70-75% of all Crime is Committed by "Addicts"?

[Lefty Scaevola]

From what I have observed in addicts, addiction VERY STRONGLY leeads to sociopathy, which, of course, will almost inevitably result in crimminality.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Including tobacco addiction?

I like Drago Sinio's approach of inventing new definitions for words. Following that example I'm going to define "immoral" as "a Ptarmigan in it's winter plumage".

Now none of us is immoral. Except Ptarmigans, but they're bastards anyway.

[Wraith]

Giancarlo
--"They speak like it is the majority of the opinion, well it is not in the United States for that matter."

Then you haven't been paying very close attention. The War on Drugs does not have majority support, at least not in the case of marijuana. The majority of the US has several times indicated that they do not support this, up to and including passing state-level balot initiatives legalizing it.

--"I am for the Drug war, because I believe it is efficient"



Do you know how many billions we've spent on it? How much freedom we've lost because of it? And yet you can still buy any drug you want on the street, and even in prison. If we can't even keep drugs out of the prisons, what makes you think any part of this is efficient?

--"and not only that the national guard must be deployed in every city to end drug sales."

How are they going to do this? You think all the drug dealers are going to be putting out signs? Not to mention the number that are actually in the National Guard already...
Frankly this sounds more like fascism than anything else.

--" but is it really a personal freedom to fill yourself up with artificial stimulants and ruin your life? Is it a personal freedom to hold this opinion towards support for the drug war?"

Yes and yes.

--"But do it with respect towards the opposing opinion,"

Respect must be earned. I can respect the arguments of some people who support the War on Drugs, even if I don't agree with them. None of the arguments presented here in favor of the War on Drugs has earned any of my respect. If even one of you people were arguing that drugs should remain illegal to keep you from falling to temptation, then I could respect that. All this "stop them from doing what I don't like because I say so" just gets irritating. No one has presented a rational, factual argument in favor of the WoD here, or even addressed many of the main points raised against it (ie. it's effect on crime rates).

Drago Sinio
--"You are talking about who makes the choice, not whether or not the choice is moral."

See, this is the problem. You still haven't explained why hurting yourself is immoral.

--"If you dont like the law, you can change it if the majority support you."

See, here's the thing (Giancarlo, you read this too). The US is not now, and never has been, a pure democracy. We're a democratic republic, and we were formed that way on purpose. The Founders did not like the idea of a pure democracy, calling it mob rule. They felt that was a danger to minority rights, and with good cause. That's why the Constitution was written as it was, to guarantee that the majority could not infringe on the rights of any minority (with the smallest minority being the individual, hence the foundation of individual rights).

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to wage a "War on Drugs" (the drugs, by the way, seem to be winning). There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the authority or power to dictate what people do or don't do to themselves in their own homes. They no more have the just power to tell us not to do drugs than they do to force us to participate in drug trials.

--"I do not need to know all things to know drug abuse is foolish and immoral."

Foolish I can understand and agree with, but I still can't see where you get immoral. Please explain.

November Adam
--"How do drugs affect a family?"

Dunno about anyone else here, but I'm single. There are a lot of us out there.

--"How can you do studies on how pot would affect a socialized health care system?"

Well, it's more to the point that I don't care how it would effect a socialized health care system, because we shouldn't have one.

Wraith
"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?"
-- Harlon Carter

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Wraith
November Adam
--"How do drugs affect a family?"

Dunno about anyone else here, but I'm single. There are a lot of us out there.

--"How can you do studies on how pot would affect a socialized health care system?"

Well, it's more to the point that I don't care how it would effect a socialized health care system, because we shouldn't have one.

1. Wraith.. do you have parents? Siblings? Grandparents?


2. It's difficult to argue this point in two different countries. Fortunately ours has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, but I wouldn't want to see it go further.

[Rex Little]

Regarding Adam's point about the effect of drugs on families: if a person on drugs does something criminal to his family, such as abuse, that's a separate crime which can be dealt with by the legal system regardless of whether drugs are legal. If (s)he avoids criminal behavior but puts time, energy and money into drugs which could have been spent on the family. . . well, that's unfortunate but it's a matter of free choice. (And, I might add, the financial impact of the habit on the family would be a lot less if the drug in question were legal.) There are plenty of non-chemical choices a person can make which deprive his family of his time, energy and/or money. I pay a lot less attention to my wife and kid than I would if I didn't play computer games, read science fiction and post on Apolyton; should these activities be banned? If I were to quit my comfortable job, sink my savings into a new business and go bankrupt, my family's standard of living would plummet; should I be forbidden to take that risk?

