Decriminalizing Drug Use

[taysteewonderbunny]

Portugal, according to this article, has experienced a drop in problem usage.

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

"This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies."

Portugal's holistic approach had also led to a "spectacular" reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes, he added.

A law that became active on July 1, 2001 did not legalise drug use, but forced users caught with banned substances to appear in front of special addiction panels rather than in a criminal court.

The panels composed of psychologists, judges and social workers recommended action based on the specifics of each case.

Since then, government panels have recommended a response based largely on whether the individual is an occasional drug user or an addict.

Of the nearly 40,000 people currently being treated, "the vast majority of problematic users are today supported by a system that does not treat them as delinquents but as sick people," Goulao said.

In a report published last week, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) said Portugal had dealt with this issue "in a pragmatic and innovative way."

Drug use statistics in Portugal are generally "below the European average and much lower than its only European neighbour, Spain," the report also said.

"The changes that were made in Portugal provide an interesting before-and-after study on the possible effects of decriminalisation," EMCDDA said.

Do you think we should adopt a similar policy here in the U.S.? If yes, what would your program look like?

[DJ Nocker]

Most peole on this site know how I feel about druggies, so my answer in not s many words will be...

No, they deserve to be punished.

[Destroit]

Those who believe that criminalizing it is either A) moral or B) effective needs to put down THEIR crack pipe. It's never worked, it never will. I find it funny also that these people have no problem with shit like alcohol and cigarettes (two substances far more addictive and harmful than HEROIN) and have some skewed illogical view about other substances. I've seen even World of Warcraft do more harm to society than any substance. McDonald's kills more people from fat-overdoses every year. Don't believe me, then look it up, heart attacks and cardiopulmonary problems are still some of the top killers in our country.

They're wrong. End of story. And until anyone in that camp can provide me ACTUAL evidence otherwise, then they're just claiming their stance for their own selfish personal agenda. I have little respect for those trying to oppress other human beings, and hope that something they enjoy becomes illegal for no sound reasoning at all.

What gives people the right to encroach on the liberty of another individual when their actions are causing no harm to anyone else? They're sociopaths who need control which stems from insecurity, imo.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Chernobyl

[phee]

Our country needs to do something different... I know I don't have the answer but I know there needs to be a change.

[StormKnight (1)]

While the idea works in Potugal, I am not quite sure of how it would work here. The mindset for our country is at least one of Puritanical temperance for the most part. One way or the other we have to work within the current set of laws (or change them,) and our own country's mindset. I tend to be more data driven than legal/political driven.

In counter, remember the Great Experiment of Prohibition. Didn't work too well.

A more benign punishment than the long jail times for drug use/possession might be in order, which must include rehab if someone else gets injured by an intoxicated person.

The only thing I can think of coming of Schedule I is marijuana, and even then, it will probably be not dropped more than Schedule II for the near future. And even that will have some warnings if the preliminary data is supported by more rigorous research that it does increase the risk of psychosis in predisposed people. The more rigorous research is still pending. Still good for pain. Mental conditions, not so much.

I am on the fence to be quite honest. I have seen the nasty things with both legal and illegal drugs on people. Even benadryl can be abused in the right context. If the use involves harm towards a person aside from the user, all bets are off ("your rights end when your fist hits my nose," mindset.) But for the individual, I'm not sure.

[candyman]

It won't work here the way it worked everywhere else. We are bombarded from all directions with drug shipments and worst of all we have a bloodthirsty, and I mean bloodthirsty, group of people on our border that seem hell bent on murdering anything they see fit while they get their drugs though.

I have no problem with people that smoke pot as long as it isn't synthetic crap...and there are a few other drugs that I don't see as "much worse". However, greed and self satisfaction have done far more damage than our "war on drugs" and it will stop anything from changing. Right or wrong we let the cancer spread too far and now it does what it pleases without any remorse...do what you want but I have already helped a few dealers in my town pay for their crimes buy letting words slip...and so help me if I find one that sold to kids I will end him in the worst ways possible...

Also if people bring up the cigarettes and alcohol thing I have something to say on that. Those two things are slowly being destroyed too. Insanely stupid taxes hikes...horrible restrictions in unfathomable places. In this world if you are not in charge you need to remember that if you want yours you have to accept that others want theirs too...and people need to help each other. The "I can't have it so neither can you" argument may seem childish but that is how this world works unfortunately. I am considered evil for going into a bar to drink and smoke by some people...if those people want their own thing then they can go fuck themselves.

