[EasyEJL]

Can't come up with anything to counter that!

It would only be if it was legalized to sell commercially, or decriminalized to able to be grown in home at personal quantities. Mere decriminalization of possession wouldn't change things for me, as i would still not take the personal risks of going to an illegal dealer and potentially being caught up in anything there.

[lutherblsstt]

Honestly any of the studies are too short term to be relevant. A study would need to be in the minimal of a 20-30 year span as you'd need to see the generational difference. Its no different with the adoption of anything, from cellphones to computers to video games. A generation of people that has no easy access to something that suddenly gains access to it will not likely have the same usage rate of that something that a generation who grows up considering it to be "normal"

And in that 20-30 year span so many other things would change that it would be impossible to have a clean study.

The end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies, legalization of drugs could have similar effects.

Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop.

Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" .

When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do.

Then there is the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature. http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/

Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets"

[lutherblsstt]

A report sponsored by the New York County Lawyers' Association, one of the largest local bar associations in the United States, argues on the subject of US drug policy:

“ Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects.

These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.

Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

New York County Lawyers' Association (October 2006). "Report and Recommendations of the Drug Policy Task Force". NYCLA & Drug Reform Coordination Network. http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/nycla/nycla.htm.

[EasyEJL]

The end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies, legalization of drugs could have similar effects.

Could have similar effects? Wheres your crystal ball luther? There is no particular evidence to that. We know that the physiological and psychological effects of cocaine, heroin, etc are wildly different than alchohol, so attempting to guess what will occur if it were legalized is merely guesses. Changing the federal penalty for possession with intent to distribute to a death sentence with no appeals could also have similar effects.

[lutherblsstt]

Could have similar effects? Wheres your crystal ball luther? There is no particular evidence to that. We know that the physiological and psychological effects of cocaine, heroin, etc are wildly different than alchohol, so attempting to guess what will occur if it were legalized is merely guesses. Changing the federal penalty for possession with intent to distribute to a death sentence with no appeals could also have similar effects.

It is an unnecessarily harsh sentence for a consensual crime. Why put a death sentence on something that relies on supply and demand?

I would like to re-post this for emphasis:

“ Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects.

These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.

Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

New York County Lawyers' Association (October 2006). "Report and Recommendations of the Drug Policy Task Force". NYCLA & Drug Reform Coordination Network. http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/nycla/nycla.htm.

[EasyEJL]

It is an unnecessarily harsh sentence for a consensual crime.

Unnecessarily harsh? No, as nobody is forced to commit any crimes. As far as i'm concerned we need similar sentencing for many more crimes, particularly crimes against persons. I can't recall the %, but something over 75% of people in jail are repeat offenders. With death sentences, that no longer would be the case. The amount of money spent on repeat offenders goes down, prison overcrowding goes down, the cost of the legal system goes down, crime goes down. A win-win situation.

Why put a death sentence on something that relies on supply and demand?

I wonder sometimes if your denseness is purposeful. You would put a death sentence on it as the death sentence would be effective at changing usage. Few of the people who currently deal drugs at volume levels would continue to under that change of laws, as the risk vs reward would no longer be there. I'll agree that the war on drugs has not been as effective as it could/should be. However using your own studies your alternative of legalization offers "probably won't significantly increase drug usage other than marijuana which usage will go up with commercialization" and a hope that it would lessen police/legal/social costs. My alternative would significantly reduce usage, definitely reduce police/legal/social costs, and would be environmentally friendly as the globe is overpopulated anyhow.

[Jayhawkk]

My alternative would significantly reduce usage, definitely reduce police/legal/social costs, and would be environmentally friendly as the globe is overpopulated anyhow.

Putting overly extreme measures isn't really a solution. You'd get to the point where every law would end up with a disproportionate punishment.

[EasyEJL]

Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

Why should society provide treatment for substance abuse? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an addict's bad choices? Nobody becomes an addict by force, its their own crappy decisions.

[EasyEJL]

Putting overly extreme measures isn't really a solution. You'd get to the point where every law would end up with a disproportionate punishment.