There seems to be a belief among drug-war supporters that if we legalize drugs we'll be "a nation of addicts." This is nonsense if you think it through. Do you yourself use illegal drugs? If so, the law isn't stopping you, is it. If not, would you use them if they were legalized? I've never heard anyone answer yes to that last question. I know people who use and people who don't, but I don't personally know any non-user who I believe would start up if drugs were legal.

(Myself, I pretty much stopped using drugs when they became legal, in the sense that alcohol is an illegal drug if you're under 21 but legal if you're an adult.)

I apologize if either of these points have already been made in this thread. It was already two pages long when I found it, and I don't have time to go over every post.

[Monk]

Rex, libertarian hordes;

When heroine is illegal, it's true you can eventually get some if you want, but there's a huge barrier for a lot of people associated with the process of getting the drug. First you have to build up the courage to try something that might not be pure (the risk that I don't know what I'll be getting actually keeps me off ecstasy and speed, so I can answer your last question affirmative, Rex), then you have to seek out a pusher (and there are actually people out there, especially in small town communities, who don't know any pushers or places to obtain drugs - this especially applies to very young people) and then finally walk up to him and ask for his services.

That heroine wouldn't be much more used in a libertarian society can't possibly be correct. I think I questioned Berzerker about this before, but I might as well mention it again; if you guys are serious about your ideology, then you'll also allow commercials saying it's cool and hip to snort cocaine or do LSD, and then I think you're underestimated the advertising business if you think they won't boost the sale of drugs significantly, especially those that makes you come back for more.

[Monk]

I might add that I am a supporter of legalisation regarding cannabis and relative decriminalisation for the rest. I don't in any way support the so-called war on drugs, I'm merely speaking out against those who want to legalise everything.

[Kirnwaffen]

I don't have a problem with those who use drugs, I have a problem with the burden and danger that many users eventually pose to others.

This includes:

- Any medical treatment that is provided at taxpayer expense

- Auto fatalities/injuries caused by someone who decided they were ok to drive when they were high

- Families who suffer physically, emotionally, or financially due the drug habit of one or more members

These are just the specifics I can name. I have a problem with any danger or burden thrust upon others because of an individual's choice to use drugs.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that anyone is a bad person merely because they use drugs. I just don't think that it's the right choice.

[Rex Little]

Monk's right: ideally I believe that it should be legal to use, make, buy, posess, sell and advertise drugs. (Adults only; I have no problem making any or all of these activities illegal for children, as we do with tobacco and alcohol.)

I don't believe in the godlike power of advertising to turn people into zombies who mindlessly do things to themselves that they know are harmful. I think the major effect of drug ads would be to influence a pot smoker to try Acapulco Gold brand instead of California Red. But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. If a ban on advertising was the price it took to get drugs legalized, I'd consider that an acceptable compromise, since the benefits (reduction in violence and property crime, freeing up of police resources, etc.) would be so huge.

In response to Kirnwaffen and others: of course drugs are the wrong choice; I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But freedom includes the right to make wrong choices. Otherwise it's not freedom, just a change of masters. (That's a quote, or at least a paraphrase, but I forget the source.)

[November Adam]

Advertising isn't aimed at older people, but youngsters.

I'm wondering if lowering the price on drugs will cause in use by people who already use it? I'm thinking of smokers when I ask (esp. in Canada), has your smokeing decreased witht the increase of price?

Regarding Rex's point directed to myself regarding how a family is affected... what you say is true regarding non-substance addictions. Your argument seems to be that because one thing is bad for you lets make everything that is bad for you legal. I'm sorry but I don't like this idea... guess I'm not a Liber.

Yet you haven't addressed my concerns regarding HEALTH, only financial responsibilities. Have you seen someone die from substance abuse? You tend to lose tolerance for drugs when you have seen it.

[Kirnwaffen]

Freedom does indeed include the freedom to make wrong choices, but does it include the freedom to make choices that can kill the person next to you? Or increase their insurance premium? Or emotionally scar them for life?

[Wraith]

--"1. Wraith.. do you have parents? Siblings? Grandparents?"

Yes, but at quite a distance. Unless I was doing LSD when my mother called and I, for some reason, decided to answer the phone (and was still capable of it), you'd be very hard pressed to argue that any of my drug use would effect them.

--"but there's a huge barrier for a lot of people associated with the process of getting the drug."