Sorry for that rant...but I almost had to punch someone out for that yesterday...

[Shaun]

I've always felt that drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed with the taxes used to pay for treatment, drug education, and the enforcement of said regulations... but that's just me. I also don't think your drug history should have any bearing on your sentence, if someone commits a crime then sentence them for the crime. I could give a shit if they were high when they did it.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Shaun

[Troy Spiral (13)]

*pulls out soap box*

As just a blanket statement, most of what are called "victimless crimes" I'm biased toward legalization , but not just wholesale. But It needs to be done intelligently. And what we are doing now, that is, basically perpetuating a criminal culture by keeping nonsense like marijuana (generally) illegal is not intelligent. Prohibition is what fueled a whole criminal underworld , it was a sad, sad day for the various mafias when it went away. The drug trade a key source of income for criminals and , unfortunately THE GOVERNMENT, which is the problem. (Although the puritanical bias of american society doesn't help.)

For the harder drugs I think we need rehab/educational-ish programs and maybe view them as civil infractions in the interim for political reasons to ease the switch over between the "punishment" mentality vs the "rehab" mentality.

We are sort of mixing up "total decriminalization" with "drug rehab rather than punishment" (rehab / education being the focus of the studies that I'm aware of, "total decriminalization" I've never read a study about, and would caution anyone from just using their "gut" to guess at, emotional or guesswork type answers are notoriously unreliable, even though we tend to remember the hits and ignore the misses in such cases.

There was a similar study (and yes i actually took the time to read that link before replying) in the UK with similar results. It works. And the UK is probably the closest "test case" to american culture we can have (except Canada which I'm unaware of their status on drug policy at the moment)

Most of the "real crime" associated with drugs has to do with theft and violence, a HUGE amount of which would go away if you didn't basically have to be "made into" a criminal for smoking weed / hash.

HALF of the "war on drugs" (wasted money) goes to just canibinoids. I'd be glad to set aside all the other drugs, if we could just get this CLEAR piss-away of money off the table. Unless you want to make alcohol illegal which is far more harmful than marijuana is, and well, that's just ass backwards thinking.

As far as say hash/marijuana we should just wake up tomorrow and they are legal (a little oversimplified but there you go.

The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy

State and local governments spent at least another 25 billion dollars.

Source: Jeffrey A. Miron & Kathrine Waldock: "The Budgetary Impact of Drug Prohibition," 2010.

Thats 40 BILLON... Billion with a B. Seriously.

At least HALF of which goes to crimilazing just Cannabis.

What could we do with 20+ billion dollars?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

McDonald's kills more people from fat-overdoses every year. Don't believe me, then look it up, heart attacks and cardiopulmonary problems are still some of the top killers in our country.

Yeah overweight/obesity is far bigger "real" problem than drug use. It was actually declared a national epidemic in 99/2000 and childhood obesity an epidemic this year. (Both of which we really have made no headway on, nor does the public see to give much of a shit.)

[Marblez]

They make medical marijuana legal and find the legal distribution is wrought with illegal stuff.

I just want to be able to get refills of my current medications, legally prescribed by my doctor, for lifelong conditions, the same way that anyone else does for their diabetes or heart troubles. No...just because some college students want to party all night and cram for tests - I can't call my pharmacy for my next refill.

Sorry guys, drugs are bad....mkay?

Seriously, I hope the Marijuana thing gets worked out, I understand that it helps people. The other stuff...I'd have to take that case by case.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

They make medical marijuana legal and find the legal distribution is wrought with illegal stuff.

I just want to be able to get refills of my current medications, legally prescribed by my doctor, for lifelong conditions, the same way that anyone else does for their diabetes or heart troubles. No...just because some college students want to party all night and cram for tests - I can't call my pharmacy for my next refill.

Sorry guys, drugs are bad....mkay?

Seriously, I hope the Marijuana thing gets worked out, I understand that it helps people. The other stuff...I'd have to take that case by case.

I was right there with you years ago. Its a hard concept when we've grown up in a society that has taught us a certain way of thinking about issues. That is a combination of misinformation and too strong a reliance on ideology over reality. It requires a paradigm shift. I agree with your "mentality" here but in actual practice it works out differently, its just a misconception about what drug use actually does/is. That is the "drugs" that are "illegal" and have been sort of "sold to the public" as "bad."

