Do you support the war on drugs?

[spoonitnow]

Drugs have helped to screw up a lot of lives for a lot of innocent people. However, a lot of things that are legal can be abused to the point that they hurt other people, so that by itself isn't really grounds for something to be illegal. Do you support the war on drugs?

[supa]

“Its not a war on drugs, its a war on personal freedom its what it is ok. Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you.”

[spoonitnow]

“Its not a war on drugs, its a war on personal freedom its what it is ok. Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you.”

Okay I guess laws against murder are bad too since it's a war on the personal freedom to kill someone if you feel like it.

That's a ridiculous example to show the ridiculous lack of logic in that quote.

[JKDS]

I support the war on some drugs, but not on MJ

[rong]

I support the war on drugs, without it I'd have had to work through college.

[Galapogos]

I read somewhere that I think it was Norway legalized all drugs and then put all the money that formally was used to fight drugs users into treating drug users. Apparently it has had great results so far. Seems like a good way to go.

I've never know someone who has chosen to avoid a certain drug due to the fact that it's illegal or in scarce supply due to the fact that it's illegal status makes it hard to obtain.

I'm no expert on the subject nor well read on it so my opinion isn't worth much on the matter though.

[rong]

I read somewhere that I think it was Norway legalized all drugs and then put all the money that formally was used to fight drugs users into treating drug users. Apparently it has had great results so far. Seems like a good way to go.

I've never know someone who has chosen to avoid a certain drug due to the fact that it's illegal or in scarce supply due to the fact that it's illegal status makes it hard to obtain.

I'm no expert on the subject nor well read on it so my opinion isn't worth much on the matter though.

Isn't that what Portugal did? If not then they did something similar. Crime dropped with the policy, what a surprise.

[Hawk]

Totally against drugs! I'm doing my part to get rid of as many as possible!

[Galapogos]

Isn't that what Portugal did? If not then they did something similar. Crime dropped with the policy, what a surprise.

Could very well have been Portugal. And by good results I should have been more specific. I didn't mean crime dropped, which it did obviously, I meant people suffering from addictions dropped since they were now being treated for their addiction rather than arrested for it. They also weren't left to get to a point where they commit other crimes in order to support their addiction.

[rong]

Portugal dropped and then increased again I think. Can't be assed to look it up but I don't think it was all that rosy, but overall net benefit I think.

[Stacks]

Portugal decriminalized all drugs 11 years ago.

"Portugal's move to decriminalize does not mean people can carry around, use, and sell drugs free from police interference. That would be legalization. Rather, all drugs are "decriminalized," meaning drug possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a criminal offense, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender's unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers."

This led to addictions being halved, and drug related diseases (STDs and overdosing) being reduced by more than half, over that time frame.

There are also injecting centers in some places (Sydney and Vancouver to name two) where you can go to use while connecting with health care services. Which seems like it would be much safer, and more beneficial in helping addicts, than the alternative that is currently in place.

Portugal Drug Policy: Decriminalization Works - Business Insider

[bikes]

YOU WANNA BE HIGH FOR THIS

[a500lbgorilla]

Okay I guess laws against murder are bad too since it's a war on the personal freedom to kill someone if you feel like it.

That's a ridiculous example to show the ridiculous lack of logic in that quote.

Murder is like taking drugs.

[OngBonga]

rilla has a dark past.

[spoonitnow]

There are also injecting centers in some places (Sydney and Vancouver to name two) where you can go to use while connecting with health care services. Which seems like it would be much safer, and more beneficial in helping addicts, than the alternative that is currently in place.

Man I'd be so happy for my tax dollars to go towards places for people to shoot up.

[supa]

Murder is like taking drugs.

Pretty much this. And when you think about the number of people who have been murdered due to the war on drugs it makes it apropos.

Not to mention the ridiculous number of people who are in federal prison that have committed no crimes that fit the punishment. Legalization and education combined with solid rehabilitation programs are the way to go if you want to 'win' the war on drugs.