Not really. I mean, if you want to find a pusher you really don't need to look further than the local public high-school, although that certainly could qualify as a high-risk area you'd hesitate entering.

As far as commercials go, yes, why not? Cigarette and liquor companies can advertise now, what's the difference?
Really, a large part of the appeal of (starting) drug use these days is the whole forbidden fruit effect. I really can't see any advertising ever convincing me that heroin would be a good thing.

--"Any medical treatment that is provided at taxpayer expense"

Simple answer here is that no medical treatment should be provided at taxpayer expense.

--"Auto fatalities/injuries caused by someone who decided they were ok to drive when they were high"

Why do people always assume that legalizing marijuana would also mean repealing all DUI laws? I've never understood the logic behind this argument.

--"Families who suffer physically, emotionally, or financially due the drug habit of one or more members"

Now you're getting into the area Rex was talking about. Do we start jailing people for gambling? Collecting war memorabilia? Telling people about the Bognards from Hydroxyl 4 who are going to destroy the Earth? How about overworking? Just about any activity can be taken to harmful extremes.

--"Yet you haven't addressed my concerns regarding HEALTH,"

If we're going that route, you're going to be trying to ban junk food next. Looking at obesity numbers from the federal goverment, this would seem to be a far greater health problem in the US than drug usage.

--"but does it include the freedom to make choices that can kill the person next to you?"

Well, the thing is that smoking pot doesn't kill the person next to you. Driving while high can, but making that illegal isn't the same as saying all drugs should be outlawed. And we still haven't talked about those crazy truck-drivers on No-Doze and coffee.

--"Or increase their insurance premium?"

This is only an issue if insurace is state-mandated. As long as insurance is truly voluntary then it doesn't matter. Plans would be offered at different rates to those who were willing to forego (although it would probably require proof) drug usage if there was demand for it.

--"Or emotionally scar them for life?"

I don't think you've seen my opinions of the public schools

Wraith
"It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself."
-- Justice Casey Percell

[Rex Little]

Your argument seems to be that because one thing is bad for you lets make everything that is bad for you legal.

No, my argument is that just because something is bad for you, that does not justify making it illegal. You own your life and your body, which means you are free to treat it as well or poorly as you choose. If you want to justify banning drugs, you have to find some reason other than the fact that they're bad for you.

I haven't, yet, seen someone die from substance abuse, but my oldest and dearest friend is an alcoholic/coke addict, and his life is a complete mess as a result. I've had to talk him out of suicide. That does not change my conviction that it was his life, and he had the right to throw it away as he did, regrettable as that was.

Freedom does indeed include the freedom to make wrong choices, but does it include the freedom to make choices that can kill the person next to you? Or increase their insurance premium? Or emotionally scar them for life?

None of these questions can be answered with a flat yes or no; it's a matter of degree. Any time you drive a car, even cold sober, there's a chance you could make a mistake which causes a fatal accident. If you string lights on a Christmas tree, there's a chance that it could catch fire and the fire could spread to your neighbor's house. The level of risk associated with these activities is low enough that our laws allow them; activities with a higher risk level, such as drunk driving or firing a gun at random in the middle of the street, are forbidden.

With regard to risk imposed on others, I think the law treats alcohol in a reasonable manner. An adult is free to drink, but while under the influence he is not allowed to perform activities, such as driving, where his intoxication materially increases the risk imposed on others. I see no reason not to use the same rule for any other mind-altering substance.

Edit: Wraith posted while I was typing. As usual, he made the same arguments but more succinctly and readably.

[Kirnwaffen]

As far as commercials go, yes, why not? Cigarette and liquor companies can advertise now

Partially inaccurate. Cigarette companies, as far as I know, have been forbidden from all methods of advertising.

Simple answer here is that no medical treatment should be provided at taxpayer expense.

Great, but it is. And while this service continues to be provided, a burden is put on the system by the medical consequences of drugs.

Why do people always assume that legalizing marijuana would also mean repealing all DUI laws? I've never understood the logic behind this argument

Fine. I wasn't sure whether or not they covered controlled substances outside of alcohol.

Now you're getting into the area Rex was talking about. Do we start jailing people for gambling? Collecting war memorabilia? Telling people about the Bognards from Hydroxyl 4 who are going to destroy the Earth? How about overworking? Just about any activity can be taken to harmful extremes.

Yes, most activities can be taken to harmful extremes, but, with the possible exception of gambling, most of the above activities are far more difficult to take to that level than drugs are.