All the "good" pharmacological drugs have (some) criminality related to them. But its a joke compared to what it would be if they were actually illegal. Also medical marijuana is still not fully embraced by states in america other than "legally" but in actual practice marijuana users are still , even if legal, treated with suspicion, but that is a separate issue than what bunny is refering to.

Cigarettes and Alcohol are both far, far worse than canibinoids, we view it as sort of a Freedom Of Choice. That is, we are willing to take the personal risk as a personal freedom.

Now, using that as a baseline, there are so called "bad" drugs (of which Cigarettes and Alcohol should be illegal by that measure) that are far easier on the system than either.

Now if we want to TRY and make all that stuff illegal, well, hello swelling the ranks of the criminal underworld to epic proportions and a whole host of associated criminal problems.

Its what they call "Addressing the Realpolitik". That is, addressing things as they are and as they actually play out , rather than on Ideology. Addressing the actual "real politics" or the practical, rather than just on what we think is "right" or "justice" in a Utopian society.

Now do I think that using illegal drugs is a good idea? No, just because they are illegal and its not worth the risk to me. But do i think its RIGHT that they are illegal? Depending on the drug, no. Some drugs I think are just bad to use because of the health risks, others I think are worth the risk due to the positive effects, it depends on what we are talking about.

[Marblez]

Now do I think that using illegal drugs is a good idea? No, just because they are illegal and its not worth the risk to me. But do i think its RIGHT that they are illegal? Depending on the drug, no. Some drugs I think are just bad to use because of the health risks, others I think are worth the risk due to the positive effects, it depends on what we are talking about.

This is similar to the current debate about allowing helmetless motorcycling. There is a large contingent of riders that want the freedom to make the choice - regardless of the fact that they intend to continue wearing helmets anyway. I totally agree with them.

Fortunately, helmetless riders will "probably" ride a little safer because their lives are that much more on the line. The same may not hold true to the babysitter in her own home smoking the crackpipe in the next room as your infant. Of course, this is a very dramatic example - but look at the irrational things that you have seen out of people that were not self medicating with mind altering drugs.

[candyman]

How do you expect the black market and the violence to go away? The "people" exist just for this purpose! They know nothing else and have damn well proved that they will kill people in broad fucking daylight just to make an "example"...even fucking pregnant people! In some countries it has kinda worked sure...but look at the market we provide vs. what the others did. We wouldn't just be pulling the rug out from underneath them...we would be chopping half the damn house down!

And even if we got a good handle on the situation and provided a market...what would the regulations be? Look how many normal, everyday products we get that are faulty and/or "laced" with something bad. Not to associate the drug market with just shifty people but...who is going to stop them? It is all well and good in some of these places that have done this but a small scale test group usually works with humans...add everyone else and the same shit starts to happen all over again.

Now I don't hate drugs...I don't do them but I don't hate all of them. I just don't see this ending well either way. I don't even see things getting better with full legalization other than the fact that you won't get arrested or fined for drugs anymore...but you will still have an underground market hell bent on killing people actively or passively and then you will add in the whole thing where the government, which WILL regulate the system, will be hunting down the underground market in a CONTINUING war.

[Destroit]

How do you expect the black market and the violence to go away? The "people" exist just for this purpose! They know nothing else and have damn well proved that they will kill people in broad fucking daylight just to make an "example"...even fucking pregnant people! In some countries it has kinda worked sure...but look at the market we provide vs. what the others did. We wouldn't just be pulling the rug out from underneath them...we would be chopping half the damn house down!

And even if we got a good handle on the situation and provided a market...what would the regulations be? Look how many normal, everyday products we get that are faulty and/or "laced" with something bad. Not to associate the drug market with just shifty people but...who is going to stop them? It is all well and good in some of these places that have done this but a small scale test group usually works with humans...add everyone else and the same shit starts to happen all over again.

Now I don't hate drugs...I don't do them but I don't hate all of them. I just don't see this ending well either way. I don't even see things getting better with full legalization other than the fact that you won't get arrested or fined for drugs anymore...but you will still have an underground market hell bent on killing people actively or passively and then you will add in the whole thing where the government, which WILL regulate the system, will be hunting down the underground market in a CONTINUING war.

