This is our fault

[Kansuke]

to justify it's continued support of criminals by keeping these drugs illegal, failing to control them and not taking the opportunity to get a tax base that is pretty strong , not to mention an opportunity to capitalize on teh medical benefits that otherwise illegal drugs offer.

........................

[Faruq]

Anybody read "Confessions of An Economic Hitman"? From what I remember, it had some interesting things to say about the drug war.

[Hardwork108]

believe me, colombia has a coke problem

I can only comment on Colombia because I live here now and I can say that I have seen more coke during my time in London and in Rio de Janeiro than I have seen here.

Of course it exists and there are addicts here everywhere where drugs are available but it is worth considering cultural factors as well when one discusses drugs.

The family unit is a lot stronger in countries such as Colombia than most (not all) of Western Europe and North America. Since I was a kid I have seen drugs all over the place.

I had lived in the UK when I was younger and during my school days I would see drugs brought in by various classroom d!ck heads. What would follow would be a frenzy of kids begging to try this stuff out while I and a couple friends would walk away in hurry from the idiot's fraternity.

The designed break down of family values in many Western countries has not only contributed to their drug (consumption) problems but also to other delinquencies!

This is the cultural level of the problem!

[Hardwork108]

Anybody read "Confessions of An Economic Hitman"? From what I remember, it had some interesting things to say about the drug war.

That book is on my list. It is apparently an amazing book.

Here is an interesting interview with its writer, John Perkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6WstddMJZQ

[Reverend Tap]

Excellent post.

As you put it as well, the problem is that many drug consumers go on to hurt more people either physcially, psychologically and or financially (including through criminal acts). The fact is the best option is to ban the d@mn things and punish severely any drug trafficers and when I say severely I mean severely!

On the other hand social and powerful media campaigns against the use of drugs and their consequences should be required by law.

I don't believe that giving everyone and their grandmothers the right to smoke, snort and inject their brains out makes for a healthy society.

The problem that derails that whole argument is that prohibition doesn't work. Legal or otherwise, people are gonna get high in one form or another, and it's much, MUCH easier to control when it's legal.

[Kansuke]

Yeah, that's why pet tigers, home anthrax kits, and personal nuclear weapons should be legal. I mean, who are these fools kidding? People just want them more because they are forbidden. Just think of the tax revenue you could get. Plus, um, alcohol is really, really bad too.

[David Jamieson]

I think people are too stupid to use drugs responsibly, in any form. I'm on the far end of the spectrum, and I say ban tobacco and alcohol too. Apparently our population at large is so stupid that they happily destroy their lives and bodies, expecting us to foot the bill when they get emphysema, their livers give out, or they slam into a family of four coming home from vacation.

Again, the "it's just meeeee" argument is pointless and ignorant, because someone will eventually have to either care for you or put you in jail for doing something stupid because you absolutely HAD to alter your brain in order to make life either tolerable or enjoyable. F' em.

yes, people do stupid things. I would prefer that they pay in cash to get messed up so that a portion of that money can go to their future health care thereby by passing their natural stupidity.

everybody alters their brains every day in the environment they live in or via the food they eat or water they drink.

seeking to control people results in loss of control utterly.

unless you're prepared to kill everyone, don't even bother with that tack because historically it has been shown to fail time and again.

only by bringing it (the substances not the people) under controlled rule of law can we remove the criminal aspect from it and responsibly use peoples sorrows to help them in the long run.

[Faruq]

That book is on my list. It is apparently an amazing book.

Here is an interesting interview with its writer, John Perkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6WstddMJZQ

Very interesting book. Having gotten sick of "great" or "important" books accumulating on my book shelf, I just ordered the audio book from Amazon. His view on the drug situation in places like Colombia and Afghanistan is certainly not what you see on CNN or ABC World News Tonight. lol

[GreenCloudCLF]

The only form of control that works is the Death Star (Please board up the exhaust vent...)