[BennyLaRue]

Do you support the war on drugs?

It's probably easier for them to do the war on drugs since it's hard to shoot another person and not feel really bad, especially if it's a nice person who just wants to do nice and is only in the war because they just want to be able to feed there families and be free and nice so the drugs might not make them feel as bad so yes i guess i support it like when i saw it in platoon they helped those guys feel normal again to not be normal for a while and nice

[surviva316]

I support the war on drugs, without it I'd have had to work through college.

In the American political spectrum, The War on Drugs doesn't simply refer to legalization vs illegalization. Much more encompassingly, it refers to a large-scale effort to eradicate drugs, which includes harsh sentences, high investments in raids and such, etc.

I guess these things raise prices which makes drug dealing all the more lucrative, but you could prolly still put yourself through college in a world with no War on Drugs as we know it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol @ war against inanimate objects.

Stop! Stop you drugs! Oh no!
*bang* *boom* *ratatat*
I think we got 'em.... for now...

I guess it's better than the war on terrorism.
How do you shoot terrorism? It's not even a thing, it's a tactic!

Answer: Of course I support blowing up stuff that never moves... until I blow it up.

[Stacks]

Man I'd be so happy for my tax dollars to go towards places for people to shoot up.

It would just be re-routed from the tax dollars spent on housing thousands of non-violent criminals in jail for possession or drug use. I would much rather tax dollars go towards providing a safer environment for, and outreach to, addicts needing help, than towards their incarceration.

[BennyLaRue]

lol @ war against inanimate objects.

Stop! Stop you drugs! Oh no!
*bang* *boom* *ratatat*
I think we got 'em.... for now...

You have timing issues.

[givememyleg]

lol i haven't voted or read anything yet but i swear to god if the result is anything except

Yes: 0%
No: 100%

shit is gonna get all crazy up in here.

[givememyleg]

ok good, i'm happy for now.

[supa]

It would just be re-routed from the tax dollars spent on housing thousands of non-violent criminals in jail for possession or drug use. I would much rather tax dollars go towards providing a safer environment for, and outreach to, addicts needing help, than towards their incarceration.

Thousands is correct, but it's about 500,000.

If it's a question of money it goes much farther than how many non violent criminals we're housing but violent drug related crimes would decrease significantly too. Not to mention the amount of money we spend on fighting the war on drugs in the first place.

Wanna reduce gang violence and the impact drug cartels have in the U.S.? Put them out of business. Easy game.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You have timing issues.

This whole thread is a timing issue.
Nancy Reagan doesn't think I'm funny, either.
Tough crowd.

[swiggidy]

Man I'd be so happy for my tax dollars to go towards places for people to shoot up.

I'm pretty sure in England (only direct example I can immediately come up with) it's a methadone clinic so you're helping stave off the addiction, not directly support it. This is a better economic situation than drug addicts stealing to support their habit.

[JKDS]

Suppose people busted for nonviolent drug use were released. What do?

If ###,000 people are released, how will the nation handle them? Do they get jobs? Become homeless? How would we go about using such an influx of potential workers?

I just thought about that, and the issue got so much more complicated :/

[swiggidy]

There are 300 million people in the U.S., and listed 12 million unemployed so that effect would be negligible.

While I don't know the numbers I would imagine the government supporting a non-incarcerated person would be significantly less.

Now, what would happen if the government put all of the local drug dealers out of business? It's like Walmart building a store in a small town.

[JKDS]

I just got pwned by an albino squirrel.

[WillburForce]

I'm pretty sure in England (only direct example I can immediately come up with) it's a methadone clinic so you're helping stave off the addiction, not directly support it. This is a better economic situation than drug addicts stealing to support their habit.

This is what happens, but it don't work. They don't give them enough methadone, so they still need a top of heroin to start with.

Also the heroin addicts become methadone addicts. So they're now addicted to a government supplied drug. The government doesn't give them enough (the thing about addiction is that tolerance increases), so creates a black market in methadone as well as heroin.

