugs were legal in this country, then you'd have an argument. Right now, all you have is a prediction based on nothing, certainly not history.

Oh - but with such a scenario most people will CHOOSE not to use out of fear, correct? Plenty reassuring to those of the sudden death curve outspiking the world wars! Oh right, I'm getting these assumptions out of my ass because DRUGS ARE ONLY PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE OF THE ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED PRICES. They are really quite benign, otherwise!

Drugs are inanimate, I know you guys want to ascribe some inherent evil to them, but we no longer live in the days when evil spirits inhabited rocks. Now, it's true some people can't moderate their use, but that's true regardless of legal status and it's true of food, sports, and darn near everything else under the sun. Some people love money so much they'll steal from others, that doesn't make money evil and certainly does not mean we should ban food, sports, or money.

You are a complete f*cking ****** with your entire set of ideals based on the core goals of controversy and "free everything!" - and you deserve a swift kick in the head.

Do you talk like that to people's faces?

Now please use my abrasive reality check as an excuse to sh*t yourself and leave this thread while the educated and experienced adults get back to realistic discussion.

Abrasive, yes, reality, no. You've provided little evidence of being educated on anything other than foul language.

[Sava]

Do you talk like that to people's faces?

I can guarantee you he wouldn't...

[Berzerker]

AS -

I'm only saying that what the hell do you do when parents arent there to take care of their kids and teach them how live right?! it's a horrible idea to let these misguided children running around where drugs and all that are even more accessible than they are today! where the hell do you come up with this horrible idea?!

This will probably sound horrible to you, but I'm not responsible for other people's children. It doesn't take a village, Hillary, and I reject your attack on personal responsibility.

once you guarentee everyone a happy home and caring parents and/or communities, then we can have full freedoms... until then, misguided children doing drugs and all that is all you'll ever have

"Full freedoms"? Can you find the word "full" in the dictionary under "freedom"? You've just set a unachievable standard, and you sure won't have my sympathy when the freedoms you cherish are taken away by do-gooders who don't think you are qualified to choose the right foods, cars, etc... This notion that we must give up our freedom because some irresponsible person ran off after having a child is insane. Where does it stop, Al? Ban alcohol and tobacco? Ban video games and R rated movies? Ban sports? Ban incorrect thinking? We can't allow these children to hear bad ideas, right?