Well, the thing is that smoking pot doesn't kill the person next to you. Driving while high can, but making that illegal isn't the same as saying all drugs should be outlawed. And we still haven't talked about those crazy truck-drivers on No-Doze and coffee.

As long as someone with a job that requires focus to maintain a safe working environment has the professionalism to refrain from working for up to a day in order to fully recover from the effects of marijuana.

This is only an issue if insurace is state-mandated. As long as insurance is truly voluntary then it doesn't matter. Plans would be offered at different rates to those who were willing to forego (although it would probably require proof) drug usage if there was demand for it.

Good idea, but I fear that insurance companies would be unlikely to offer plans to users due to the risk involved. If they were, it would likely be at a high rate which many may be unwilling to pay. This means one of three things now happens:

1. The user pays the hospital directly - unlikely if they are unwilling to pay for health insurance.

2. At a state subsidized hospital, the bill will be covered with tax payer money.

3. At a private hospital, the bill simply goes unpaid, which means that the care will be covered by the closing of unprofitable programs that, despite the lack of profit, still provide good patient care.

I don't think you've seen my opinions of the public schools

No, I haven't. It's probably roughly similar to mine around finals.

[Berzerker]

Drago -

No, that is not accurate. You are taking words out of context. Note the topic refers to "Addicts" , and take another look at the context of the phrase you quoted.

First, "addicts" is in quotes for a reason, to reflect what O'Reilly claimed. You made two statements:

It seems to me that criminal behaviour and drug abuse are further linked and interwined in that both activities are stupid and self destructive. The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes.

While I understand your point about the context, you did switch from "drug abuse" to drug users in those two sentences. Since you apparently find this distinction important, does that mean you meant to exclude drug users from your accusations of foolishness and immorality?

I think it is valid. The fact that we are not immortal nor impervious to harm does not invalidate it.

But the fact we all harm ourselves does.
You've offered a definition of immorality that applies to us all which makes it hypocritical to indict others when you're also guilty.

Every minute of every day is another choice made . Things are not black and white, they are shades of grey. It is not as if a single puff of smoke makes you a "bad person" or deciding not to take one makes you a "good person". All you can do is try to make the best choices, minute by minute and move on. In my opinion abusing a drug is a bad choice. It harms you, and it harms those around you. This is a fact.

Are you still making a distinction between "abuse" and "use"? It would appear so... Since you've already explained that only the user is qualified to determine if they are an abuser, doesn't that make your definition meaningless? After all, we don't depend on the opinions of murderers to decide if murder is immoral.

No, those are examples, not generalizations.

No, they are generalizations. These "examples" were your attempt to prove that drug "abuse" - a characterization you said could only be made by the user - is immoral. Claiming drug use or abuse is immoral because drug user "A" did something bad is a generalization and immoral in that using drug user "A" to "justify" punishing other drug users is punishing the innocent because of the guilty.

Yes, exactly. But we are just arguing over the meaning of the word. I looked it up in several web dictionaries, and the number one definition in each case was as shown below.

The dictionary was written in a time when governments exist and dominate, not before government was invented to combat crime. If we could go back in time to that point where a group of people first invented government, I'll bet they didn't invent a new word for "crime", but merely used the word they were already using.

So I think my defintion is a better use of the word "crime" than yours. I think "sin" would be a more precise choice for what you are trying to describe , slavery or genocide.

"Sin" is a religious concept. Crime is not only a legal concept, but the catalyst for the creation of government - self-defense.
But you can try telling slaves and the survivors of genocide that these were merely sins, not crimes The Declaration of Independence is, among other things, a lengthy list of crimes committed by their government. Frederick Douglas referred to slavery as "man-stealing" - a crime.

Avoiding sleep with drugs is a poorer choice than getting some sleep. A less moral choice, showing less regard for human life, your own and others.

Losing your job for sleeping instead of delivering people or cargo is not always an option. Try telling your boss you need to sleep the next time you're at work and feeling a bit drowsy Would you have told the Allied flyers fighting the Battle of Britain that using speed to stay awake was a less than moral choice than sleeping? And just how does using a drug to stay awake constitute "less regard" if the drug prevents drowsiness? Maybe you consider it immoral now to drink coffee - which contains a drug - in the morning before heading off to work?

Well, I dont know about the legal issues, I am no lawyer. But to say that drug use is protected if it is religous seems doubtful to me. That is one possible interpretation- but the constitution does not specify that.

So now the 1st Amendment was supposed to list all the possible religious activities people engage in as part of their religious freedom? That would take an encyclopedia. The "free exercise" of religion does specify which religious activities were protected, those that fall under the definition of freedom - the absence of coercion or constraints in choice or action.

