Legalizing drugs

What exactly do we mean when we talk about legalizing drugs? Whenever I end up in a discussion on this issue the conversation always seems to get stuck on marijuana. Of course, there are LOTS of other drugs out there and the effect of some of them on some people is far more extreme than the effect of pot. Crack comes to mind. When people talk about legalizing drugs are they considering such drugs as cocaine, crack, crank, and whatever else might come down the pipeline in the future? Where and how would people go about obtaining cocaine,for example, if drugs were legal? I'm not trying to bash recreational drug use. I've done my share. I'm trying to expand the discussion of legalization beyond marijuana. Does anyone really want crack to be legal? Would you be confortable knowing that your next door neighbor or a tenant in your apartment building was selling or using crack? How would we go about legalizing and controlling such a thing?

in general. Certainly marijuana should be legal. As for other drugs: I don't think they should be made legal but people convicted of non-violent drug crimes (posession etc.) should be given treatment rather than incarceration. Selling drugs is another matter and of course selling to minors should be treated very severely.

The "war on drugs" is a scam and should be ended. The billions of dollars wated on that could be put to much better use.

As far as legalizing all drugs, I honestly haven't heard very much talk of this at all.

n/t

Does anyone really want crack to be legal?

I don't think it should be legal. But I don't think jail sentences should be passed out if you're found possesing it. I think it should be treated as a health issue.

ld you be confortable knowing that your next door neighbor or a tenant in your apartment building was selling or using crack?

Sure, I'd buy an extra bolt lock, though.

How would we go about legalizing and controlling such a thing?

I don't want to legalize it. I don't think many people do. Even the Green platform say it just wants people who are really addicted to it to be able to get it on prescription.

But for all drugs, the punishment is obscene. That is one of the major things piling people up in jails, where they can slave for a few years for some corporation for cents a day.

Bush I and his drug war, it falls right in line with the 'cheap labor Conservative' label.

Democrats are far more virulent drug warriors than Repukes. It's been Democrats making all the laws and making the penalties worse.

Drug War Junta man, himself. I know it takes Democratic complicity and outright shitty actions by the Democrats to get things to the point they are at now, thats obvious.

...but I often find myself surrounded by people who talk about legalizing drugs without making any distinction between the different kinds of drugs out there. The argument is often that by making drugs legal you take away the ability of the dealers to make a profit. There's often a parallel drawn between the illegality of drugs and Prohibition where the illegality of the thing makes it such a profitable commodity on the "black market" so to speak.

I've actually used that argument myself a few times. It makes sense but it's such a complex thing that I really doubt that anything will be done about it. I'm afraid the most we can hope for is repeal of the worst laws that put non-violent drug users in prisons and (please god) the legalization of pot. :toast:

I was watching a documentary on prisons and one of the people who was interviewed received sixty-four years in prison for dealing crack. I wonder how many rapists, child molesters, and murderers get equally long sentences.

there's a big movement here in new york state to repeal the Rockefeller drug laws that have filled the prisons with people and wastes countless lives and dollars.

I remember him saying so in 60 Minutes. Now how long ago was that?

Whats wrong with this picture?
offenders.
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213s.html

More of the people that we really need to worry about are given an early-out to make room for the evil and threatening druggies.

Sick, aint it?

Not only does this policy endanger us but it also is an enormous waste of resources.

killing three people.

64 years for crack? Pfft.

if you can pray to sky-fairies, then I can ingest any chemical I want

This is America, isn't it? Or, do you plan on prohibiting fatty foods and candies as well? (and, of course, alcohol and tobacco...the US's biggest drug killers)

you just take a couple ludes and chill ok dude.

cops are after me...ya know?

...the people who pray to sky-fairies aren't likely to rob me to get a fix. I have no intentions of prohibiting fatty foods and candies. Don't be so testy. I'm simply asking a question. How would legalizing "all drug", as you put it, actually work? Could it work?

the high prices on alot of drugs are most likely due to the black market trade and risk involved with transporting and selling them.

The situation would likely be alot different if drugs were legalized.

And the dealers put out of work, we could help get back on thier feet using a huge social safety net that we could have by taxing the legalized drugs.

Many nuances, no one really knows. I do know that the drug war is ineffective.