Define proportionate in this case? We already have disproportionate punishment in many ways, for the most part in the other direction. A man mugs an 85 year old woman and puts her in the hospital, he gets 6 months? Is that proportionate? A woman drowns her 4 children and gets to go to a psychiatric hospital and that is proportionate? When you try to measure proportionate response, you will rarely get 2 people agreeing.

When you are trying to discourage a behavior, giving a proportionate response generally means there ISNT any significant discouragement to commit that act. Illegally copying software opens you to a fine of $10,000 and or 10 years in jail per instance, so that there is actually a deterrence factor. If the fine was that you had to pay the price of the software, there would be many many many more software counterfeiting rings.

[Jayhawkk]

Can't define it in a black and white sense. It will always side with the context of that crime. However, the death penalty for a dealer is a bit much.

[EasyEJL]

Can't define it in a black and white sense. It will always side with the context of that crime. However, the death penalty for a dealer is a bit much.

Isn't $10,000 and 10 years in jail a bit much for copying a "Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour" dvd? You make the penalties harsher to discourage behavior. I would think death sentences would be pretty discouraging.

[lutherblsstt]

Why should society provide treatment for substance abuse? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an addict's bad choices? Nobody becomes an addict by force, its their own crappy decisions.

Surely you are not worried about costs and at thesame time supporting the drug war!

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...get/index.html

State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001. http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshoppr....asp?itemid=26

Source: Jeffrey A. Miron, Department of Economics, Harvard University: "The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition," December 2008
http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

[EasyEJL]

Surely you are not worried about costs and at thesame time supporting the drug war!

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...get/index.html

State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001. http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshoppr....asp?itemid=26

Source: Jeffrey A. Miron, Department of Economics, Harvard University: "The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition," December 2008
http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

Can you state with any level of assurance that the costs to society would be lower (as we creep closer and closer towards socialism) if we were to legalize drugs?

And would you rather have your dollars go to subsidize someones lifestyle of choice of staying high around the clock than attempting to stop drug abuse? I'd be all for legalizing all of them if at the same time we dropped hospitals having to treat people without insurance, and dropped food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing etc.

[dg806]

We know that the physiological and psychological effects of cocaine, heroin, etc are wildly different than alchohol,

I agree, the dependency issues on these drugs make it hard to deal with. What happens if you make them legal and 3/4 of the people get dependant and hooked? Society will fail to function as we know it.
That is also why I am against ALL steroids being classified as sched III. They are not addictive like these others.

[Jayhawkk]

You use them to deter but they have to be readily used if the need is there and I just don't see how taking a life is anywhere near what should be done as a deterrant. If the death penalty could be used on shoplifters you would have less of those too but the constitution sort of gets in the way of doing that sort of thing

[FlawedGrunt]

Crime happens due to drug trade and traffic cause crime because those people, the ones who cant keep jobs or prefer to make a quick buck. The same people wont take a seconds thought to stab or shoot you when a deal goes bad or when they need some money for food....

So legalizing drugs is going to solve that? Highly doubtful... so you legalize drugs to the point where you buy them openly over the counter? And then what happens... the drug dealers and the people who made a living off of being pieces of shxt find some other criminal activity to make money... maybe liquor store robberies sky rocket resulting in a ton more store shootings... car jacking sky rocket because they need to chop it up and sell it to make money

Legalizing drugs isnt going to solve anything but make a handful of hippies happy... I think violent crime would indefinitely rise


(This is just my own opinion)

[FlawedGrunt]

PS - I think we should re introduce the Colosseum, but here in the US. Violent and sexual offenders in a fight to the death... live and on pay per view

Gets violent criminals who dont learn their lesson off the street... one hell of a deterrent... and we as a nation are sick... think how many people would pay to watch that!

[lutherblsstt]

Can you state with any level of assurance that the costs to society would be lower (as we creep closer and closer towards socialism) if we were to legalize drugs?

And would you rather have your dollars go to subsidize someones lifestyle of choice of staying high around the clock than attempting to stop drug abuse? I'd be all for legalizing all of them if at the same time we dropped hospitals having to treat people without insurance, and dropped food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing etc.

My issue with the drug war is the pigheaded refusal to put results over ideology. Banning drugs and hunting down users and dealers is ideology.

