GelTab

You can find the original text here: http://www.dea.gov/demand/druglegal/index.html

Hope this isn't too long, they do say a lot of bull**** (maybe I do too?).


DEA is unequivocally opposed to the legalization of illicit drugs (including, marijuana, hemp, and hemp seed oil).

Legalization of drugs in any form would likely:

(1) reduce the perception of the risks and costs of drug use;
* What is the general perception of the risks and costs of cigarette/alcohol use?
(2) increase availability of and access to harmful drugs;
* Education would decrease the supply and demand of these drugs.
(3) increase demand, use, abuse, and addiction; and
* See above.
(4) remove the social sanction against drug abuse that is reinforced in legislation.
The present social problems in the United States, including crime, health problems, and poverty, are substantial and will only be exacerbated if drugs are legalized. The arguments for legalization are a sad and bitter offering to the most vulnerable segment of our population. Legalization would increase risks and costs to individuals, families, and communities, indeed, to every part of the nation, without compensating benefits.
* Drugs cannot be directly linked to crime, most health problems, or poverty. Oppresion can.

Any proposal with the potential to do these things is unacceptable. As public policy, it is fundamentally flawed.
* Prohibition is fundamentally flawed, according to the Declaration of Independence.
_____________

Third, maintain optimism. This is a long and difficult effort we are undertaking to get our issues on the table and be heard. Eventually, the climate will change and pro-legalization arguments will again be out of fashion. While the debate appears to be cyclical, having more resonance in certain circumstances, we must continue to impress upon audiences, and ultimately the American people, that legalization would be a devastating defeat to the commitment that so many have made to living free, healthy, and safely in our nation.
* I would like to live free, healthy, and safely in my nation too. How do drugs come into play?
____________
Legalization opponents often have a hard time being heard.
* Is this a comedy routine?
____________
Audiences need to understand that of all the current illicit drug users age 18-49, 70 percent are employed full-time according to the 1994 & 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
* Would you rather see any person ages 18-49 live on the street?
____________
Should all drugs be legalized?
* Yes

Who will determine which segments of the population will have access to legalized drugs?
* Are you implying that we should discriminate against what type of person decides they want to use drugs?

Will they be limited only to people over 18, 21?
* Alcohol is a mind altering substance, the legal age to purchase/possess/consume is 21. Common sense would only allow that to hold true for other mind altering substances. Although, a person over 18 can be drafted into the Army, possibly risking life, but he can't choose to drink.

Will cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP be made available if people request them?
* Refer to the first question.

Who will sell drugs, the government, private companies?
* Does the government sell cigarettes or alcohol?

Who will be liable for damages caused by drug use, and the activities of those taking drugs?
* I have to question the legitimacy of the argument that drugs directly cause crime, other than the fact that they are considered criminal.

Who will collect the revenues generated by the drug sales?
* Who collects the revenues of products they sell?

How will a black market for cheaper drugs be controlled?
* How is it controlled currently for other products being sold there?

Who will bear the costs to society of increased drug use?
* What exactly does it cost society?

How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business? Who will bear the costs of lost productivity, consumers, stockholders?
* If your not a productive worker, what's their point of keeping you? What are the costs from lost productivity, if you don't keep unproductive workers? You can't go to work inebriated on alcohol, what makes drugs any different?

Will the local drug situation in a community dictate which drugs are sold where?
* Does the current supply and demand for cigarettes and alcohol control where they are sold?

How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?
* There is not evidence that directly links drug use with family disintegration and child neglect. There is evidence of psychological reasonings behind those problems.

Who will bear the costs of the expansion of social service and welfare programs that may be necessary to care for increased drug addicts through drug legalization? Would taxpayers bear this expense through increased taxes, would funding for other programs such as education be reduced?
* Who should have to pay for an able person's meal? Using drugs does not make you disabled.

Will people still need prescriptions for currently controlled medications, such as antibiotics, if drugs are legalized?
* Antibiotics and other such medicines do need tight control, simply because of the fact that if overused, it can cause harm to other people (virii gaining resistence to a certain antibodies, for example).

Will legal drugs require prescriptions?
* Most legal drugs are not mind altering substances. Mind altering substances are not used to fight virii, etc.
____________

Can anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions, purchase drugs?
* Can anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions, purchase cigarettes or alcohol?

How will we deal with the influx of people to the United States who will seek legal drugs?
* How do you deal with an influx of people coming to the U.S. seeking jobs and a supposed better life?

Can we begin a legalization pilot program in your neighborhood for one year?
* How about a pilot program nationwide?