Remember, everything was legal in this country until 1914. They finally had to regulate some of the drugs because the drug companies were pushing them on the public without mentioning the fact that they were addictive.

Drugs are a HEALTH CONCERN...not a legal one

Oh, and the people who pray to sky-fairies will FUCK YOU UP! Ever hear of George W. Bush?

If crack were legal, you wouldn't have to buy an extra bolt for the door, you wouldn't even know if the neighbor was using it, 'cause he could buy it next to the liquor at the store instead of getting off a bunch of thugs.

Treat addiction like a public health issue and let's stop the sneaking around.

"...you wouldn't even know if the neighbor was using it..."

I think you'd know eventually if he were heavily addicted--and broke.

"...he could buy it next to the liquor store..."

This puts me in mind of what's called (at least here in Philly) the NIMBY phenomenon. NIMBY=Not In My Backyard. People agree that there should be facilities for this or that group of people but they don't want to live near those facilities.

And the combination of a liquor store and a place to buy crack would especially not go over well in most neighborhoods.

a big difference between crack and alcohol (present legality aside). Crack probably addicts faster, but a drunk is a lot more obnoxious and out of control than somebody who just did crack. If crack were legal it would take it out of the hands of the urban badboys and it would just be another addictive substance.

Putting one more piece of the puzzle together, does anybody remember the War or invasion and bombing of Afghanistan? Other than that Pipeline deal how about the drug trade?

How about this article, see any connections?

http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars3.html

Part III: Drugs
as Currency
"Who can compete with the government?"
- John Gotti, Jr.
The Hickory Valley-Philadelphia
Fast Food Franchise Pop
Two things helped me understand money laundering in America. First, as I drove from Hickory Valley to Philadelphia once a month and drove around the country with my dog Forest all sorts of people started to teach me about how the money worked - truckers and the ladies who run the brand-name motels and the folks who work the late shifts at the gas station food marts. Second, I read "Black Money", a mystery novel by Michael Thomas, a former partner of the Wall Street firm, Lehman Brothers.
In "Black Money" a government investigator investigating S&L fraud starts to look into the revenues and expenses of a fast food chain, which is experiencing far more deposits from sales than it is selling pizzas. As Thomas walks you through a handful of the near infinite number of possible money laundering schemes known to mankind, you start to get a sense for some of the economics of fast food franchises that have nothing to do with feeding people.
After I finished "Black Money" I started to pay attention to "how the money works" at the fast food and motel franchises at every interstate exit between Tennessee and Philadelphia. What I noticed about them was that no matter when I drove by - day or night, weekday or weekend - some of them were suprisingly empty. Indeed, one or two name brands were defined by their perpetual emptiness. Conversations every time I stopped filled in a lot here and there about how much cash was coming in and going out on the food and retail business.
Some quick estimation on what was being spent per interstate exit to start up and operate all the retail establishments versus what was coming in the door in terms of legitimate business said that some businesses had to be an excuse - an excuse to generate stock market capital gains by combining laundered money or phony profits with retail franchises - or both.
(snip)

So if coca leaves were available, most new users would probably just chew them instead of refining them to cocaine. But there's this backlog of addicts created by prohibition and they would have to be treated clinically. I am in favor of legalizing all recreational drugs eventually but we need a well planned transition to deal with the problems already created by prohibition.

This is one part of the legalization argument that I don't understand. How does prohibition create addicts? There are other substances like alcohol and tobacco that are no longer prohibited but still produce addicts.

Both to reduce the size for smuggling and to create an addict market. This is similar to the tobacco companies injecting nicotine into cigarettes to make them more addictive. Regardless of whether an addictive drug is legal or not, there will be addicts but I suspect that the dynamics of a black market -- concentration, variable dosage, lack of medical supervision -- create more hardcore users than would exist otherwise.

users an an underworld where there is a stew of social problems that come together and enhance each other. It's kinda like the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Anything you can get out of the pot will make it less noxious. Legalize use and treat the addiction. Treat mental health in a serious way. Begin to work on these two problems and you've gone a long way making a less pathological underclass.