To me it is simple. We have done the experiment already. Was the US a better place during prohibition or after it? Did prohibition of one of the most deadly, mind altering, and addictive drugs (alcohol) lead to greater or lesser social costs? The evidence is utterly conclusive. Prohibition leads to terrible social costs. Legalization isn’t a bed of roses, but it beats the alternative.

[EasyEJL]

My issue with the drug war is the pigheaded refusal to put results over ideology. Banning drugs and hunting down users and dealers is ideology.

To me it is simple. We have done the experiment already. Was the US a better place during prohibition or after it? Did prohibition of one of the most deadly, mind altering, and addictive drugs (alcohol) lead to greater or lesser social costs? The evidence is utterly conclusive. Prohibition leads to terrible social costs. Legalization isn’t a bed of roses, but it beats the alternative.

Again tho, you take a partial truth, add embellishment and call it conclusive. Alchohol is by NO means the most deadly, mind altering and addictive drug. I can say that from personal experience. On the drug scale, its pretty well at the weak end. Its negative health effects are largely from high volume usage over the span of years. So it may be more deadly than marijuana yes, but its less mind altering + addictive than it. And its far far far less deadly, addictive or mind altering than cocaine, crystal meth, lsd, pcp, heroin, etc.

[lutherblsstt]

Again tho, you take a partial truth, add embellishment and call it conclusive. Alchohol is by NO means the most deadly, mind altering and addictive drug.

You are doing something you claimed I was doing,twisting words. I said "one of the most deadly, mind altering, and addictive drugs (alcohol)"

I can say that from personal experience. On the drug scale, its pretty well at the weak end. Its negative health effects are largely from high volume usage over the span of years. So it may be more deadly than marijuana yes, but its less mind altering + addictive than it.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/...l-tobacco.html

"New landmark research concludes that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.

In research published Friday in The Lancet, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.

Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of the drug's use.

The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD.

Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other, but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.

Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was ecstasy.

"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet."

[lutherblsstt]

There are some amazingly powerful interests who are intent at keeping even cannabis illegal: the drug cartels (keep the price high), the law enforcement establishment(much less money for enforcement - that's their job), and the prison industry (obvious interests) to name three, and there are more.

Interesting piece in The Economist:

Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution
http://www.economist.com/printeditio...ry_ID=13237193

[EasyEJL]

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/...l-tobacco.html

"New landmark research concludes that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.

In research published Friday in The Lancet, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.

Yes, when ranked by danger to society, given that they are legal and many of the others arent, so they are more available and have higher use. Duh. 20-25% of the population uses tobacco, so obviously its social costs are higher than among herion users

Rates of past year heroin use were 0.4% for persons 12-17 years of age, 0.6% for persons 18-25 years of age, 0.2% for persons 26-34 years of age, and 0.1% for persons 35 years and older. The rate of heroin use was 0.4% for blacks, 0.2% for whites, and 0.2% for Hispanics. Male use was 0.3%: three times that of female use. Use was reasonably constant by region: 0.2% for persons living in the Northeast, 0.2% for persons living in the North Central, 0.3% for persons living in the South, and 0.1% for persons living in the West. Use was also similar by population density: 0.2% for persons living in a large metropolitan area, 0.2% for persons living in a small metropolitan area and 0.2% for persons living outside a metropolitan area.

So big surprise ranked including social costs tobacco is high, if its usage is at a rate of 30-100x that of some other drugs.

I do agree that given normal patterns of current use marijuana is among the least damaging. However even as a study you posted showed, the legalization including commercial production of marijuana raises usage significantly, at which point its social costs also begin to rise, and its damage profile would change.


Subtract out social welfare services like section 8 housing and food stamps and universal health care, add in death penalties for what is currently felony crimes against person, and i'm all for drug legalization of all the drugs as part of the bargain.

[badfish51581]

I wonder sometimes if your denseness is purposeful. You would put a death sentence on it as the death sentence would be effective at changing usage. Few of the people who currently deal drugs at volume levels would continue to under that change of laws, as the risk vs reward would no longer be there.