WOW...that's a very misinformed assumption. In countries where drugs are legal and regulated, there is no NEED for any shadyness. It's a perfectly legal substance. That's like saying you're afraid the grocery store is going to sell you shady bread . Underground markets are not needed for items that are legal. There might be a small niche amount of people that buy items from stores and resale them, but that would not be as widespread as the current illegal drug black market is by a LONG shot.

In Michigan for instance, since medical legalization, patients can now walk freely into dispensaries whose best interest is to deliver quality product that is straightforward and grown by reputable people doing so under the law.

[Slogo]

I've seen both sides of this issue. Was on the soapbox for a few years a decade ago talking about the evils of marijuana and everythin else. Since that time I had went back to it (did it quite heavily for a number of years), as well as a plethora of harder drugs. Having seen first hand the damage they can do, I still agree with de-criminalization. I believe (from my own experiences) that it makes people more open to help.

I don't see why we can't fuck up our lives in ways we see fit. Whether it's drugs, smoking (indoor and out), drinking, gambling, prostitution, etc...

"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" ~ John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

[candyman]

WOW...that's a very misinformed assumption. In countries where drugs are legal and regulated, there is no NEED for any shadyness. It's a perfectly legal substance. That's like saying you're afraid the grocery store is going to sell you shady bread . Underground markets are not needed for items that are legal. There might be a small niche amount of people that buy items from stores and resale them, but that would not be as widespread as the current illegal drug black market is by a LONG shot.

In Michigan for instance, since medical legalization, patients can now walk freely into dispensaries whose best interest is to deliver quality product that is straightforward and grown by reputable people doing so under the law.

But these people run a huge business on it...like really insane shit. After prohibition ended did gangsters die off? Bread and grocery store items have never been on the black market like drugs and hell even weapons. There have been many industries that were born of a need and then they died off when the need for them did...but even if this were to become legal would the need really die off? They would offer cheaper prices...higher dosage...no restrictions on anything that would clearly come off of a regulated product. Fucking prescription drugs and plastic surgery are both legal but people are always going over the line and getting themselves killed to save a little something or get something that is otherwise restricted elsewhere...

This black market for drugs isn't a rabble by a long shot. Nothing is going to dissipate it for years short of dropping a nuke on them when they all gather for a meeting. Whole towns are slave to this shit. These people aren't just going to say "oh they don't need us anymore...I guess it's back to working at McDonald's and male stripping". These people ARE the market and they kill for street corners and territory and are obviously not above killing anything related to the government...so what happens when legislation passes that tries to "take their corner"?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

This is similar to the current debate about allowing helmetless motorcycling. There is a large contingent of riders that want the freedom to make the choice - regardless of the fact that they intend to continue wearing helmets anyway. I totally agree with them.

Fortunately, helmetless riders will "probably" ride a little safer because their lives are that much more on the line. The same may not hold true to the babysitter in her own home smoking the crackpipe in the next room as your infant. Of course, this is a very dramatic example - but look at the irrational things that you have seen out of people that were not self medicating with mind altering drugs.

This here is a very broad topic with a lot of variation. In that specific example , In the case of helmets you have a very specific thing, in a very specific situation. Which if somehow we could have a study on the effects of LEGAL drug use by non addicted persons, costing Joe-blow billions of dollars, I might be persuaded, in a specific situation for a specific drug, so I'd have to be open to the "real politics" despite my sort of ideological bias against criminalization.

Drug addiction (once it gets to that point) is a disease, not just a "choice not to use" something its more of a mental health issue than a legal issue.

Now if we are talking specifically about say "non addicted recreational use" of a drug, then it WOULD be the same if that drug was more harmful than say, alcohol, but the vast majority of the anti-drug campaign is against marijuana (and related substances) which is not , as far as any research I've ever read "harmful to society" (or at least it would not be if it was legal)

Now in the case of some type of drug that can cause instant brain damage yeah, I might be on board to a point with the concept, but even then, generally we are talking about flawed mental processes and it gets into a gray area.