Alcohol is perfectly legal. However, one generally needs a special license to sell it. I assume that if marijuana, cocaine or any other drug were legalized, the government would require potential dealers have licences and a place of business (maybe a liquor store). If we legalized cocaine, the government could control the quality and it would be cheaper (possibly lowering the crime rate).

what about something like heroin? I know that a person can drink himself to death by accident but it's much easier to accidentally shoot up the wrong amount of heroin and just plain ol' die. I really can't see someone being licensed to sell that. Coke maybe i don't know about heroin.

I would however suggest that it be made mandatory that anyone seeking public office be required to take one serious acid trip. Just a suggestion.

It is a very dangerous drug. However, I am not sure that the current War on Drugs is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.

is not a very dangerous drug. Not being able to legally acquire the means to inject heroin creates a very dangerous situation for addicts. Having to inject a substance of unknown origin and purity is dangerous. Give addicts a clean way to administer a standardized product is what will save lives. Will somebody still OD? Probably. But it would be a lot less likely, because there would be a way of avoiding this risk.

Give them a standardized product, a safe method of injecting and offer them free treatment if they elect to take it.

That is the best way to treat heroin addiction.

Heck, Heroin is an extremely strong reinforcer. You could probably use incentives on price to encourage treatment or other proactive behaviors. I.e. a rebate on heroin for committing to treatment, or for sustained employment etc.

In a trial program in Britain, heroin users get up, take the tube into town, stop by the clinic on the way to work, get their shot in a safe, clean clinic and go to work. On the way home, they stop by the clinic, get their shot and go home. Safe, sterile, legal. The heroin addict is now a legal productive tax paying citizen. What a concept. This scenario works well with heroin addicts, because once you're riding the horse, it isn't about getting a buzz anymore, it is about keeping your heroin levels up so that you function normally. The big problems come when you try to quit.

As far as other drugs go, legalize them all. A hundred years ago all drugs were legal, and while there were addiction problems, they were no worse than today. And damn, think of the tax money that would roll in. Think of the economic revival that this could bring to former tobacco farmers. And quite frankly the crime rate would decrease rapidly. Yes, there would be the initial excuberanc usage, just like everybody got drunk at the end of Prohibition, but that would tail off.

Legalize it, all of it.

If a person shoots up too much heroin and kills themself, why should it be a concern of society as a whole?

Let people do what they want unless they harm someone else.

Legalize all drugs. The vast majority of crime associated with drug use all stems from the fact that they are illegal. Studies have shown that drug use could be more easily combatted through legalization and couseling rather than prohibition. If I remember correctly, it is estimated that this would cost about 1/8 what the "war on drugs" costs.

"...the government could control the quality and it would be cheaper (possibly lowering the crime rate)."

This is one thing in the legalization argument that really doesn't sit well with me. The idea of the government controlling the flow and quality of drugs makes me very apprehensive.

The government regulates alcohol and tobacco. Why can't the government regulate other drugs?

because I perceive cocaine, crack, meth, etc. quite differently than I perceive alcohol and tobacco--and prescription drugs. Maybe that's just me.

prescription drugs ring a bell?

we might bitch about the price of our prescription drugs but i dont hear a lot of complaints about availability or qualtity.

...of the kinds of drugs I'm talking about I don't think of them in the same way that I think of prescription drugs. This is kind of at the heart of why I posted this thread. I think some people think of "drugs" in a very general kind of way without distinguishing the unique nature and effect of individual drugs.

...morphine and dilaudid? I always thought of them as something that was administered rather than sold.

those are examples of (govt controlled) prescription drugs whose quality is very aptly regulated by the govt.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you weren't comfortable w/ the govt regulating the flow or quality of drugs...even though this is the case with EVERY drug legally available in the US today even over-the-counter drugs. your point being that the drugs we are discussing are addictive...

so i gave examples of legal controlled addictive drugs and you want to quibble over the methods of the drugs being delivered to the individual when that wasn't your argument to begin with...

i enjoy a hearty discussion also...but i generally will keep to a linear argument

I simply asked a series of questions. I did not present an argument "against" legalizing drugs, I simply wanted to expand the discussion behyond pot, like I said in my original post, and get some feedback.

I'm still not comfortable with the government regulating to quality and flow of something like cocaine and crack. Maybe you think that it's no different than any other drug. That's how you see it. It gives me a bad feeling. Is that all right with you? I'm sorry you think my question about whether morphine and dilaudid can be purchased legally is "quibbling" but I didn't ask you for you opinion of my question, I just asked you for an answer. I have my reasons for asking.