Should the distribution outlets be located in the already overburdened inner city?
* Overburdened, how? Too much commerce?
____________
Proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were legalized, crime and violence would decrease. They believe that it is the illegal nature of drug production, trafficking, and use that fuels crime and violence. They state that turf wars, gang activity, and drug-related crimes are the result of the illegal nature of the drug trade. Proponents state that users commit crimes to pay for drugs now because they cannot easily obtain them. If drugs were legal, they say, the enormous profits associated with drugs because of their illegal status would evaporate and, once gone, the black market and criminal activity associated with drugs would also be eliminated.
* Legalization would eliminate the crime of doing drugs. It is quite obvious that the illegal production of any product and the trafficking thereof is fuel for crime and violence (violence is crime..). People who commit crimes to pay for anything, obviously do it because they can not easily obtain what they want or it is a psychological thrill for them. If drugs were legal, the enormously inflated costs and profits associated with illegal drugs would evaporate and, once dissipated, the black market and criminal activity associated with drugs would be substantially reduced.
____________
Police can attest to the fact that alcohol plays a significant role in domestic violence cases.
* Alcohol can impair judgement, it does not make a good person into a bad person.
____________
Legalization proponents ignore the fact that frequently, the people committing violent crimes are career criminals who will not stop their illegal activities once drugs are legalized; they will instead seek new sources of illicit revenue.
* Why should drug users have to deal with people that commit violent crimes anyways? Who wants to be forced to buy drugs from an untrustable source? Why shouldn't a drug user have the right to buy drugs from a safe and licensed establishment, just like tobacco and alcohol?
____________
Another finding of the study indicated that approximately 75 percent of all prisoners can be characterized as being involved with alcohol or drug abuse in the time leading up to their arrest. * That doesn't mean drugs made them commit a crime.
____________
Actually, Dr. Rosenthal said in a speech in 1993, drugs undo the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on an even keel. "The treatment community does not contend that society is at risk from the behavior of all drug abusers or even the great majority of them," he said. "The case for prohibition rests on the substantial number of abusers who cross the line from permissible self-destruction to become 'driven' people, who are 'out of control' and put others in danger of their risk taking, violence, abuse, or HIV infection."
* Drugs don't make people good or bad.
____________
The Nations drug problem did not happen overnight, and it will take a number of years to eliminate. Legalization is not an alternative.
* Drugs didn't become considered bad overnight. It took a lot of misinformation for people to be fooled into wanting them banned.
____________
The United States faces a number of challenges today--which like our drug problem are not resolvable through easy solutions--including illegal immigration, the decline of quality education, and public health problems. Should we abdicate ourselves of the need to enforce equitable immigration laws? Should we declare that our education system is an irreparable failure? Should we throw up our hands in frustration about cancer, or AIDS and halt researching for cures? Clearly such suggestions are preposterous. We are a people committed to solving problems, not avoiding them. Why should our commitment to stopping drugs be any different from our approach to other national interests?
* Your commitment to stopping drugs is preposterous. The idea that you can control a person that is not causing harm to others is preposterous. Comparing prohibition with your inadequate policies towards education and medical problems is simply idiotic.
____________
Furthermore, ask proponents of legalization just what they are proposing be legalized. Just marijuana? Marijuana and heroin? All drugs? And for what age group? Will children be able to buy drugs? Will prescriptions be necessary? And what will they tolerate as the price of legalization? A permanent underclass of drug users? Will a 10 percent increase in the number of traffic fatalities be accepted? What about 50 percent? Would they be relieved to know that their child care provider had been smoking legally-purchased marijuana? How many drug addicted new borns are too many?
* What is the point of asking the same questions over and over? Legalization will only cost politician's, bureaucrat's, and any other prohibitionist's their big egos. Again, are you implying that we should discriminate against what type of person decides they want to use drugs? Great number crunching, now prove that will happen. Who should care if their child care provider smokes marijuana, except on the job (would you want them drinking on the job)? Proper education about the effects of smoking, drinking, and any other drug use during pregnancy can prevent that.
____________
A cornerstone of the legalization proponents' position is the claim that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now.
* No ****. Look at countries where marijuana has been legalized (or for that matter, decriminalized).
____________
Forum participants, however, suggest that if drugs were more widely available, as they certainly would be if they were legalized, rates of use and addiction would increase. Legalizing drugs sends a message that drug use (like tobacco and alcohol) is acceptable, and encourages drug use among people who currently do not use drugs.
* What real evidence can support these claims? Is this true in other countries where drugs are more widely available (honestly, no b.s.)?
____________
Dr. Herbert Kleber, the prominent Yale University psychiatrist and former Demand Reduction Deputy Director at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and currently with the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, stated in a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine that clinical data support the premise that drug use would increase with legalization.
* Prove it. Are you saying that what is happening elsewhere, which is the opposite of this data, is not a reality?
____________
Dr. Dupont offered the following sentiment "Would legalization increase the number of drug users and the social harm produced by the use of drugs?" "The answer to those two questions is simply, yes, it would."
* It's not that simple, moron. If legalization were to occur (as marijuana has in a few places), the number of users that admit to using would rise. That is because they have nothing to fear from coming out. Drugs do not cause social harm.

