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?

Bongwater19

the DEA seems to group all drugs into one big superdrug somehow. i have not heard much call for legalization of cocaine, heroin, lsd. but legalization marijuana, there is support for. the DEA's website listed these 'questions to ask' the anti-prohibitionists [pro-legalizationists]:

1. Should all drugs be legalized?

no. i focus on marijuana. if there are arguments for other drugs let them be made and debated. if they deserve legalization it should be granted.

2. Who will determine which segments of the population will have access to legalized drugs?

healthy debate again should find what is right. i believe an age limit of 18 years is acceptable. if not 18, 21.

3. Will they be limited only to people over 18, 21?

sure.

4. Will cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP be made available if people request them?

no. again assuming marijuana legalization.

5. Who will sell drugs, the government, private companies?

drugs would be given to adequately regulated private industry, like alcohol and tobacco are. the government selling drugs would be silly.

6. Who will be liable for damages caused by drug use, and the activities of those taking drugs?

the same people who are liable for what they do when they drink alcohol: the user. alcoholics are responsible for what they do even in a blackout, as proven by the courts.

7. Who will collect the revenues generated by the drug sales?

those who sell them. the DEA is starting to ask the same questions over and over.

8. How will a black market for cheaper drugs be controlled?

if we sell marijuana from stores the stores will push drug dealers out of business like walmart does to mom'n'pop shops. if a drug is legalized there can be no black market for it. have you heard of the black market for alcohol? not since the 1920's.

9. Who will bear the costs to society of increased drug use?

what costs are you referring to?

10. How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business? Who will bear the costs of lost productivity, consumers, stockholders?

the same way it is addressed by employees who show up drunk, or miss work for a day of 'heavy drinking'. yeah we get -that- a lot. they'd be fired.

11. Will the local drug situation in a community dictate which drugs are sold where?

no. legal status will dictate what drugs are sold.

12. How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?

these things happen without the help of drugs. it's a matter of attitude and social skills, not drugs.

13. 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?

assuming marijuana legalization, there will be no addicts. people will still get up in the morning and go to their jobs. this isn't apcoalypse.

14. Will people still need prescriptions for currently controlled medications, such as antibiotics, if drugs are legalized?

obviously yes. we are not asking to change such health standards or preventative medicine practices.

15. Will legal drugs require prescriptions?

no. alcohol requires no prescription. neither will any other recreational drug.

16. Can anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions, purchase drugs?

legal recreational drugs, yes. tobacco, alcohol, marijuana.

17. How will we deal with the influx of people to the United States who will seek legal drugs?

it's called tourism. we would allow them to enter and take money from them in the form of commerce.

18. Can we begin a legalization pilot program in your neighborhood for one year?

oh god yes.

19. Should the distribution outlets be located in the already overburdened inner city?

they already have liquor stores in the inner city. yes.

the dea seems to think legalization means legalization of all drgus. i would be a bit frightened of that myself. they also see drugs as an entirely bad thing without any good properties to them. they don't see the mood enhancing properties, they don't value mild intoxication, entertainment, thinking differently.

__________________
remember team, surrender the mead for the weed!

GelTab

I love it, excellent man. Good job. Bravo! :P

Seriously, I agree with you on many points there (give or take a few).

Newrea64

Third, maintain optimism. This is a long and difficult effort we are undertaking to get our issues on the table and be heard.

I guess 30 years is not long enough to get their message on the table?

How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?


…over the last 20 years, the number of prisoners has surged in every state in the country. While the nation's population has grown by only 20 percent, the number of Americans held in local, state, and federal lockups has doubled -- and then doubled again. The United States now locks up some two million people. That's far more than ever before, and more than any other country on earth. And the number is still growing.

Perhaps this is a contributing factor???

In 1981, the federal government spent about $1.5 billion on the drug war. Today, we spend almost $20 billion a year at the federal level, with the states spending at least that much again. In 1980, the federal government arrested a few hundred thousand people on drug charges; today we arrest 1.6 million people a year for drug offenses.

How about we use this money?

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?

Looks like you’ve already done this;

We are increasingly becoming a nation of first-class jails and second-class schools. The United States is spending an average of $7,000 per year to educate a youth, and over $35,000 to lock up a youth.

…details how many residents of each state are currently imprisoned compared with 1980, the soaring number of nonviolent drug offenders, and the increasing racial disparity in imprisonment. It also shows how the bill for prisons has grown six times faster per capita than spending on higher education, which has actually dropped or remained stagnant in many states.