If i saw a study that said "using (legal) marijuana costs 1 trillion dollars a year in increase insurance premiums" then it might be an apples to apples comparison. (One might exist and I just don't know about it)

[wormsinwombs]

Those who believe that criminalizing it is either A) moral or B) effective needs to put down THEIR crack pipe. It's never worked, it never will. I find it funny also that these people have no problem with shit like alcohol and cigarettes (two substances far more addictive and harmful than HEROIN) and have some skewed illogical view about other substances. I've seen even World of Warcraft do more harm to society than any substance. McDonald's kills more people from fat-overdoses every year. Don't believe me, then look it up, heart attacks and cardiopulmonary problems are still some of the top killers in our country.

They're wrong. End of story. And until anyone in that camp can provide me ACTUAL evidence otherwise, then they're just claiming their stance for their own selfish personal agenda. I have little respect for those trying to oppress other human beings, and hope that something they enjoy becomes illegal for no sound reasoning at all.

What gives people the right to encroach on the liberty of another individual when their actions are causing no harm to anyone else? They're sociopaths who need control which stems from insecurity, imo.

this this this! I don't understand at all why drugs (along with a few other things) are illegal.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

But these people run a huge business on it...like really insane shit. After prohibition ended did gangsters die off?

They did take a HUGE hit (seriously) organized crime took a huge hit in the U.S. after prohibition ended, that is one of the reasons it "stuck" and did not return, despite a huge push from various factions to reinstate it for ideological reasons. That Realpolitik idea I was referencing above is at play here. During prohibition they made massive amounts of cash and people entered into the criminal world due to this influx. After it, there was no reason to stay, and the various types of crime associated with it declined drastically.

The various mafias strengh was waning in the US and then boom prohibition hit and helped them out big time. If you have a product that people want, and cant get it legally, that is how you get an enlarged criminal underground.

True your right, there will be black market stuff no matter what we do, its just the SCALE that we are talking about. There won't be any reason for there to be this whole massive criminal industry maunfactiuing illegal drugs and killing each other over it, because they wont be illegal.

You can actually find politicians in mexico that wish we would legalize drugs so they wouldn't have to risk getting killed by the cartels. Which, would be tiny orginzations if it wasnt for the huge drug markets available.

[candyman]

They did take a HUGE hit (seriously) organized crime took a huge hit in the U.S. after prohibition ended, that is one of the reasons it "stuck" and did not return, despite a huge push from various factions to reinstate it for ideological reasons. That Realpolitik idea I was referencing above is at play here. During prohibition they made massive amounts of cash and people entered into the criminal world due to this influx. After it, there was no reason to stay, and the various types of crime associated with it declined drastically.

The various mafias strengh was waning in the US and then boom prohibition hit and helped them out big time. If you have a product that people want, and cant get it legally, that is how you get an enlarged criminal underground.

True your right, there will be black market stuff no matter what we do, its just the SCALE that we are talking about. There won't be any reason for there to be this whole massive criminal industry maunfactiuing illegal drugs and killing each other over it, because they wont be illegal.

You can actually find politicians in mexico that wish we would legalize drugs so they wouldn't have to risk getting killed by the cartels. Which, would be tiny orginzations if it wasnt for the huge drug markets available.

I know they did die off to an extent. However, look what is in their place now. The way I see it the gangs we have now are just as organized and have a much higher expansion rate and a deeper root system in their communities. Drugs are a big market for them and are just a part of what they do. While their hold on the drug industry may slacken I don't see it making enough of a difference with the way that they do business.

Running moonshine was risky business...but putting up these labs is a whole new ballgame. Even with population numbers and such the rate today is higher...and so is all of their boasting and bragging. They have my hometown by the balls and the same with the town around where I am stationed...which includes and area where cops and soldiers get shot.

What I am saying is that while the scale thing might drop off it will be too long before it does. These people are not going to go away like I said before. They have made a profession of this...hell some people have made damn submarines to run this shit. They have also gone up against our military forces far more than any group has before...it was mostly local law enforcement and FBI. The scale is too large and they have their hands in the pot too deep to let this go without it getting horribly ugly...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I know they did die off to an extent. However, look what is in their place now. The way I see it the gangs we have now are just as organized and have a much higher expansion rate and a deeper root system in their communities. Drugs are a big market for them and are just a part of what they do. While their hold on the drug industry may slacken I don't see it making enough of a difference with the way that they do business.

Running moonshine was risky business...but putting up these labs is a whole new ballgame. Even with population numbers and such the rate today is higher...and so is all of their boasting and bragging. They have my hometown by the balls and the same with the town around where I am stationed...which includes and area where cops and soldiers get shot.