And I don't care about your argument being "linear". Can you manage to keep it CIVIL?

by a physician in order to treat specific medical conditions. would somebody who just wanted to do a little blow or shoot up some heroin have to be prescribed the drug by a physician as well? Those are generally considered "recreational" drugs. If somebody wanted to use them recreationally wouldn't they have to turn to the black market anyway, unless it was to treat an already diagnosed addiction?

is our government or Colombian crimelords. Ya gotta vote for one. Sure, our government can screw up, but I'll take my chances with them, rather than some guys with NO oversight who answer to no one.

the drug store, the package store, the grocery store, whatever.

The point is that:
a. you don't waste resources on futile attempts at containment
b. you create a new and taxable commodity and supply system
c. you take a REAL bite out of organizewd crime
d. you put a hurtin on the CIA as they are the largest dealer

Sell them however you want. Tax the crap out of them and, given the incredible markup, they can still be WAY cheaper than at present.

Make crimes committed while under the influence be punished terribly and let employers retain whatever rules they need to provide a safe and acceptable workplace.

Whats not to like ?

Maybe some of you are more optimistic than I am. I just imagine legalization opening another whole can of worms.

and I appreciate the 'not in my neighborhood' aspect.

Somehow "dirty book stores" find a place to set up shop. In Virginia, the hard stuff is sold in state run package stores, no problem with fretting biddies.

Commerce will find a way. And everyone wins by obtaining tax benefit from what is now a multi-billion dollar industry in the US of A.

Will people make foolish descisions ? You bet. They already do. THis will not stop. Offer help, pay for it with some of those taxes !

Amendment XVIII

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

and

Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Note that the government does not have the authority to ban the manufacture and sale of liquor and beer, but it does have the authority to regulate that manufacture and sale.

I believe that this should be a precedent for the question of the drug prohibition. Where is the government's authority to ban drugs? Under the 21st amendment I believe they do not have the authority to do so, but that just shows us how far the government has strayed from its constitutional limits.

I believe in drug regulation. To me this seems reasonable. Look at the crime and violence caused by the alcohol prohibition, look at all the people turned into criminals overnight by governmental fiat. Though the gangs of today dress in different clothes and have different nicknames, they're nothing more than the same criminal as the bootlegger.

Prohibition fosters crime, it brings the profit motive into to smuggling. Would there be enormous profit in digging tunnels under our borders if it weren't for the drug prohibtion? The government claims that if you do drugs you're helping terrorists. I believe the prohibition helps terrorists because it supplies a profit motive to smuggling that would not otherwise be there. A change from prohibition to regulation would remove the profit motive from defeating border security, in the same way the end to the alcohol prohibition removed the profit movtive from crossing into the U.S. from Canada. If drugs are regulated, there's no reason to smuggle them across the border, instead it will be more economical to go through customs. Where will the profit then be in crossing the border? Trafficing in people, perhaps?


Edit to fix formatting.

Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, etc. They should be regulated to the extent necessary to guarantee their quality, and should be taxed appropriately. By taxing appropriately, I mean that the taxes should be sufficient to provide public education on the hazards of consumption, and provide cessation programs for those that wish to become ex-consumers.

If drugs were legal, I wouldn't have to worry about my neighbors that sell drugs, because all their customers would just buy what they want at the drug store. Clandestine pot farms on public lands guarded by armed thugs would also be a thing of the past because drugs would be produced by companies, or individuals, on private property (they might still have armed guards though).

Unfortunately, the war on terrorism has come along so even if the war on drugs were ended, our civil rights will continue to be erroded.

...support de-criminalizing soft drugs like marijuana and shrooms while keeping drugs like crack and heroin illegal. All narcotics are not the same, and it's ridiculous to consider all "drugs" equally harmful. Some have much more dangerous properties, such as crack.

Either way, you're never going to get the average American to support legalizing crack, so why not focus on the battles you can win, like weed.

Incidentally, I love weed. Who's with me?

...why right wing administrations who claim to be so fiscally responsible would flush so much (trillions) of dollars into a pointless and incredibly wasteful program like the WOD that enriches some of the most dangerous and violent people way beyond even some very wealthy hard working people.