From the users point of view nothing has changed - they're still on drugs everyday. They still commit crimes.Their life is still fucked

There was as BBC program on it (I think BBC - with Russell Brand, a former heroin addict). Shows how much the system is failing. But its such a big thing here (jobs, methadone production, easy route for doctors, cheap option for government) it seems unlikely to change.

[kiwiMark]

Man I'd be so happy for my tax dollars to go towards places for people to shoot up.

The US is in a different situation (well dunno how it is now post obamacare) than many countries with public healthcare though, in that our tax dollars already go towards treating people with hep or whatever other badshit comes about as a result of there not being safe places to shoot up, so it could end up making financial sense.

[spoonitnow]

I'll stop stirring the shit earlier in this thread than I normally would to out my real stance. I'll use spoiler tags for big quotes in places to avoid having a large wall of text.

I'd expect most people in this thread to know that pot was made illegal in the United States in a very shady way to protect DuPont's profits. If you don't know about that, you should. It will teach you a lot about how power/government/business actually works. I'll talk about the prison situation instead.

In the 1980s, Congress passed extremely harsh laws against possessing crack. The sentence for folding x grams of crack was forced to be the same for holding 100x grams of powder cocaine (eg: If 500 grams of cocaine means 5 years in prison, that's what you get for 5 grams of crack). (wikipedia)

The number of people in prison quadrupled from 1980 to 2000. (graph).

Government subsidies for private prisons make them extremely lucrative businesses to operate. (fun quote below)

Spoiler: Show

"In the early 1990s, [Louisiana] was under a federal court order to reduce overcrowding, but instead of releasing prisoners or loosening sentencing guidelines, the state incentivized the building of private prisons. But, in what the newspaper called 'a uniquely Louisiana twist,' most of the prison entrepreneurs were actually rural sheriffs. They saw a way to make a profit and did." (nytimes).

The prisons are allowed to use the prisoners as de facto slaves for rent, and this further incentivizes the building of prisons and the act of keeping prisons full. (fun quote below)

Spoiler: Show

"Depending on the level of security needed by the prisoner, many of them work for private companies, in prison, for pennies on the dollar. Whoever runs these prisoner work farms makes a profit on the companies that contract them for their workforce. I am talking about telemarketers, mechanics, Technical Support Representatives, electronics repair technicians. All of them not necessarily guilty, but none of them not making a wage worthwhile. While the prisoner make anywhere from $.50 to $2.00 an hour, the prison keeps as much as $5 to $20 an hour paid for by the company contracting them." (link)

[bode]

voted yes for carl's sake even though i dont support it

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd expect most people in this thread to know that pot was made illegal in the United States in a very shady way to protect DuPont's profits.

Source, please!

I heard it was about Richard Nixon:
The largest group of Americans who were against Nixon's bellicose international policy was the hippies. I heard Nixon pushed for Marijuana to be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic. This labeled it as more dangerous than cocaine, which allowed Nixon to criminalize the community that most opposed him.

I have no source.

[Poker Orifice]

Man I'd be so happy for my tax dollars to go towards places for people to shoot up.

Right. So instead they're going towards paying into a system that is not working.
When you think about it.... why should there be a law that says you are not allowed to alter your perception on reality, or take pain medication, etc.etc. A huge part of the drug problem comes from them being illegal (ie. criminal enterprise/organized crime & the Violence that goes with it, theft, B & E, Robbery, etc. etc. that goes with addicts needing money to get more drugs).
Paying your tax dollars towards locking up Donnie Dopehead does nothing to solve the problem.

I'm not sure what the solution is but it is clear what is not working.
What would be so terrible if say marijuana, cocaine & heroin were legal? (or decriminalized). Which would be worse for society > some f'n guy nodding off wired on junk 'or' same guy running around busting into houses, parked cars, robbing convenience stores (etc.), going to buy his dope from Joe Dealer at the corner (< which is coming down the line from organized crime). If it were decriminalized (or even legal) I think it would wipe a lot of the shyt you see today. There have been proven examples in Europe that it does work. How well is the 'war on drugs' working?