Sources:
http://www.motherjones.com/prisons/overview.html
http://www.motherjones.com/prisons/investment.html
http://www.motherjones.com/prisons/liberty.html

vaya

The only thing I'm deadly worried about is that, if they do instate a pilot program in a town or community, how do we know people won't walk around stoned and cause a ruckus, or increased drug use, and the DEA wouldn't use that against us and tell us that the pilot program 'failed' and that'll be the last we hear from them for another thirty years?

I'm biting my nails now.....

__________________
I Wish For Peace Between The Races Someday We Shall All Be One
Coming To The Surface There's Fire All Around But This Is An Illusion

commonsense

I agree with much of what you said. There are a few statements, including the above-quoted, which are not well thought out however. I deal with the effects of drug and alcohol abuse all the time. Just last night, a client of mine slashed her wrists because the realization set in for her that she would be losing her children forever because of her continued drug and alcohol problems. We had staved off a termination of parental rights action by the state but she went right back to drinking and popping pills. She had neglected her children for years, nearly killed them, and left one permanently disfigured and disabled because of an auto accident she had while drunk.

Drugs and alcohol can lead to family disintegration, neglect, crime and other costs to society. I see it all the time with my own two eyes. You say these people have underlying problems. I agree, but that doesn't make me feel any better about drugs and alcohol exacerbating these problems. I can't tell you how many wife-beating cases I've seen where the men never beat their wives unless they were drunk or on drugs like meth, or both.

The drug store behind my office was robbed a couple of weeks ago. The armed robber made off with over a thousand Oxycontin pills which sell for $25 or $30 a pop around here. Many even of the simple theft, hot check and other nonviolent crimes I deal with happened because drug addicts needed money to pay their rent or for drugs or whatever.

Cocaine, alcohol, methamphetamine and prescription drugs are a huge factor in many of the cases I see. People lose there homes, their personal property, their jobs, their spouses, their children and their self respect because of drugs. The costs to individuals and society are truly enormous.

This is not propaganda. This is what I see everyday. It breaks my heart, disgusts me, pisses me off, and makes me feel thankful all at the same time. I look across my desk and think that but for the grace of God go I. (and I'm not even particularly religious) When I go home at night I hug my kids, I hug my wife, and any little problems we might have ever had seem insignificant in comparison to what I see on days like today. I've done my share of drugs and none of this happened to me. Many of the people who sit across my desk are people much like me, some of them old friends. Perhaps it was because I was so "responsible," but I just consider myself lucky.

Just before writing this post I received a call from a friend to report that another old high school friend had just been busted with a meth lab in operation. That would not have happened I suppose if meth were legal. But dammit, this idiot was warned two weeks ago by a reliable source that he was about to be raided. What the hell was he thinking? The fact is, he wasn't thinking, the sh*t had a hold of him so bad he couldn't think straight. Now he is likely to go to the pen for a long time.

The crimes associated with drug use would not all go away if drugs were all legalized, neither would all the negative effects on families and society as a whole. If heroin was ten dollars a gram and pure, junkies would still steal to buy it. Those who are too caught up in it to work would still steal to pay their bills. The idiot with the meth lab I mentioned above hasn't had a real job in over ten years. He just cooked his meth and wasted his life away. His wife and children left him years ago.

Heroin is not a big problem where I live. It's out there, but only a little. I personally have never seen it here, and I've seen a lot of drugs in this town. What would happen if it became cheap and readily available to anyone who wanted it? I bet you a dollar we'd have a much worse heroin problem. Regardless of the risk, there would be too many curious enough to try it. Some of them would get hooked.

Cocaine is fairly available here. A lot of people do it. More would do it if it was cheap. How many more families would I see wrecked? How many more lives would I see ruined? I just ran into an old friend yesterday in municipal court who used to be a dentist. I had no idea what he'd gotten in trouble for this time and I didn't even ask. He was such a good guy before coke got the better of him, as are many of the folks drugs like this bring down. I didn't want to put him into the position to where he would feel he had to give me more bullsh*t excuses about how this or that has happened to him through no fault of his own. Like just about every drug addict, he lies about everything and blames everyone but himself for his problems.

I want marijuana to be legal because I know that alcohol is generally more harmful to individuals and society than weed. It is stupid and unfair to keep it illegal. Most of the problems I see with marijuana are directly related to the fact that it is illegal. Yes, some people over do it with weed and it causes them some non-law related problems, but nothing like these other substances.