With the policy the way it is now, they are basically saying to all the violent dealers "Here, we have given you a monopoly, here's an unlimited tripple platinum card to wreak as much havoc as you want and get rich without paying taxes while leaving a bloodbath in your wake"

I would think different about it if the WOD was actually DOING something to curb the supply. But it's not. Supply and purity is through the roof. I'm sure most people would agree you can get anything you want in any amount in short order if you have the money.

If they did change the policy towards legalization.. it would put ALL the violent drug dealers out of buisness. Instantly. Who's gonna roll down to the corner to pick up a sack and risk getting jacked up if they don't have to? If there was a safe legal way to do it? Also, by taxing, we'd be putting HUGE amounts of money INTO the system, instead of paying absurd amounts OUT of the system. As it stands, the policy makes the gangs and dealers the kings of everything. There's a Scarface in every city, and they know where the bodies are buried.

Can you imagine how much taxing certain drugs, as well as the savings from not paying for the pointless drug war, would give to the government to hopefully to great things, like imporove the space program before we lose another shuttle crew or send a person to Mars?

(or anything that's for the good, those are just thinks I personally care about and would like to see)

I'm not saying let's legalize everything.. but the current policy has so totally failed.. the US is FLOODed with a virtual pharmacopia from the pacific to the atlantic. What do we have to show for all the money spent? Masively overcrowded jails wasting untold millions jailing people who don't deserve it? Millions of people on Methadone when there is Buprenex available? (thats a whole other story)

Starting with mary j, of course that should be legal.. the fact that's it needs to be illegal is a bad joke, and there's hardly a point in arguing that. But even some of the other ones I think we need to at least re-think the policy.

We don't have any less of a drug problem than netherlands or anything else.. it's just legal and visible there. You have to think of how they get their numbers.

They will NEVER stop Americans from getting f*ked up. It's just not gonna heppen.

(PS. Just so people know I'm not talking out of my ass, I had a serious addiction to oxycontin for over a year.. so I know what drugs do to people... and trust me..I'm talking at least 30 bucks JUST TO GET OUT OF BED... not like "Gee I wish I Had Some for the weekend")

(I'm off it now for a year and a half though, BTW)

I look forward to an administration that will completely wipe out the current policy and start fresh with a new, well thought out policy...

And decisions need to be made more by DOCTORS and MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS... and LESS by Police and politicians.

-An

Do you know what's in your coffee?
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum14/HTML/000055.html
(snip)


According to local legend, the palm civet, in spite of its categorization as an omnivore, is a fastidiously picky eater. Thus, it is thought that this musky epicure selects only the coffee cherries that are at their very peak of ripeness and savor. (Other foodstuffs selected by the civet at their very peak of ripeness and savor include: insects, palm sap, birds, voles, spiders, squirrels, and frogs.)

As the civet's gustatory interest is strictly in the outer, pulpy portion of the coffee fruit, it allows the commercially viable pit (containing two of what we know as the coffee bean), to pass through its digestive tract physically unscathed, though perhaps somewhat morally cheapened.

Like the common house cat, the civet habitually tends to void its bowels in the same spot every day. Thus, it's the work of but a moment for cheerful coffee plantation workers to run their fingers through the creature's rich, loamy feces and glean the treasures within, which are then washed (thank god for small comforts), roasted, and sold as "the world's finest, and most expensive, coffee," at prices often exceeding $200 per pound.
(snip)

Weed is currently the most effective anti-depressent I am taking. Im working on getting off my reliance on it, though, due to the side effects, but damn it does the job.

As far as other drugs, I think they should be legal. They are a public health issue, not a criminal issue. There is absolutely no justification for making it illegal for me to put some chemical in my body. The government has no place legislating my body.

But, the argument of battles we can win is a good one atm. What we should be fighting for is a scientifically based scheduling system. Atm schedule 1 includes some very dangerous drugs, but it also includes drugs that have never caused a proven fatility. I think thats the first battle, is to get the government to study and catagorize drugs based on thier actual health risks.

Then legalize those whos health risks are small, using tobbacco and alchohol as benchmarks. This would legalize most drugs, but leave us with a decision to make on cocaine/heroin etc. THis decisions should be made by health officials weighing the overall effect on society of treating addiction vs fighting crime.