[Drake]

yes, people do stupid things. I would prefer that they pay in cash to get messed up so that a portion of that money can go to their future health care thereby by passing their natural stupidity.

everybody alters their brains every day in the environment they live in or via the food they eat or water they drink.

seeking to control people results in loss of control utterly.

unless you're prepared to kill everyone, don't even bother with that tack because historically it has been shown to fail time and again.

only by bringing it (the substances not the people) under controlled rule of law can we remove the criminal aspect from it and responsibly use peoples sorrows to help them in the long run.

Historically, it has also been done half-assed, so I don't find that to be relevant. Validating drug use will only make the problem worse, much like how alcoholism and lung cancer strikes millions of Americans, costs billions, if not trillions in accidents, deaths, and hospitalizations, and generally wreaks havoc on society. Prohibition didn't work? Ok, fair enough. It failed for a number of reasons. But what we have now is far worse. Try explaining to a mother why her daughter died. Because someone had the right to drink. Because there is NOTHING in place to keep that person from hopping into his car. Because we don't want to infringe on their "freedoms". Spare me the liberty or death argument, because I don't buy it. Spare me the "prohibition don't wurk" speech, because we know that. It was a half-assed effort, but I'm sure it saved a few lives.

[SifuAbel]

Spare me the "prohibition don't wurk" speech, because we know that. It was a half-assed effort, but I'm sure it saved a few lives.

No it didn't. People drank more during prohibition then after. A 10 year old is less likely to score a six pack of beer now than he is to score a doobie. Legalization will curtail child exposure. You can ban whatever you want, people will find a way to get it. Especially if its taboo.

[GreenCloudCLF]

No it didn't. People drank more during prohibition then after.

Verifiable sources on this comment?

[Reverend Tap]

Yeah, that's why pet tigers, home anthrax kits, and personal nuclear weapons should be legal. I mean, who are these fools kidding? People just want them more because they are forbidden. Just think of the tax revenue you could get. Plus, um, alcohol is really, really bad too.

Yeah, those are all so comparable to drug use and so widespread in society.

Please. It's not like I'm saying everything will magically get better if various substances are legalized. But statistics from other countries have shown usage rates do tend to decline post-legalization, and it's much easier to keep things associated with drug use rather safer when they're out in the open. Or would you rather go the other way and have people get drunk on bathtub hooch with who-knows-what in it and likely cause even MORE problems than alcoholics and drunk drivers do now?

Dude, I'm a cab driver. It's not like I'm insulated from the reality of what drugs and alcohol do to people. I take slobbering drunks to bars at 7AM. Even the people who get in my cab who AREN'T on something generally have stories. But as ugly as that can be, and as many problems and tragedies as that causes, you can't solve the problem by plugging your ears and going "la la la it's illegal now." It's going to continue regardless, and the only responsible way to address that is openly and with the FACT well in mind that intoxicating substances always have been and likely always will be part of life as a human being for a large percentage of the population. Anything else is sticking your head in the sand and pretending life is nicer and more Disney-esque than it is.

In all honesty, you wanna see fewer drug-related tragedies, the thing to focus on is elimination of poverty.

[Kansuke]

Oh, is that all?

[BoulderDawg]

No it didn't. People drank more during prohibition then after. A 10 year old is less likely to score a six pack of beer now than he is to score a doobie. Legalization will curtail child exposure. You can ban whatever you want, people will find a way to get it. Especially if its taboo.

This may sound selfish but a ten year buying booze or a "Doobie" for that matter is not a threat to me. However a 24 year old buying alcohol (or drugs) at a corner store and then getting in his car and driving is very much a threat.

At the very least making drugs or alcohol illegal makes it harder to get for the average person. As I've said before I've heard stats that say on weekend nights over half the people on the road having been drinking......now add drugs that can be easily obtained at the corner "sustance" store and it's a recipe to hurt a lot of innocent people.

Aside from that I have no qualms with anybody doing anything to thier body....as long as it doesn't hurt others. I know plenty of people who maybe once or twice a year (Special occasions) might do some fairly hard drugs.....as long as they can handle it...go for it!