I do not ever want to see hard drugs legalized entirely. I would do away with felony possession charges, however. Most people only fool around a little with drugs for a period in their lives and then quit. A fair amount of folks continue to fool around a little with hard drugs on into their later lives and never get hooked or cause society problems. Too many do develop and cause problems because of hard drugs though and I do not want to see these substances become cheaper and more available.

We have to look at all drugs and see that they are different. The high is different. The health consequences are different. The risk of addiction is different. Addiction to one drug may be much more powerful and hard to shake than another. The violence associated with each is different. The availability and demand for each is different. There are so many differences and what it really boils down to is whether the risk of harms to society from these subtances is sufficient to warrant prohibiting their use.

Marijuana, for instance, is already available just about anywhere you go. Teens report that it is easier for them to get than alcohol and in some instances even tobacco. We couldn't make it more available to children by legalizing it. It is not as harmful as alcohol to individuals or society. Therefore, the risk of harm to society from legalizing it is negligible. Can you see how legalizing heroin is different?

The threat of harsh penalties does not deter drug use. Just ask my client who is about to lose her kids forever and the guy who's going to prison for a long time for cooking up a little meth in his kitchen. Some people are always going to do drugs no matter what our society does to stop it. Our present drug policies are just plain hateful and ineffective. We don't need to continue to lock people up at such an alarming rate. All we are doing is adding to the problems we already have.

Having said that, I still think we need to make every reasonable effort to stifle the availability of hard drugs. It may cause a violent black market and other problems, but I suspect our problems would be worse if we made these drugs anymore available. Marijuana is one thing, these drugs are another entirely, especially the super addictive ones.

We could certainly be much more understanding and reasonable in the way we deal with hard drug use. It should be discouraged and there should be legal consequences, but not like we have today. I'd like to see us develop harm reduction strategies and focus more on identifying problem drug use and helping addicts rather than demonizing them. We need to pull these people back into society rather than alienating them. If we give them felony records and possibly the stigma of being ex cons we are only making the problems worse.

I could go on with this but it is time to pack it in and head on out of the office. I will leave you with one last thought and that is that if you want marijuana legalized, think twice about insisting that all other drugs be legalized as well. Maybe someday society will decide that this is the right course of action, but for now you are going to have a hard time bringing people aboard that train. Stick with trying to legalize marijuana and possibly reducing somewhat the penal nature of our drug policy in general but be careful advocating legalization of all drugs. You'll scare the hell out of people with that. We'll never get marijuana legalized unless we can get people off the defensive and that won't happen if they think we all want hard drugs sold at the neighborhood convenience store.

vaya

Cocaine, alcohol, methamphetamine and prescription drugs are a huge factor in many of the cases I see. People lose there homes, their personal property, their jobs, their spouses, their children and their self respect because of drugs. The costs to individuals and society are truly enormous.

While this is true, another factor you've got to consider is that people lose things due to drugs because they are illegal.

The first example you sited, the woman who slashed her wrists, was under the influence of alchohol and pills.

We are talking about marijuana here.

But, again, this is why we arent lobbying for drugs to become legal like meth, speed, coke, heroin, crack, pcp, lsd, psychotropic substances, devils herb, opiates, et al. We're simply lobbying for marijuana reforms.



I do not want to see these substances become cheaper and more available.

Too late

Our present drug policies are just plain hateful and ineffective.

Great point!

Having said that, I still think we need to make every reasonable effort to stifle the availability of hard drugs. It may cause a violent black market and other problems, but I suspect our problems would be worse if we made these drugs anymore available. Marijuana is one thing, these drugs are another entirely, especially the super addictive ones.

Question: What if we just kept the hard drug efforts as they are? Some might become legal, others might not, but this wouldnt create such availability, while simultaneously evading an even more violent black market. We eliminate both extremes and are stuck with something that's not entirely laudible, but better than either of the two eliminated.

I could go on with this but it is time to pack it in and head on out of the office. I will leave you with one last thought and that is that if you want marijuana legalized, think twice about insisting that all other drugs be legalized as well. Maybe someday society will decide that this is the right course of action, but for now you are going to have a hard time bringing people aboard that train. Stick with trying to legalize marijuana and possibly reducing somewhat the penal nature of our drug policy in general but be careful advocating legalization of all drugs. You'll scare the hell out of people with that. We'll never get marijuana legalized unless we can get people off the defensive and that won't happen if they think we all want hard drugs sold at the neighborhood convenience store.