[kiwiMark]

theft, B & E, Robbery, etc. etc. that goes with addicts needing money to get more drugs

how does legalising drugs reduce this aspect of it all?

[Poker Orifice]

This is what happens, but it don't work. They don't give them enough methadone, so they still need a top of heroin to start with.

Also the heroin addicts become methadone addicts. So they're now addicted to a government supplied drug. The government doesn't give them enough (the thing about addiction is that tolerance increases), so creates a black market in methadone as well as heroin.

From the users point of view nothing has changed - they're still on drugs everyday. They still commit crimes.Their life is still fucked

This isn't true. It's proven fact that methadone users lives become much more manageable. Sure, a large percentage of them aren't going to get themselves into recovery (maybe some day) but it does change things drastically for them (ie. they no longer need to do moves of desperation in order to keep from getting sick; their lives become much more manageable with many more of them able to hold jobs & function within society)

[spoonitnow]

Source, please!

I heard it was about Richard Nixon:
The largest group of Americans who were against Nixon's bellicose international policy was the hippies. I heard Nixon pushed for Marijuana to be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic. This labeled it as more dangerous than cocaine, which allowed Nixon to criminalize the community that most opposed him.

I have no source.

If you have time, check the footnotes listed in this paragraph. I read through several of them, and it was really interesting to me since I like reading about power struggles. Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've read a few arguments saying that this cooperation didn't happen the way it's listed in the below, but none of them have left me convinced at all. I'm not really a conspiracy theory kind of guy, but I can appreciate doing business.

Since most people aren't familiar with the history of hemp in the USA and its use before all of this went down, it's probably worth noting that it was an extremely important resource. There were periods of time where farmers were required to grow hemp by law so that there would be enough to produce certain goods. People could even pay their taxes in hemp up into the 1800s.

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings and reports.[35][36] In 1936 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) noticed an increase of reports of people smoking marijuana, which further increased in 1937. The Bureau drafted a legislative plan for Congress, seeking a new law and the head of the FBN, Harry J. Anslinger, ran a campaign against marijuana.[37][38] Newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst's empire of newspapers began publishing what is known as "yellow journalism", demonizing the cannabis plant and putting emphasis on connections between cannabis and violent crime.[39] Several scholars argue that the goal was to destroy the hemp industry,[40][41][42] largely as an effort of Hearst, Andrew Mellon and the Du Pont family.[40][42] They argue that with the invention of the decorticator hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry.[40][43] They also believe that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America and had invested heavily in nylon, DuPont's new synthetic fiber, and considered its success to depend on its replacement of the traditional resource, hemp.[40][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] According to other researchers there were other things than hemp more important for DuPont in the mid-1930s: to finish the product (nylon) before its German competitors, to start plants for nylon with much larger capacity, etc.[51]

[boost]

Mellon... sound familiar to anyone?

[WillburForce]

This isn't true. It's proven fact that methadone users lives become much more manageable. Sure, a large percentage of them aren't going to get themselves into recovery (maybe some day) but it does change things drastically for them (ie. they no longer need to do moves of desperation in order to keep from getting sick; their lives become much more manageable with many more of them able to hold jobs & function within society)

Proven by whom?

Hold down jobs? Are you kidding?

[MadMojoMonkey]

In 1973 President Richard Nixon's "Reorganization Plan Number Two" proposed the creation of a single federal agency to enforce federal drug laws and Congress accepted the proposal, as there was concern regarding the growing availability of drugs.[60] As a result, on July 1, 1973, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) merged to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).[32] On December 1, 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis.

This doesn't go into the involvement of "Tricky Dick" in the DEA, but at least I was right that Nixon played a roll in the current US policy.

[OngBonga]

Now, what would happen if the government put all of the local drug dealers out of business?