What I am saying is that while the scale thing might drop off it will be too long before it does. These people are not going to go away like I said before. They have made a profession of this...hell some people have made damn submarines to run this shit. They have also gone up against our military forces far more than any group has before...it was mostly local law enforcement and FBI. The scale is too large and they have their hands in the pot too deep to let this go without it getting horribly ugly...

I'm following you, and honestly I'm almost never trying to 'win' an argument, I'm just trying to get at the truth, whatever that is. If I'm totally wrong then so be it, i learned something.

I used to be sort of a organized crime buff. Organized crime as a widespread phenomenon is often suggested (in the US) to have (nearly) dissolved almost a century ago as a national enterprise. The passage of the 18th amendment (prohibition) gave it a colossal boost. It has never recovered its former strength after the repeal of the 18th amendment, making its primary product legal, the incentive to remain just was not there anymore (although they had a huge bankroll BECASUE of prohibition and shifted into racketeering). OC's grip on politics/politicians loosened making it weaker and weaker until RICO was passed, basically the death knell of OC in america.

There is no more "national strength" to use an FBI term. The penalties are just so harsh, and law enforcement (despite its flaws) is light-years ahead of the dog n pony show that it once was, due it no small part to it being "decriminalized" due to the lack of a large criminal underground to control it in the way they used to be able to. Criminal organizations now are more closer akin to terrorist "cells" largely independent and connected to each other in name only, Crips, Bloods etc. (LCN aka The Mob is nearly gone, either busted or morphed into legal entities) and attract very little "mastermind" types in the way OC once did. That brain power typically does a cost/benefit analysis at some point, and gets out of the game or more commonly never enters. In decades past , the reward might have seemed worth the risk, but generally now the majority of criminals are in "the life" due to poverty or other factors, and there is very little "code" or "organisations" on the level prior to RICO and especially post-18th. The whole deal is a squeaky little nub compared to what it used to be.

That same trend is going on in mexico right now, that is, essentially we have "prohibition" and their "mafia" (the cartels) are paid by our dollars. There is nothing to buy if we make their product legal here, no one to kill over turf etc. True it wont dry up overnight, and it won't fully go away, but it will be a pale shadow of what it once was.

I might be wrong in this line of reasoning (and in the previous posts) but it seems unlikely to me.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Troy Spiral
edited instances of "19th" to "18th" (the 19th amedment was the one giving women the right to vote)

[TygerLili]

The other night, my fiance told me that he had just found out that it was illegal to ride a bicycle while drunk. He told me how stupid he thought that law was, reasoning that the only person you could be endangering while riding bike intoxicated is yourself, right? I asked him "What about people who would ride their bike under the influence with their baby strapped in a seat on the back, or what about someone who drunkenly rides their bike into the path of an oncoming car, and that car swerves to miss the person on the bike in the middle of the road and loses control of their vehicle, veers off the road, hits and tree, and injures/kills everyone inside the car?" He said "Oh..." I think the same logic applies to use of drugs. While, in the simplest sense of the concept, a person using drugs is not hurting anyone but themselves, depending on how they react to those drugs, and what they do while under the influence, they could potentially endanger LOTS of innocent people. And most people don't think about those complications.

That said, I don't have an issue with adults doing drugs, that they paid for out of pocket, in the privacy of their own homes, or the homes of someone else who is okay with it. I actually kind of think of that as Darwinism at work. I do, however have an issue with people doing drugs in public places, doing drugs and driving a car, or going to work, doing drugs that they paid for with money from government assistance, selling drugs to minors...just to name a few, because they are putting a lot of people at risk. I am not 100% against decriminalizing at least some drugs, but until someone comes up with detailed legislature addressing all the restrictions that we currently have on cigarettes and alcohol and planning to apply them to drugs, I am certainly not for it.

Though on the other hand, I do think that there are better things that we could be doing with the majority of the money and manpower that is spent on things like drug raids.

[candyman]

I'm following you, and honestly I'm almost never trying to 'win' an argument, I'm just trying to get at the truth, whatever that is. If I'm totally wrong then so be it, i learned something.