Always a sin, sometimes a crime.

Always a sin, always a crime, legal or not.
Ever hear the term, "crimes against humanity"? This phrase is often used to describe crimes committed by governments against people under it's jurisdiction, rarely to describe crimes by individuals outside of government.

You are talking about who makes the choice, not whether or not the choice is moral.

You claimed there was no relevant difference between hurting yourself or hurting another person. Claiming that hurting yourself is immoral because hurting someone else is immoral is illogical. Btw, if hurting another person is immoral, isn't it immoral to hurt drug users by punishing them?

If it is immoral to harm a human being, than who makes the choice is not relevant.

You're the one claiming it is immoral to hurt a human being. Most people might agree until you tell them you mean hurting yourself too. Is it immoral to hurt someone trying to murder you? Again, you've come up with a definition of immorality that includes us all and ignores that people make trade offs between self-harm and gain. If I work as a construction worker, I will be harming my body, but I will be gaining something I want - money -which I can then use to buy something that might bring me pleasure.

It is still immoral. If you decide, or I decide, or George W Bush decides, it makes no difference in my opinion. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong.

If you decide it makes no difference in your opinion?

No, I said you risk damage, and it is better to avoid the risk.

How does one avoid risk? We can't! So we evaluate the risk and compare it to the perceived benefit to be gained.

I agree that if you need to take a drug to improve your health, then that makes sense. Not the same thing as drug addiction or drug abuse, or taking drugs for entertainment.

Not everything people do is designed to improve health. Eating tasty foods with high fat/sugar content is not healthful, but we seek the pleasure of these foods - a trade off. But does this mean you think people should be allowed to use drugs if they either improve health or diminish pain? Oh, while I'm at it, can I watch TV tonight, daddy?

Yes, I am afraid so.

Nah, not even Jesus thought getting drunk once in a while was immoral.

That is not a logical statement. Further, I avoid hurting myself, as much as I can. As do most people.

Sure it's logical, if we all harm ourselve's, self-harm cannot be immoral. And apparently you've never played tackle football But whether or not most people avoid harm as much as possible is irrelevant, you said people who hurt themselves were immoral.

No, I disagree. Your vote counts as much as mine. If you dont like the law, you can change it if the majority support you. I have not been elected Supreme World Ruler.

This doesn't change the fact that you claimed you were not forcing your opinion on the rest of us when supporting the law IS forcing your opinion on the rest of us. The fact I can vote is irrelevant; and you're assuming the authority to act as a ruler by forcing us to obey your opinions about how we live our lives. The fact you have to share your rulership with other voters who don't believe in freedom doesn't change that reality.

This is not Africa nor Germany.

The African slaves I mentioned were enslaved in many places, including here.

"Liberty and Justice for All" is a goal we aspire to , but can never perfectly attain.

Not with people like you dictating what the rest of us can or cannot ingest.

Whats the old saying, we have the worst government in the world, except for all the other ones. ?

Spoken by an advocate of democracy. Pointing to someone who says fascism is the best system doesn't prove it is...

I do not need to know all things to know drug abuse is foolish and immoral.

You haven't proven it is foolish and your "proof" that it is immoral includes everyone.

Giancarlo -

But I am stunned, just stunned to see how people speak here on their opposition to the drug war.

Meaning we shouldn't speak here?

They speak like it is the majority of the opinion

Who said they speak for the majority?

It is just stunning to see that people here think their opinion should be more highly valued then the other opinion, without consideration.

And we should value yours more than our own? Convince us! And whose opinions have you considered? I rarely if ever see you actually respond to the arguments coming from our side while many on our side do respond to your arguments.

I am for the Drug war, because I believe it is efficient

The fact the Nazis made the trains run on time is not a validation of Nazism.

Certainly, libertarians may rip my throat out for trying to abolish personal freedoms, but is it really a personal freedom to fill yourself up with artificial stimulants and ruin your life?

Yes, you don't own the human race (see definition of freedom in my next response).

Is it a personal freedom to hold this opinion towards support for the drug war?

Depends. I'm not free to express the opinion that my employee should murder you. But I suspect you miss typed... Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraints in choice or action. While I've never seen anyone dispute this definition when it comes to their own freedom, for some reason, they start creating "loopholes" in it when it comes to the freedom of others they don't like.

If you want to show opposition to the drug war, then by all means express yourself. But do it with respect towards the opposing opinion, which by the matter is the majority in the United States and you will thusly get respect back.