This is actually a pretty complex question. You think the shady drug gangs just disappear? Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I think it would be inevitable that serious crime would increase, because those that the government put out of business, they're hardly going to say to themselves "I'd better go an earn an honest living then". No, they're likely gonna rob more, or switch to other means of illicit income. I'm sure the hippies making a few quid selling weed to their mates won't turn to robbery, but I can't see cocaine dealers taking a job at the local supermarket to fill the void left by legalisation.

I'm still totally against the war on drugs though. It's fucking stupid. I'm pretty sure drinking paint is going to be a lot worse for you than injecting smack, but here in the UK, drinking paint is not illegal. They don't give a fuck about our health.

[Tom1559]

Obviously a very touchy subject. Read most of the posts on here and respect everyones rights to make decisions for themself. However having said that I cannot reconcile in my own mind why anyone would want to voluntarily take substances that, apart from being illegal, are health risks. By this I also include tobacco and alcohol. I was brought up on the basis that most things were okay in moderation and I still believe that but the problem with drugs is they become addictive and there move from being taken in moderation to being taken to as a necessity.

[a500lbgorilla]

Suppose people busted for nonviolent drug use were released. What do?

If ###,000 people are released, how will the nation handle them? Do they get jobs? Become homeless? How would we go about using such an influx of potential workers?

I just thought about that, and the issue got so much more complicated :/

Don't worry. They broke the law. They're criminals paying a debt to society. They should stay in jail. They deserve this.

Honestly, we don't do what's right, so there's nothing to worry about.

[Pascal]

Is the first line serious? Hard to tell. If it is, how are they paying their debt to society in anyway when we're paying for them to be locked in a room? How does it help society in any way when so many people re-offend after leaving jail?

[WillburForce]

Obviously a very touchy subject. Read most of the posts on here and respect everyones rights to make decisions for themself. However having said that I cannot reconcile in my own mind why anyone would want to voluntarily take substances that, apart from being illegal, are health risks. By this I also include tobacco and alcohol. I was brought up on the basis that most things were okay in moderation and I still believe that but the problem with drugs is they become addictive and there move from being taken in moderation to being taken to as a necessity.

I have lots of friends (and myself, though very, very rarely now days) who do coke, e's, speed etc (not heroin or crack) on a semi reg basis (some of them every weekend, some say once a month). Non of them are addicts or likely to become addicts. They for the most have good jobs, gf's, houses, cars etc etc

This notion that you do drugs and become and addict is what fuelled the ridiculous war or drugs.

[kiwiMark]

I also have to feel (nothing to back this up but my bumhole) like the drugs education system to leads to more drug addictions/problems than it prevents. It only seems like it works if it manages to succeed in achieving complete abstinence in people. Once you, say, smoke a bit of weed and realise that everything that you were taught about drugs in school is bordering on blatant lies based on some bizarro agenda, it leaves you with no actual knowledge/education on tolerance, dependance, addiction, no strong feeling for what the risks might be or for what you can/should believe from what you were taught and what was lies to scare you into never trying big bad drugs.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I cannot reconcile in my own mind why anyone would want to voluntarily take substances that, apart from being illegal, are health risks. [...] the problem with drugs is they become addictive and there move from being taken in moderation to being taken to as a necessity.

1st part:
What you are able to reconcile in your mind has no rational connection to how other people live their lives. Your argument implies that anything you do not fully understand should be a criminal offense.
Saying that drugs should be illegal (or at least warred against) because they are illegal is circular thinking.
Any health risks posed by drug use are to the user. Is it not every human's right to choose what risks they take in life... provided they do not put others at risk?
EVERYTHING has risk. Or should it be illegal to live near the ocean, as hurricanes pose a danger to public health? Should it be illegal to drive a car since car accidents are potentially fatal?

2nd part:
Alcoholism is a disease. Not everyone gets addicted to alcohol, even though it is an addictive substance.
Just because something can be addictive doesn't mean every person who does it will become addicted.
The notion that someone who is addicted to something can never be a productive member of society is just fallacious logic.

[d0zer]

Drugs are bad, ok? End of story, the world is black and white.