You know you're call everyone out for speculating, but you're doing the same thing here. In fact, it's pretty widely known that the "death penalty" doesn't actually work as a deterrent like you're suggesting.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/fact...-death-penalty

[EasyEJL]

You know you're call everyone out for speculating, but you're doing the same thing here. In fact, it's pretty widely known that the "death penalty" doesn't actually work as a deterrent like you're suggesting.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/fact...-death-penalty

Even if it doesn't work as a deterrent, it does stop a second offense, and you can't argue that more than half of inmates are repeat offenders. So with death sentences you cut the prison population in half.

That site is again using statistics that are irrelevant. You can't just pick 2 physical areas - states - and compare their murder rates based solely on whether their state has a death penalty or not and expect it to be relevant. City size, income levels, education levels, etc all relate.



You can see there is such a big difference on the specifics of the state. Take Rhode Island and New Hampshire, Rhode Island with no death penalty has double the murder rate of New Hampshire, a nearby state with the death penalty. Alaska with no death penalty has more than 3x the rate of South Dakota, a state with a death penalty. Obvious there are a lot more factors that go into the murder rate than just the death penalty, so just comparing the average has little value.

[badfish51581]

Article today on CNN about it...

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Over the past two years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news. Some of this violence pits drug cartels against one another; some involves confrontations between law enforcement and traffickers.

Recent estimates suggest thousands have lost their lives in this "war on drugs."

The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Drug users face restrictions on clean syringes that cause them to share contaminated needles, thereby spreading HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.

Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.

Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue. Much of the traffic from Mexico or Colombia is for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, while marijuana production is increasingly domestic. Legalizing only marijuana would therefore fail to achieve many benefits of broader legalization.

It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad.

The U.S. repealed Prohibition of alcohol at the height of the Great Depression, in part because of increasing violence and in part because of diminishing tax revenues. Similar concerns apply today, and Attorney General Eric Holder's recent announcement that the Drug Enforcement Administration will not raid medical marijuana distributors in California suggests an openness in the Obama administration to rethinking current practice.

Perhaps history will repeat itself, and the U.S. will abandon one of its most disastrous policy experiments.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...ugs/index.html

[EasyEJL]

Umm, not an article, a commentary, by Jeffrey A. Miron a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. Not what I would call an expert on law enforcement.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs.

Of course, bad logic is easy to come up with. The ONLY way. great evidence of that being the only way, actually he shows no evidence at all.

Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

That is not true in the case of most of the drugs. Drugs that you take to alter your perceptions ALTER YOUR PERCEPTIONS. People DO cause violence in other ways. And legalizing the drugs is not the only way, again no evidence that higher penalties won't work. Saudi Arabia has a lot lower incidence of drug violence than we do don't they? And its because they actually punish a criminal, rather than upgrade his lifestyle while he is in prision.

[lutherblsstt]

Of course, bad logic is easy to come up with.

You should know.

Saudi Arabia has a lot lower incidence of drug violence than we do don't they? And its because they actually punish a criminal, rather than upgrade his lifestyle while he is in prision.

Saudi Arabia also forbids alcohol and porn,lets not pick and choose lets impose sharia law and cover the women as well.

[EasyEJL]

Saudi Arabia also forbids alcohol and porn,lets not pick and choose lets impose sharia law and cover the women as well.

Lovely straw man argument there.

This thread sucks because its brought back so many happy memories of marijuana use that i'd like to see it legalized

[pmiller383]

if you put a .45 in the skull of every crack dealer, even if only suspected, drugs would be less of an issue. The war on drugs is the right thing to do. Its just they are doing it wrong, execute them on the spot. Or have public executions.

Wow, not one for second chances huh....

[lutherblsstt]

Unnecessarily harsh? No, as nobody is forced to commit any crimes. As far as i'm concerned we need similar sentencing for many more crimes, particularly crimes against persons. I can't recall the %, but something over 75% of people in jail are repeat offenders. With death sentences, that no longer would be the case. The amount of money spent on repeat offenders goes down, prison overcrowding goes down, the cost of the legal system goes down, crime goes down. A win-win situation.

Are you talking about killing all the employees of big pharmaceutical companies?

Or maybe just killing all the 7-year-olds who trade their extra Ritalin for Hostess Twinkies at lunchtime?

Do you believe that all illegal activities are automatically immoral?

Are all legal activities automatically moral?

Please define your terms.