Yes, to whoever originally insisted that all drugs should be made legal, never say something without thinking about it. That's not to imply that you werent thinking, but honestly, we're here to fight for stoners, not cokeheads

vivrantv

I believe a good solution would be to have harsher punishment for certain crimes. Let me elaborate. Beating your wife is unnaceptable, and should warrant being thrown in jail for a long time. If you are a drug addict and a drunk and your kids are affected by that, then you are directly endangering your children, and they should be taken away, as harsh as that sounds (So many good families want children to adopt while so many good children have neglegent idiot parents). The fact that some people can't use drugs responsibly seems to the DEA to imply that nobody can. Not to mention, if somebody commits a crime, regardless of whether or not they were on drugs, they should be punished fittingly. Drugs don't commit crimes, people commit crimes, and to say that crimes commited are a direct result of drug use may be correct, but it is the user's responsibility to allocate a situation where his/her drug use will not endanger anybody or their private property. As for all drugs being legalized? Yes, everything I said goes for any other drugs as well. I believe in personal responsibility, and I think trying to impose government regulations to control people's actions is stupid. If they commit a crime, they are responsible, end of story.

__________________
I'm falling
my heart rapid rushes
death before my eyes
oh why did I trust this
my reactions are repeated
over and over and over
oh it seems like I will never be sober

-The Pharcyde

Newrea64

Quote:

The fact that some people can't use drugs responsibly seems to the DEA to imply that nobody can.

Welcome to kindergarden. Now behave or no one will get to go for playground time.

Just trying to add a little humor to a very vitrolic subject.

commonsense

I am all for people taking responsibility for their actions. But we can only go so far with that. What if a new drug was invented that produced an unbelievable high, but caused one in ten who used it to fly off into a homicidal rage? What if out of this ten percent, half the time these people actually killed people? No such drug exists of course but if it did should society prohibit it or just wait until these people killed other people and then go and arrest them?

We prohibit a good deal of dangerous conduct that is probably okay to prohibit. We prohibit possession of high explosives without special licenses and controls. Should we just sell dynamite at the 7-11? How about tactical nukes at the local hobby store next to the model rockets? Maybe they could sell anthrax spores in the party section at WalMart, what a great party gag. Do we actually want to just let people have stuff like this and hope they will be responsible?

Some drugs are just so addictive and dangerous that we probably should prohibit their use. Cigarettes are apparently as addictive as heroin, but at least nicotine fiends don't lose their ability to function in society because of their cigarette habit. They are not likely to overdose and die on our streets or end up in our hospitals at our expense. (from overdose) Their addiction might make them grumpy at times but they are not likely to lose their minds and do horrible things. They can still care for children. Those that can't quit while they are pregnant might actually hurt their unborn children some, but nothing like those injecting methamphetamine or heroin often do.

Heroin and meth addicts can in some cases hold on to a relatively normal life. But far too many of them cannot. The addiction is more powerful than they are. Responsibility becomes nearly an unobtainable virtue for a hardcore drug addict.

The scary thing is that even though most who play around a little with highly addictive hard drugs will not become addicts, a significant portion of them will and there is no way to look at a group of new drug users and tell which ones this will happen to. It happens to the best of us. It doesn't matter what color you are, how much money your daddy has, how smart you are, how nice you are, or how responsible you think you are.

I don't have all the answers. I don't think anyone does. I do not think it is simple as those who believe all prohibition is wrong think it is. We should stick to just trying to get marijuana legalized. It's something we all know should happen and something we actually have a good fighting chance of achieving. If we can help make the other drug laws more sane in the process, good.

To those who insist that all drugs must be legalized, all I can say is be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.


Edit: I agree entirely with vivrantv's suggestion that we have harsher punishment for certain crimes. Crimes with real identifiable victims should be punished more harshly. It is absolutely ridiculous to punish a drug user or even a small time dealer the same or worse than we punish someone like a child molester or someone who robs, murders or steals. The drug offender is merely creating a risk of harm to society whereas these other guys are really hurting people. Most drug offenses probably won't hurt anyone in a meaningful way, these other offenses absolutely, unequivocally are hurting others. We need to save most of the prison space for these jerks. This would perhaps also lead to more responsible drug use by those who chose to use.