*wags finger at apologists*

[rong]

The trouble is drugs are fun. So going on from what kiwi says, you try it, you like it, you see other people doing it and liking it too. Combine this with the misinformation you're fed, its no surprise you end up with a subculture based around drug use that is generally somewhat at odds with the rest of society.

Tom, you're argument could be used as reason to avoid so many things in life including sports, travel, non healthy foods and all sorts. Life is full of risks. There has to be more to it than risk avoidance.

I heard an interview recently with the previous drugs advisor David Nutt. He was comparing use of various drugs with horse riding from a risk perspective and concluded that if public health is the main driver of policy then horse riding should be banned. (this is the guy that got sacked for stating that based on all available evidence both ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol).

The way I see it, the government are there to run the country based on the wants of the people. A huge amount of people want to take drugs. Legalizing and taxing the sale of all drugs would have a huge benefit economically, socially and for public health and safety. The drug war is a joke.

[bikes]

stop trying to free the proles u fish. DRUGS ARE BAD. THE PROHIBITION OF DRUGS KEEPS THE PROLES IN LINE.

NO ANIMAL MAY CONSUME ALCOHOL.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
ALL HAIL LORD L RON HUBBARD

[a500lbgorilla]

Is the first line serious? Hard to tell. If it is, how are they paying their debt to society in anyway when we're paying for them to be locked in a room? How does it help society in any way when so many people re-offend after leaving jail?

They're slave labor in those rooms.

Jails aren't for fixing people.

[ISillyDurrrAK]

I don't, prohibition only makes drugs expensive, so besides the problems drugs cause by themselves, taking toll on your body, drug addicts are forced to participate in criminal activity to obtain them. the sosciety has to give for example heroin to addicts in clean syringes in special institutions so that they don't catch hepatitis or AIDS. And it's a good idea to explain to potential addicts that drugs kill, so that they don't even think of trying it.

[rpm]

my body, my brain, my time, my money. leave me alone.

[d0zer]

gl fighting the bidness of incarceration, plebs

[Tom1559]

As I said above obviously a touchy subject and as I also said above I respect everyones right to make decisions for themsleves. One point I would come back on however is this. When people use the arguement that it is their live, their money, their risk should they then refuse treatment paid for by the rest of us when things go wrong. I am not sure about other countries but in the UK where we have a National Heath Service which provides free health care and treatment it cost millions every year to deal with the effects of drugs.

[Micro2Macro]

If the cultivation and sale of illegal drugs were legal, there wouldn't be unnecessary violence related to drug purchase and sale disagreements. Any disputes could be taken to court and dealt with safely, but instead disputes often are settled through fighting, use of weapons, theft, and other destructive measures. When you work for an employer in the regulated workforce, and they refuse to pay you, you can take legal action and bring public attention to the issue. Bad publicity and reputation prevent this from happening (though I'm certain is still does happen to some degree but that's getting off topic..) When you work on cultivating drugs with someone, and they refuse to pay you, you either let it go or work on getting what is owed to you. The latter is likely dangerous because you can't just simply complain to the BBB or police or whatever (you have to take matters into your own hands if you want to settle), and the former is incentive not to get involved in the first place - but sometimes people make that mistake without thinking that through, and when someone has nothing and worked so hard to make something then have it all taken away, they will often act out when they feel they have nothing more to lose. That's how people get their shit fucked up over drug disputes, and it wouldn't even happen if the crap was just legal (the product would be cheaper too as ISillyDurrrAK mentioned, and safely accessible to those who chose to use. The fact that they are illegal doesn't deter people from using, but it does create more problems than it solves for society).

I've heard extreme arguments against drug legalization suggesting that more people will become addicts due to the easy way of getting them. Well guess what, they are already easy to get. Just because they aren't sold at your local 711 doesn't mean they aren't readily available on the market. Purchasing may not be too safe depending on what your drug of choice is and the source you're getting it from, but that could be fixed if they were legal and regulated in the first place.