The interesting thing about the war on drugs is that it is entirely about pot. Without pot, the war on drugs is a war on a very small group of people. There arent really that many herion addicts in the world.

Two additional points. 1. Herion and Cocaine become markedly less dangerous if thier purities are regulated. Overdosing is very often a case of unexpectedly high purity. 2. If we put only those drugs that cause serious and often fatal addictions illegal, and focus on them, we could probably put a giant dent in cocaine and heroin use as it is. THink of all the man hours and money wasted fighting pot.

MDMA

and 2C-B

and MBDB

and DMT

And Ketamine.

:evilgrin:

Then we can really get the party started up in here.

:party:

tell them that they can kill organized crime, gangs and save billions in wasted war on drugs and a whole new taxed industry and they'll find a way to love it.

I think all drugs are foolish but I'm all about freedom so, toke away my friend.

I dont see why people think legalization would cause an increase in drug use. The fact is that drugs are extremely easy to get. I know alot of people and no one doesnt do coke because it isnt available. They dont do it because they dont want to do it. Theyve been either scared into not doing it, or theyve gotten informed and have chosen not to take that risk. I have never met anyone who wanted to do coke or heroin but couldnt get ahold of it.

Im a simple college student, but depending on how desperately I wanted something I could get pretty much any substance known to man.

....is, A) drop the price, thereby reducing crime commited by desperate addicts...

...and B) increase the quality, thereby reducing the number of hospital vistis and deaths from bad drugs and all kinds of whatnots you wouldn't want in your body...

The amount of use will stay relatively the same...

No more drug gans, turf wars, etc...

-An

Hell with the money they collected on realistic taxes of such things, they might even help with funding some type of Universal Health plan, instead taxing the crap out of rest of people for fake drug wars.

Aside from other factors...the amount of time this senseless WOD has gone on for so long.. is that some hardliners would see it as admitting defeat and relenting? Like they'd lost the "war"

Personally, legalization could be a tactic against dealers.

So.. if they put all the violent drug dealers out of buisness... wouldn't that be more of a victory than a failure?

It's not a war on drugs.. it's a war on PEOPLE.

I bet the people at Ely-Lily are scared shitless of the legalization movement...

It sure would cut into their profits....

This is a part of the US government (drug policy) that has been bought and paid for a long time ago...

We need a major shakeup....

Nocandidate has the cajones to speak on this in a rational manner, even the most left democrats are scared of it..

We need a second term president (i.e. one not worrying about losing an election) to completely reformulate the policy.

I have been raising a teenager and the way I have dealt with the drug/alcohol problem has been to keep him and his friends so busy with fun, interesting, wholesome things to do that they didn't need to use drugs. I am not just spouting off a theory here, I am reporting on an actual way of life; and it has worked pretty well.

Boredom is the #1 gateway to drugs for teenagers; stress is #2; having extra money is #3. I say we work to enrich our culture and nurture our children so they don't have to turn to drugs. There are ten million better things for a teenager or anyone else to do that to sit around getting high.

Oh, and I do believe that we need to stop the stupid, failed, evil War on Drugs.

I always get flamed for this opinion but I'm sticking to it. :-)

flame you for this opinion?

legalizing drugs without doing anything else.

I should add that I get some support too. :-)

medical establishment and physicians use in Doctor speak feeds into the ignorance of the subject. When I went trough grade school 30+ years ago they laid it all out and didn't try to scare people with all sorts of rumors and innuendo.

I don't know what they teach young people currently, but it sure seems like the only people that don't get it is the US government

have absolutely nothing to do with health.

One of the arguments presented for legalization is that it will drive down the price of drugs and put dealers out of business or at least eliminate the profit motive but then others say that legalization will create revenue because we can then tax the drug sales. One post on this board even refers to the possibility of a multi-million dollar industry. If the providers of "legal" narcotics know that they are going to be taxed heavily won't that destroy the incentive to provide the drugs cheaply and undercut illicit dealers? Plus, a drug like crack is already pretty cheap. That's one of the reasons it was so devastating in affected communities. If the drugs that are now illegal could be sold legally, who would provide this service and at what cost?

that criminal enterprises are extremely expensive. What the argument is is that drugs could be sold legally, with heavy taxes, and STILL be cheaper than they are now.