"Legalization of any drugs leads to large increases in the use of the legalized drugs," he said. "Because most of the social costs of drugs are not the costs of prohibition but the costs created by the drug use itself (a point proved beyond dispute by the dismal global experience with alcohol and tobacco), legalization raises the net social costs of drug use."
* I dispute the claim that cigarettes, alcohol, or other drugs directly cause society harm.

"Legalization is an old, siren call which promises to reduce the high costs of drug use, but which abundant evidence shows would inevitably raise the costs society pays for drug use, not reduce them. We do not need new experiments to make this point."
* You guys like disputing the same things over and over again.
____________
Legalization proponents cannot find encouragement in the fact that when drugs were once legal, cheap, and available in the United States, the impact on society was such that laws were enacted to make drugs illegal. They ignore our own history and point to Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland as free and open societies where drug use is allowed with no adverse effects.
* You ignore our own history, we've already discussed this anyways.
____________
The Netherlands, despite its controlled program, is showing signs of failure as well. Under the so-called "expediency principle," Dutch prosecutors have wide discretion in prosecuting, or ignoring, persons in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use. In practice, marijuana and hashish, for instance, are openly sold and consumed in coffeehouses.
* It is showing signs of success, morons.
____________
Pointing to the appropriate international treaties that require nations to "protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs," the signatories state that they "reject all demands for legalizing illicit drugs... We request that our Governments respect and with determination apply those conventions and agreements regarding drugs which they have signed."
* Making drugs legal to adults will not abandon the protection of children. Thinking that kids don't need education on drugs will.
____________
The Dutch Criminal Intelligence Service reported 104 gun-related deaths in the Netherlands in 1992, compared to 73 in 1991. Almost all involved drug disputes. Robberies also increased in each of the four years since 1988.
* Since marijuana is not illegal there, how many people were killed over a dispute on legal marijuana? You cannot link legalization to crime.
____________
Proponents of legalization note correctly that alcohol kills many more Americans than do illegal drugs and currently exact social and financial costs that are higher as well. Advocates point out that many people do not use alcohol, and argue that many Americans may also choose to forego drug use. Additionally, advocates contend that like treatment programs available for alcoholics, treatment programs for other drug addicts should be more widely available.
* As you said, correctly noted. Why are you breaking my balls?
____________
Ask proponents of legalization for specifics. Would the raw material for these drugs be purchased from traditional sources, or would the United States produce its own marijuana, coca, and opium? Would the government pay farmers subsidies to produce or not produce these crops? Although all of these questions could be resolved, none comes without a price tag.
* How do tobacco and alcohol companies do it? Does the government pay farmers of tobacco or alcholol ingredients to produce the crops?
____________
Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that the health and societal costs of drug legalization would also increase. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related diseases, and treatment of family violence would place additional demands on our already overburden health-care system.
* It is not. Your just repeating yourself again, geez.
____________
Additionally, there is no guarantee, according to the forum participants, that criminal justice costs would decline if drugs were legalized. It is possible that law enforcement would be additionally burdened with addressing violations of traffic and family violence laws if more people had access to drugs. Law enforcement is already challenged by significant alcohol-related crimes. More users may result in the commission of additional crimes, causing incarceration costs to increase as well.
* It's quite obvious, it would. Alcohol doesn't make people commit crimes, as it doesn't make people good or bad. Drug use doesn't make a criminal. Why don't you study what really causes someone to commit a crime.
____________
In Fiscal Year 1999, the Federal Government spent in excess of $17 billion on drug control, including enforcement, prevention, education, and treatment. In comparison, drug and alcohol abuse costs the United States in excess of $246 billion each year.

This is not to suggest that the aforementioned spending is unwarranted, but rather to accurately address the misconception of disproportionate spending for drug control.

* I assert that the aforementioned spending is inaccurate and unwarranted. You spend a lot more than that on it. I think that it's amazing the government's profits from drug seizures and the seizure of assets aren't released.

These are just some of the things within those texts that caught my eye. What do you guys think?