As I said above obviously a touchy subject and as I also said above I respect everyones right to make decisions for themsleves. One point I would come back on however is this. When people use the arguement that it is their live, their money, their risk should they then refuse treatment paid for by the rest of us when things go wrong. I am not sure about other countries but in the UK where we have a National Heath Service which provides free health care and treatment it cost millions every year to deal with the effects of drugs.

I heard somewhere that...(I don't have the source so this is very possibly wrong and I'm not sure what the time frame is for the spending so if someone can jump in and correct me here that'd be great): apparently 1 trillion USD is spent or has been spent on people incarserated for non-violent crimes in the US, mostly drug related. For those that abuse drugs and end up in the hospital, I find it hard to believe it would cost more to heal them up than incarcerating them. Also when someone does time in prison and then is released into society, they now have a criminal record and are outcast-ed despite serving their time - their punishment will carry on for a lifetime. The distress of this experience will often lead the individual to destructive behavior out of frustration, hence the increased likelihood of re-offending and winding up back in jail - more burden to society than just letting them get high in their own space safely or grow their own drugs so they don't have to do business with shady people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just because they aren't sold at your local 711 doesn't mean they aren't readily available on the market.

Actually, that's probably a pretty good place to look for drugs. They're just sold outside, instead of inside.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of a job I've had where none of the employees were selling drugs to each other.

Just to make your point.

[kiwiMark]

my body, my brain, my time, my money. leave me alone.

'cept you live in a country with public healthcare

edit: somebody already mentioned this

[rong]

No such thing as free healthcare, just free at point of use.

[rong]

Besides which, what about fat people and their high drain on healthcare funds? We don't criminalize cheese burgers.

[kiwiMark]

I mean I don't at all support criminalization for that reason (although I think I would support taxation), I just don't find it a super compelling argument. We also make people wear seatbelts and I rarely hear complaints about that one etc.

[kiwiMark]

While I'm on the devil's advocate side (not really but some points on my anti-retarded-drug-laws side that I nevertheless don't agree with), I'm also not sure that claims about drugs being cheaper were they decriminalised is accurate. Maybe if production, selling, buying and consumption were all totally legal, but as an example it's definitely still cheaper to get your weed from a dealer in the netherlands than from a coffeeshop.

[a500lbgorilla]

While I'm on the devil's advocate side (not really but some points on my anti-retarded-drug-laws side that I nevertheless don't agree with), I'm also not sure that claims about drugs being cheaper were they decriminalised is accurate. Maybe if production, selling, buying and consumption were all totally legal, but as an example it's definitely still cheaper to get your weed from a dealer in the netherlands than from a coffeeshop.

You need to compare buying weed when coffee shops don't exist, to buying from coffee shops when they do, though.

For there to be illegal dealers, they'd need an edge over their legal counterpart in either quality, illegal inventory, or price.

[kiwiMark]

You need to compare buying weed when coffee shops don't exist, to buying from coffee shops when they do, though.

Good point.

[rpm]

'cept you live in a country with public healthcare

that is true. but i have no control over that. and i'm not going to let that fact change the way i live my life

[spoonitnow]

You need to compare buying weed when coffee shops don't exist, to buying from coffee shops when they do, though.

For there to be illegal dealers, they'd need an edge over their legal counterpart in either quality, illegal inventory, or price.

In before (actually after for me) moonshine.

[Pascal]

While I'm on the devil's advocate side (not really but some points on my anti-retarded-drug-laws side that I nevertheless don't agree with), I'm also not sure that claims about drugs being cheaper were they decriminalised is accurate. Maybe if production, selling, buying and consumption were all totally legal, but as an example it's definitely still cheaper to get your weed from a dealer in the netherlands than from a coffeeshop.

That's because of the way weed has been decriminalized there - they don't get any import benefits, only benefits in NL once it's arrived. Then they have rent etc to pay.

[Luco]

Do I support the war on drugs?

If you give me enough drugs I'll support anything, including the war on drugs.