With the kind of risks taken, the many many middlemen, making up for supply lost to government siezures, drugs bought on the black market are marked up alot.

*

...that in the wrong hands we could end up with just a different class of pushers. They might not make as much money as the illegal dealers did but they'd find a way to wring big bucks out of the whole venture if they(whoever "they" should turn out to be)should decide to get involved. You know, the same old shit. Greed, corruption, etc.,etc.

seem to be able to distribute a lot more things over the counter, kind of blowing the myth that it is only safe for doctors to call out what one needs. I haven't been hearing a lot stories of problems from it overseas, just about the High prices for perscription drugs here in the US

It's all about who's gettin' greased and who's doing the greasin'

Most people trying illegal drugs for the first time use it with people who have already used the drug. They are likely buying it from someone who uses the drug. Because of price, they are often buying a limited quantity. I guess that I just fear that if some illegal drugs were sold publically in a store, there would be a brief explosion of drug overdose related emergency room visits and deaths. Although we speak about legality increasing the quality of the drug and making it safer, some people who are used to getting diluted cocaine, for example, would die if they bought pure or near pure stuff and tried to use the same amount. That is why it is safe to make marijuana legal. No one is going to die if they use too much because they are inexperienced. They probably won't even hurt themselves. Yes, there have been inexperienced people die from alcohol overdoses but it takes more time and most people get sick or pass out before they get to that point.

Not that Im really advocating total and complete "open the floodgates" legalization...

but if they were too, I would suggest they cut it down to what people are used to...

but they can do it in a very safe pharmaceutical setting....

every drug is cut with fillers or is in some type of solution, in a carefully measuer amount-per-volume ratio..

right-o on weed tho.. and you CAN overdose on alcohol...

-An

I support the legal manufacture and trade in all medicines and drugs. some drugs may need to have a government certificate guaranteeing the drug like FDA approval. Other drugs are marked as not having one of these.

The legal manufacture of various drugs would bankrupt all illegal markets in dodgey chemicals as commercial production would be vastly more efficient. The result would be no trade-manufacture cartels in the arms trade or insurrection business. Legallizing it bankrupts the illegals and destabilizes the global drugs trade status quo.

It is your business which drugs you take and if crack is your fancy then that is your choice. I have no moral issues with anyone's choices in drugs. Clearly where one would purchase such drugs might be like a pharmacy or a wine shop-like cannabis shop... surely crack from a more pharmaceutical establishment. You are given the dosages knowing they are clean of impurities. To each his own.

The rationalization is that the drugs prohibition war will always be necessary... and that is false, as when cannabis is legallized, cocaine and ecstacy... perhaps, but then the "illegal" drugs like crack... come on. Holland has a very effective legallization strategy that has actually much less addiction than in the USA. Bad drugs abuse is not about the drugs, its about degenerate social conditions and broken people. All these situations can be treated by making the drugs available clinically, and encouraging healing from addiction. Ending the drugs war will involve nation building.

If not, then what makes you think that legalizing drugs would mean that people would be selling crack out of their houses and apartments?
How do you know that someone on your block isn't selling drugs as it is?
I'm not sure as to how sales and distribution should be handled, especially for the most dangerous and addictive substances- but I think that it's more important to treat it as a medical issue than a crime.
Something to think about, re: keeping drugs out of the hands of children- Survey after survey has shown that for high school kids, between Pot, beer, and cigarettes, Pot is by far the easiest for most of them to obtain- there are NO dealers selling beer and cigarettes on the corner or in the parking lot.
Something else to think about- Since most people reach the "gateway" long before their 18th birthday, Alcohol & tobacco are both much bigger illegal gateway substances than pot. A great majority of kids who try pot have already tried either alcohol or tobacco, or both- and in multiple forms.

Pot should be legal for persons over either 18 or 21 to purchase from authorized distributors like booze & smokes, with the same restrictions on public usage that apply to those substances. People should be able to grow it, although I would reccomend a liscense to do so be required, as a way to levee a tax on it. The more you grow, the more the liscense costs.

As far as harder, more dangerous drugs- cocaine, herion, speed, etc... the distribution gets trickier- I would think that some type of prescription process would be best. I wouldn't want people to be able to just 'pop down' to the corner store for a kilo of Peruvian flake, or a sack of smack like it was so much Sanka.