I used to be sort of a organized crime buff. Organized crime as a widespread phenomenon is often suggested (in the US) to have (nearly) dissolved almost a century ago as a national enterprise. The passage of the 19th amendment (prohibition) gave it a colossal boost. It has never recovered its former strength after the repeal of the 19th amendment, making its primary product legal, the incentive to remain just was not there anymore (although they had a huge bankroll BECASUE of prohibition and shifted into racketeering). OC's grip on politics/politicians loosened making it weaker and weaker until RICO was passed, basically the death knell of OC in america.

There is no more "national strength" to use an FBI term. The penalties are just so harsh, and law enforcement (despite its flaws) is light-years ahead of the dog n pony show that it once was, due it no small part to it being "decriminalized" due to the lack of a large criminal underground to control it in the way they used to be able to. Criminal organizations now are more closer akin to terrorist "cells" largely independent and connected to each other in name only, Crips, Bloods etc. (LCN aka The Mob is nearly gone, either busted or morphed into legal entities) and attract very little "mastermind" types in the way OC once did. That brain power typically does a cost/benefit analysis at some point, and gets out of the game or more commonly never enters. In decades past , the reward might have seemed worth the risk, but generally now the majority of criminals are in "the life" due to poverty or other factors, and there is very little "code" or "organisations" on the level prior to RICO and especially post-19th. The whole deal is a squeaky little nub compared to what it used to be.

That same trend is going on in mexico right now, that is, essentially we have "prohibition" and their "mafia" (the cartels) are paid by our dollars. There is nothing to buy if we make their product legal here, no one to kill over turf etc. True it wont dry up overnight, and it won't fully go away, but it will be a pale shadow of what it once was.

I might be wrong in this line of reasoning (and in the previous posts) but it seems unlikely to me.

I am not trying to "win" either really...this is just fun although I am being serious...

You don't know how bad the military is asking for permission to take care of the border and violence. We already send people to border defense, who get shot at, and we send people with police or SWAT teams, who get shot at, and it has worked really well so far. The soldiers from the Dominican Army that we were with for a while do this all the time. Raids in their own country are down and so is drug use because they took over the corrupt police force and laid down the law with some gun play. Now they are branching out into Haiti and Mainland South America to conduct their own raid or joint forces raids...

So how about that? Decriminalize but let the military clear house on drug distribution and production? After all, once it is legal those places and people are no longer needed...

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I support outright legalization, along with heavy taxation. also fair trade provisions for growers and farm workers, so the big corporate interests' desires for monopolies and slave labor tactics can be held off for at least a little while.

[Nightgaunt]

While, in the simplest sense of the concept, a person using drugs is not hurting anyone but themselves, depending on how they react to those drugs, and what they do while under the influence, they could potentially endanger LOTS of innocent people. And most people don't think about those complications.

That said, I don't have an issue with adults doing drugs, that they paid for out of pocket, in the privacy of their own homes, or the homes of someone else who is okay with it. I actually kind of think of that as Darwinism at work. I do, however have an issue with people doing drugs in public places, doing drugs and driving a car, or going to work, doing drugs that they paid for with money from government assistance, selling drugs to minors...just to name a few, because they are putting a lot of people at risk. I am not 100% against decriminalizing at least some drugs, but until someone comes up with detailed legislature addressing all the restrictions that we currently have on cigarettes and alcohol and planning to apply them to drugs, I am certainly not for it.

Good points, all. Here's how I see it, for whatever it's worth: If someone consumes a legal drug like alcohol and as a result of their impairment, causes the injury or death of another, they're punished. I would assunme the same thing would apply to any newly-decriminalized drug. I'm definitely not in favor of criminalizing something because a small percentage of people make poor choices.

I apply the same sort of thinking to doing drugs in public places, at work, while driving, selling to minors, and purchasing with "food stamps". We have laws and restrictions regarding alcohol and cigarettes with regard to these situations, and I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't apply to marijuana, peyote, etc. I've never been in favor of having absolutely no restrictions on drug use, but I do think that decriminalization, ending the ridiculous restrictions on the lives of responsible adults, has to happen if we are to have the kind of free and open society intended by this nation's founders.

So how about that? Decriminalize but let the military clear house on drug distribution and production? After all, once it is legal those places and people are no longer needed...

The only problem I have with this is the unconstitutionality of maintaining a standing army on U.S. soil. Substitute "military" with "civil authorities" abiding by Constitutional law, and I'll support it. I hope I'm not missing your point.