Were opponents of the drug war dis-respecting the opinions of others in this thread? Sorry, but I'm not going to pat people on the back for claiming ownership of my existence.

Adam -

Even if the person using them doesn't actually cause direct harm, there is always indirect harm.

I asked you to offer specifics the last time you used a vague catch-all, now you offer up "indirect harm"?

Ever watch a loved one slowly kill themselves with drugs?

Alcohol, yes, very sad, but nothing anyone could do mattered. Even putting him and the millions of alcohol users in cages for using that drug wouldn't have helped since prohibition doesn't work.

They aren't doing anything directly to you, but wait! You care about them and don't want to see them hurt.

And millions of people can and have used illegal drugs without meeting the "fate" you claim awaits them. Funny you would put them in cages with real criminals to keep them from hurting themselves

How bout having to explain to your child why daddy smells like a skunk, and gets very loud, and doesn't act normal. Kinda scarry for that child I would think.

Should we make darkness illegal? Do you support banning alcohol?

These are a few examples of how a child would be affected... want more?

No, I'm tired of your generalizations. Using the "bad" people in your examples to "justify" hurting millions of people is immoral.

How can you do studies on how pot would affect a socialized health care system?

The absence of proof is not proof your claims are valid.

Now I don't have any statisics, but who cares about them as anyone can pull numbers out of a hat. Now this may seem like a cold way to look at it, but here ya go. Tobacoo, what happens to the person? Lung cancer, emphesima, etc. Sure the person dies sooner, but they don't just go poof, and fall over, they linger, putting a drain on a medical system. As well as removing themselves from the work force sooner.

Do you want to ban tobacco? Very, very few pot smokers continue so far into their life as to cause these ailments; that's probably why there has never been a recorded death attributed to ailments caused by marijuana. You are putting a drain on the medical system by advocating a policy that creates more crime than it prevents.

Alchol... liver failure, jerkitis (this is where your a jerk to someone, and they clock you), etc. (I'm not a doctor obviously). Another one that puts a drag on the med system. So from these 2 I conclude that legalizing other drugs sure as well won't help.

But banning these two drugs would help?
I suggest you compare the number of deaths related to alcohol and tobacco with ALL the illegal drugs combined. A half million or so per year to 5 or 6 thousand!
If we were going to ban any drugs, these two would at the top of the list.

Even though they are being used, if it was legalized there is a good chance use would increase.

Not according to the historical record. Consumption rates before prohibition were comparable or slightly lower than now, and according to the Commerce Dept, per capita alcohol consumption increased under alcohol prohibition! Btw, when all drugs were legal in the 19th century, the various drugs from alcohol and tobacco to heroin/morphine were consumed in similar proportion to today showing that even when all drugs are legal, alcohol and tobacco were still the drugs of choice. Marijauna is legal in India and largely so in The Netherlands and teen use is lower in both than the USA where prohibition supposedly lowers consumption. By why do I get the feeling you will ignore all this?

I have no problem with medicinal drugs, as this is regulated.

Not true. Marijuana is banned, not regulated, and it does have medicinal properties which is why a synthetic, albeit less effective, form of the drug is allowed.

Lefty -

It all my years of contact with the legal profession and courts, I had never encountered a felon who was not an addict.

And if you only had experience with black felons, this would "justify" putting all the black people in cages? Frankly, I find your claim too hard to believe unless all you do is sit in a drug court. Do you see a problem with your experience and the crime stats from the links in this thread?

From what I have observed in addicts, addiction VERY STRONGLY leeads to sociopathy, which, of course, will almost inevitably result in crimminality.

Can you offer specifics? Since drugs are illegal, their inflated cost means those addicts willing to steal to buy the drugs have to steal more, which is an indictment of prohibition, not proof the drugs cause "sociopathy". If all food costs were increased by say, 40 times, would you conclude food casues sociopathy?

Monk -

I think I questioned Berzerker about this before, but I might as well mention it again; if you guys are serious about your ideology, then you'll also allow commercials saying it's cool and hip to snort cocaine or do LSD, and then I think you're underestimated the advertising business if you think they won't boost the sale of drugs significantly, especially those that makes you come back for more.

Cool? Depends on the person. Legal? Yes. If people don't like the advertising, they can boycott the media outlets thereby stifling the advertising. As for the advertising world, ads don't get me to buy products I don't want, they get me to possibly choose certain brand names of products I do want. Ford doesn't put out ads telling people to buy cars, they put out ads telling people who want a new car that Fords are good.