In response to:

The War on Drugs: Because Prohibition Worked So Well

tiemyshoo Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 2:32 PM
Comparing drugs to alcohol is an unfair comparison. I hear this all the time. For one, alcohol has a long history so we already know the consequences. We have no idea what would happen were drugs legalized. Neither will crime decrease if drugs are legalized. Therefore it isn't a war on people. Criminals will find new ways to make money like selling drugs to children who will not be able to purchase them legally. The notion that criminals will become law-abiding citizens because drugs are legalized is a very optimistic assessment. If money were free would crime end? It would actually increase crime. Increasing welfare has not decreased crime but rather created a new dependent class which is exactly what would happen if drugs were legalized.
SMyles Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 4:18 PM
Cracks me up when folks use the term "drugs" as if that represents some evil group or drugs that are separate from all of the thousands of other drugs. What it apparently represents to most people that use the term are the certain few drugs that are, either through big pharma pressure or law enforcement at the pig trough, deemed illegal and propagandized to the sheeple as evil and representative of all that is unholy and immoral. So while mom slams prescription Vicodin, dad is out arresting those evil drug users.
Roy323 Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 4:59 PM
SMyles-Your very first sentence about the description of "drugs" is quite appropriate. Although I am not educated enough to understand/comprehend all of the Materials printed in the Medical pub JAMA, I do skim through the items that are within my range of comprehension and the Aug 22/29 issue deals with the rampant misuse of methadone (I recall the stat that more deaths occur from Meth ODs than from Heroin & Cocaine combined). The article also talked about Mis-Prescribing of the drug. Folks, U will never convince me that we (the public) need less control/policing of illegal "Drugs"! Decriminalizing, to the extent of reforming the perhaps overzealous automatic imprisoning for minor NON-REPEAT infractions is definitely in order--
SMyles Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 6:01 PM
"U will never convince me that we (the public) need less control/policing of illegal "Drugs"! " Then you don't comprehend the meaning of individual liberty.
Sid14 Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 3:58 PM
It looks like you have bought into the propaganda. None of the things you claim have actually happened in places that have actually "legalized" drugs. You operate under the false assumption that if drugs are legal, that every "Tom, Rick, and Harry" will beat a path to the nearest drug dealer for a fix. Total nonsense.
Mike23 Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 3:04 PM
Alcohol is a DRUG! The Henningfield-Benowitz substance comparison charts
Nicotine. Cocaine. Caffeine. Marijuana. Benowitz. Henningfield. Less More. The Henningfield-Benowitz substance comparison charts.
Black Market prices cause some people, to steal to satisfy their addiction. To say crime will not decrease is disingenuous. First of all 850000 of our fellow Americans would cease being arrested, annually. AND, Al Capone was replaced by Coors, Bud, Seagrams and a slew of other job producing, tax paying businesses. The Black Market in Alcohol disappeared, over night.
Keith305 Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 2:56 PM
Besides your arguments (which have been answered in previous comments--I suggest you take a look), I want you to understand the ramifications of keeping drugs illegal. For one thing, de-facto civil wars have broken out in Columbia, Peru, and now Mexico. So what? They're not here. Well, what goes around comes around.

How do you think the Taliban are financed? Its not through "donations" alone. The vast majority of the money is from the opium trade. Why so much money? Because it is illegal. If it weren't, there would be no more money in than there is in the cotton trade.

And what are the Taliban doing with it? Killing Americans. How do you reconcile that?

Paulus Textor Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 2:39 PM
If heroin, cocaine, and marijuana were legalized, we DO have a pretty could idea what would happen. We would be in about the same position as late 19th-century America, when all three of these substances were legal. At that time, there were no drug gangs shooting up neighborhoods; why shoot people over a legal product that can be produced on the free market for pennies per dose?
meowbius Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 3:32 PM
Back then no one thought heroin is addictive, and when it was found out, doctors in the military hospitals started to shoot IV hoping that bypassing GI tract will take away the addictive part. Knowledge is POWER, and now we know much more than 100 years ago. Scoundrels use that power.
Forty years ago, the United States locked up fewer than 200 of every 100,000 Americans. Then President Nixon declared war on drugs. Now we lock up more of our people than any other country -- more even than the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China.

A war on drugs -- on people, that is -- is unworthy of a country that claims to be free.

Unfortunately, this outrage probably won't be discussed in Tampa or Charlotte.

The media (including Fox News) run frightening stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs. Few of my colleagues stop to think that this is...